> > I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm > > quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new > > quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) > > we should know about. > > The ASF members didn't impose any standard. Read my mail on _why_ I CCed the > members list (I just explained it, the "issue" of bars and such was brought > up, meaning that there's interest) and I'd like to do some cross-project > pollination....
While I think we should recognise that each project can set its own standards up to a degree, becoming a committer also entitles you to some jakarta-wide priveledges, which means there should be an (albeit unspoken) agreement between projects on what is the "minimum". So I agree this is a valuable discussion. > Dan made some excellent contribution to the SSIServlet, great, but on my > archive, I can see that he posted 7 times to the list, and the first time > exactly 24 days ago. I do not think this has to mean he is not a member of the developers community per se. For example, Avalon is tightly coupled to Cocoon. A lot of stuff in Avalon has been brought over from cocoon. There could be a member who has been working on that code for a long time, using avalon for a long time, and now is becoming a maintainer of that code, while only ever having posted 3 messages to the avalon list before. I can see how this person could qualify for committer status. However, the following quote alone "He has already put in a great deal of work in re-factoring the SSIServlet in Tomcat 4.x, and seems to be willing to further contribute to working on this." doesn't imo provide enough of a case to grant this person (who I don't know anything about, btw) committer status. I'm guessing that there are other unspoken qualities about him / assurances of his commitment that made some of the tomcat committers feel this person in fact should be granted committer status. When all committers know about these other facts, everything is fine. When they do not (which I assume happened in this case), a -1 is in order, and the proposal can be ellaborated upon, after which the -1 can become a +1. If the guy who voted -1 still feels it is a valid vote after this ellaboration and following discussion, well, the candidate will probably understand the reasoning, and if he truely does deserve committer status, it will be granted to him in time, no? So I think there is no reason to be very unhappy with the current process we have: no project is even remotely likely to be destroyed by committers not worth the status, and no potential committer with a thick enough skin to survive at jakarta in the long run is turned away. regards, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
