I'm interested in hearing why you think that committership is *the* incentive for people to contribute?
Same here. I may not be a representative of the average user population,
but I don't WANT committership until I'm fully convinced that I can
submit something without breaking somebody else's stuff.
I think the software is far more valuable when there is only a small group of well-qualified people that take great care in only adding software that either improves or enhances the current code base, rather than allowing anybody and everybody to add whatever they want to the code. I'm convinced the latter is the definitive way to the destruction of Cocoon.
I disagree. Cocoon has been very open in giving committership in the past and will continue to be. But the fact is that committers know better about community dynamics than newbies (as this thread shows rather evidently) and they judge whether or not you are able for committership.
Let me tell you, if by receiving your committership nomination you weren't surprised, that means that committers made a mistake, either because you are not the right person and or because they took too long to see you.
Is the humble attitude that makes us strong as a community.
Creating altars for people to stand on is *NOT* a way to make it stronger, rather the opposite.
-- Stefano.
