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.