On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > You're right. I think there's a lot of inconsistency here. So, why not > keep it VERY simple? > > 1. Wipe the team page clean. > 2. Add a paragraph with a alphabetically sorted, comma-separated list of > names of contributors (without mail addresses, includes committers). The > listing would be regardless of the amount of work on FOP. If need be, > the committers in bold. > 3. Add a link to > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#xmlgraphics-fop > (which, unfortunately, doesn't contain the list of committers before the > move from CVS to SVN).
This list only contains the current committers, not past ones. I prefer the list of inactive committers to stay. Committers are not just a special type of contributors; they manage FOP's source code repository. > 4. Possibly restore the note about FOP's founder. > > No more active or inactive contributors/committers (is he still active? > is he not?...). Every committer makes sure that the names of Committers are made inactive according to the rules in the project charter. The PMC Chair applies those rules. I did that during the past year. > contributors make it to the contributor list. We know who the candidates > for committership are from our daily work. I think that would increase > fairness and maintainability of the team list. And it allows to remove > all author tags and comments in a fair way. If any committer thinks that > the amount of recognition for the project is important, we can always > add a link to the Ohloh page of FOP which does a much better job at > telling who contributed how much and when. > > That an idea? I like the list of contributors, because subversion and bugzilla do not easily reveal that information. Simon
