Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > +1 [X] I want Rob to be a voting member of the Jakarta community > 0 [ ] I don't care > -1 [ ] I don't want Rob to have voting rights over Jakarta because: ... > > And if you voted +1 on the previous: > > [X] I vote to make Rob a committer of "jakarta-site" and related CVS > repositories. > > And at the same time: > > +1 [ ] I want the institution of a new figure of "non committer voting > member" giving rights to people involved with the Jakarta community > at large, but not directly involved with one particular codebase, to > vote on "general" issues, such as acceptance of a new codebase, or > PMC election) > +0 [X] > -1 [ ] I don't want to give voting rights to people non associated with a > particular code base because ....
Pier, I agree with your sentiment on the latter vote. I think that there will always be a project which the individual will be involved with. Voting status should be associated more with a contributer's _role_ than with whether he/she has commit access. Commit access is more of a side effect of being accepted by a project into its developer role. I would like to vote in favor of this issue, but would first need see the infrastructure to support it (see tigris.org for a working example). Without proper infrastructure support, I think that this will lead to confusion. -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
