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.
...It 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]> wrote: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 corrections.
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 http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-- Bertrand Delacretaz independent consultant, Lausanne, Switzerland http://cvs.apache.org/~bdelacretaz/