On 5/23/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/23/07, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there's another issue here.
>
> Many of those who voted +1, aren't on the initial list of committers
> in the proposal.
>
> Also, many current commons committers aren't on the proposed list.
Yup thats disappointing.
> It seems that we're not voting on that specific proposal, rather just
> the idea to move, and that a lot of people are being disenfranchised
> by not being listed.
Its down to people to add themselves to the TLP resolution (they were
invited to do so) - if people are disenfranchised then its their own
choice.
<snip/>
In teasing apart these two questions:
(1) Whether a community member plans to continue to be involved with
the Commons community (regardless of where the code resides -- this
TLP or a new one)
(2) Whether a community member supports the TLP proposal
Its possible to answer 'yes' to (1) but oppose / be undecided /
abstain on (2). For example, see Simon's post in this thread, I think
he raises a similar point. I'm in that boat as well.
> Wouldn't it be better if the initial list came from the svn acl?
Would seem wrong to put people on the list without their consent.
<snap/>
Agreed.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
