On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, J.Pietschmann <j3322...@yahoo.de> wrote:


> However, saying all of the above, the largest barrier I see to fixing bugs
>> in FOP and improving its quality is the reticence of the clique of FOP
>> committers to accept new committers.
>>
>
> Uh oh. As a PMC member I'm certainly guilty of not following
> contributions closely enough. Nevertheless, rest assured this
> has nothing to do with some elitist attitude but rather with a
> "I hope someone else will deal with this kind of aspects" stance,
> aka a sort of laziness. I do not expect you to show sympathy for this
> now, but in case you get the possibility to recruit someone else, and
> realize the procedures necessary for this, you'll understand it
> better (I might get some fun out of reminding you of this message
> then).
>

I know of no such procedure. There is none published and none communicated.
It appears that an arbitrary, unknown set of criteria hold, with no
mechanism for discovery or feedback.

>From what I can see, it is in fact nothing more than a club of insiders.

If I do have an opportunity to be a PMC member, I will vote for anyone who
volunteers to be a committer on the spot. I would rather bring them inside
sooner than later, and deal with any personality issues after the fact.
Placing an arbitrary, unknown barrier over entry is a sure guarantee for
stagnation, and if you ask me, that is where FOP is at this time: stagnated.
Only Andreas seems to have devoted a new burst of energy to the process of
late, while others appear to have other commitments that prevent them from
contributing except on an occasional basis. In such a case, I can't imagine
why anyone would turn down a volunteer to actively participate, other than
perhaps turf protection. I guess I must threaten someone's turf.

G.

Reply via email to