Hi Glen,

I must say I'm very surprised at your response: not the -1 which I can accept, but the response below where you don't seem to have understood my aim, and the arrogance of which I dislike a lot.

Thanks Jeremias, Victor and J.Pietschmann for your support, you seem to have gotten the idea.

I feel FOP is very much in need of active committers, and my definition of committer goes further than someone who commits code to CVS. Even though inactive codewise, I try do my best and actually lift my finger when I can do something for the project, in the strict limits that I have to impose myself due to a chronically overstuffed schedule.

I've known Peter (virtually) for a few weeks and I have a good impression of him and his code. Earlier this week he told me that he had some free time and was willing to work on the FOP RTF stuff, which seemed worth of encouragement to me.

What better encouragement than quickly becoming a committer?
I know perfectly that there are (largely unwritten) rules about when someone can be proposed as a committer, and my proposal didn't respect all of them. Hence a [proposal] and note a [vote]. Maybe this should have been called [wild idead] instead.

I'd have no problem with a "please wait for some more stuff from Peter" answer, but it is hard to take your aggressive tone.

I don't want to comment on all your points, they are mostly your opinions. I will comment on those that might make a difference for the project, though.

...Committership is a months-long-process, and I'll need
to see contributions from your individual named well
past those of Chris, Clay or Andreas before we
consider such a move.  FYI, he's at about 1% of them
right now....

I haven't followed in detail what Chris, Clay or Andreas have done, but if they're contributing more or less actively to FOP, why not propose them as committers? Might motivate them to do even more.

...Maybe if you had decided to lift
a finger for the project and *apply* his patches your
proposal would have carried more weight...

This I can understand. My idea was that maybe Peter would be able to commit his own patch, as his first job.

...You just insulted the entire FOP team--committers and
contributors--with your ridiculous suggestion...

You have the right to find my suggestion ridiculous, but I don't think it is insulting for the entire team.
If *you* feel insulted then accept my apologies, it was not my goal in any way, again just trying to help the project.

Sorry if I didn't explain my objectives clearly enough, but everyone has the right to ask for clarification - and, if you allow me some old man advice, it is usually good to do when you think something is wrong, before getting the cannons out.

would probably be best for the project for you to keep
yourself inactive....

I guess this is for the "active committers" to decide .


--- Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi FOPpers,

I'm making this a proposal instead of directly a
vote, as there are two
unusual things here: I've been recently (and
rightly) moved to inactive
committer status, and it hasn't been a long time
since Peter submitted
his patches.

The reason I'm proposing him is that Peter is
willing to work on the
RTF renderer, which he needs for his job where he's
doing reporting
stuff in RTF and PDF. He's been a committer in jfor
since this summer,
and has commited some very useful patches and

If no one objects, I'll move this to a proper vote
so that Peter can
start working efficiently on the RTF stuff as soon
as possible.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

  Bertrand Delacretaz
  independent consultant, Lausanne, Switzerland

Reply via email to