On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > > > IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading > > > the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus > > > on narrower concepts with alternative names. > > > > > > 1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the > > > proposed PMC. > > > > > > Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the > ASF community-project as the "company's private project"; e.g. stdcxx is > largely one company, yet and still they brought across 2 mentors (Justin > and myself) to ensure we continue to foster community with the stdcxx > user community. A good c++ programmer/open source library user is always > a potential patch contributor, more akin to apr, and very unlike httpd, > and we see those users to become potential contributors. > > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > > Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if > > present) intent around diversity boils down to one scenario; > > > > * A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project > > survive? > > > > Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting > a given project or podling die. So the project passes into lethargy > and it's time ends, what's really so "negative" about that? We don't > hold committers to the grindstone, why should we treat employer sponsored > committers any differently? > > So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and > > encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for graduation. > > > > ++1 > So it seems like there is better support for Tuscany graduation now, are there any other issues or concerns anyone would like to bring up before we do make another attempt? ...ant
