Hi Sophie,
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 13:22 +0200, sophie gautier wrote:
> I agree with Michael for more openness, what is disturbing me is this
> relying on cvs commit. Lot of contributing members are not committers to
> cvs and I even don't know how this metric could be evaluated.
Sure :-) CVS commit is somewhat lame; people submit patches, and so on.
Ultimately, I don't suggest exclusively CVS commit - clearly the NLCs
have their own mechanisms for electing representatives (I believe), and
of course the community representative is elected by everyone.
Having said that, a hard metric that provides a good list of actual,
active developers is simple to construct from the commit records: it can
easily be extended by special dispensation from a small membership
review committee [ cf. GNOME eg. ].
> > - I don't like to have the voting scheme written in the charter -
> this can go to the bylaws (and therefore could be more easily adopted
> or modified)
Fair enough; but choosing a fair scheme - eg. STV rather than first
past the post is a key part of my proposal.
> That leave also a large part of the contributors out of the scheme (I'm
> thinking about QA members or Documentation members for example), but it
> will be more open than at the moment.
Yep; so of course QA and Documentation are important, and need
including - Documentation can presumably be measured in some concrete
way, and QA similarly - perhaps by number of duplicates marked, or bugs
filed or somesuch ? Perhaps even carving out a single seat specific to
these guys is a good plan.
HTH,
Michael.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
