On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> The prevailing opinion, at least among those who have > participated in the discussion to date, seems to be > that each component (subcommunity?) has its own karma > and voters, and that each new committer be granted > karma by a majority vote of existing component > committers even if they commit to other components. Just to speak up for the opposite: 1) Voting. Having the communities views [- the committers on a project] be the ones whose votes count on a release is a good sanity check I believe. Obviously if there's a lack of interest thenthe committers votes become important, but release-managers should be hoping for 3 +1 votes from non-committers. 2) Karma. Being able to fix things in other projects is a great way to build cross-community. However it does have the danger of someone doing a stupid commit with a mistake etc. [For example, I'm about to commit a typo fix to the commons sql project] Hen
