[...]
I think the current practice is that hardly any of the new committers literally satisfies those requirements when they acquired this status, and also a substantial part of the existing committers does not regulary perform said actions.
I btw do not think that that is a problem. Anybody who pinpointed bugs, and proves involvement, clue and readiness to occupy with mmbase a bit more, could for all I care have the voting right. (Why should I know better then them). It's also not that simple to sabotage other votes, because -1 and VETO votes must be accompanied with sensible arguments. If we can encourage participation in this way, I think it is a good thing.
I don't agree on this one. I think we have developers (this is not something you can become by vote, but you are when you're doing the things michiel lists above). They are needed to get things done and are
extremely useful for the community.
But a committer is someone who puts things in cvs....that's were the name came from..... If you don't put things in cvs you don't (need to) become a committer.
Maybe we need to make developer a more official status and let developers participate in the voting process.
It's good to start a discussion about this right now, because we'll run into more issues in the near future (core-committers, application-commiters?).
So if anybody has anything to say about these issues, committer, developer, user, manager, farmer, etc please say it :)
Gerard Gerard
