On 11 July 2014 14:45, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > The hat 'User' states that the following: > > They contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to developers > in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions > > The hat 'Developer' states that the following: > > a user who contributes... > > > In general, a user only consumes the work (the software, the documentation, > the postings on the mailing list). They aren't active as contributors (in > any way, within the community of a project). As soon as a user gets > involved in a project (participating in discussions in the mailing list, > posting JIRA issues, etc) he becomes a contributor to the project and its > work. This person might be a developer or not, a documentalist or not, etc. > > Having the 'contribute' in both descriptions makes it ambiguous. Removing > the aspect of contributing from the hat 'User' partly removes that > ambiguity. Renaming the hat 'Developer' to 'Contributor', does the other > part. >
A user and a developer are two faces on the same coin, they both contribute to the project but of course with different parts. In AOO we get a lot of highly valued opinions, suggestions and error reports from our users. These items are contributions. Once the users get involved in the project, they seem get to be committers. I tend to agree with you, that there are no reason to diferentiate user/developer, problem is that the world in general does that. > > Subsequently, the hat 'Committer' could be redefined with following: > > A *committer *is a contributor, that was given write access... > > Actually a committer is quite a lot more, than just having write access. rgds jan I. > > Regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > How can it be that 'Contributor' is not an official 'hat'-definition in > > the > > > (explanatory) pages of the ASF? While so much importance is placed on > > > correct usage of terminology in projects and elsewhere, based on those > > > pages. > > > > > > Shouldn't the document > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles be amended > > (with > > > respect to definitons 'User' and 'Developer) in such a way that it > > reflects > > > that? > > > > I don't think a generic "Contributor" adds much to that document. What > > confusion about the term contributors would the hypothetical update > > clarify? > > >
