On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 14:04, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > > Yeah, exactly. And what if there is someone who actually wants less > > responsibility and less rights than a committer, but still more than a > > contributor? > > > > -1
why? > Does the term "white elephant" mean anything to you? thought that was a special kind of elephant... http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=white%20elephant ...does now. > I don't think > there is anything to forbid a community from temporarily granting CVS > access. ;) Well, I think our guidelines forbid us. You cannot give someone CVS access without giving them all the committer rights and responsibilities as well. That's the point of the discussion, innit? > I would say such a "gift" should not be interpreted with the direct > meaning of the word in German. Such things usually are wrought with > problems and with this person who dumps a bunch of code into your > repository and leaves, well generally it reduces the quality of your > codebase and no one who IS part of the community knows the code. This is of course, generalising, and we're leading away from the discussion here. I say we should evaluate role/right/responsibility granularity, you write an example line of thought of a potential candidate for a new role to illustrate you disagree, so I provide a "counterexample". Not going anywhere; I'd rather see an answer to: "Why is increased granularity in role/right/responsibility bad in general?" and "Why is defining a new role that is in between the currently defined roles of contributor and committer in terms of rights and responsibilities a bad thing?" cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
