> Since this is a volunteer organization, and we all have other pressing > responsibilities, it is important that we do not encourage any systemic > bottlenecks.
I wrote: "> > user: no rights, no responsibilities > > developer: right to get quoted as author for authored pieces, no > > responsibility > > committer: right to vote as per voting guidelines, responsibility to > > sign and submit Contributor License Agreement > > pmc member: right and obligation to set overall project direction" this is not quite reflective of our current situation. The term "developer" can sometimes be misleading ("contributor" would be better, perhaps), while "committer" perhaps should include some added guidelines wrt responsibilities. You might call the fact that these definitions are somewhat out of whack a "systemic bottleneck". > Since committing is voting, what I think what some people want is a > non-vetoing Committer. I think 'some people' don't see/don't agree to the "committing is voting", and then what they want is a Developer-with-CVS-access, which is more or less what they said. "Committing is voting" is not reflected in our guidelines (at least I couldn't find such a notion). > Someone to do the work without sharing in the > responsibility. sounds like what we call "developer" in our guidelines ;) > Which is to say, we can reject what they do, but they > can't reject what we do. Personally, I would find that type of > master/slave relationship difficult to maintain in a volunteer > organization like this. If you are working hard enough to need commit > rights, you are working hard enough to have veto rights. What if someone wants/needs commit rights but doesn't want the veto rights (and responsibilities)? The right to vote also means an obligation to vote/abstain. The implication of your statement is "if you are given cvs access, you should also take on the responsibility of voting". cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>