Leo Simons wrote: >On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 15:50, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > >>Despite all the arguments I still can NOT see why it should be >>more complicated than this (Sam + Jon definitions). >> >> > >there's been numerous examples mentioned in this thread. > >Also, the system already _is_ more complicated than the definitions >below. A committer can also vote for the PMC. Someone who wants to do >administration/documentation but should not be trusted with CVS should >not be made a committer, etc etc etc. >\ > Now that I can get my fingers around. (not documentation as that does go in CVS). Someone who administrates all of the Mail servers, Bugzilla, etc etc. Should be a committer, but should not require CVS access.
I propose the following solution. Next time that is needed propose them a committer, vote them in and then do not request CVS access for them. Root won't do it unless asked. I'll bet if you say "give everything but CVS access to", "root" will serve the request! (Simple, elegant, practical...it just won't do!) > > >>Probably the system is already as good as it can get. >> >> > >I think the underlying thoughts and the spirit of the system (like >what's written below, the concepts of meritocracy, do-ocracy, trust, >etc) are about as good as it gets. Implementation can always use some >work ;) > >- Leo > > > >>>"Anyone" can suggest a change. >>> >>>A "developer" can submit a patch. >>> >>>A "committer" can make it happen. >>> >>>;-) >>> >>>-jon >>> >>> > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
