Simon Pepping wrote on Monday, June 28, 2004 1:01 PM: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +1000, Peter B. West wrote: >> FOP has recently voted in new committers who may have contributed too >> little yet (in the view of some) to already become committers. This >> was primarily due the fact that a lot of old FOP comitters became >> inactive during the last two years and some of the FOP committers >> wanted to help "reignite" the project. Although Batik seems to have >> similar problems, they haven't taken similar steps. If this is a >> problem for the Batik people, especially since the common components >> will be accessible to FOP as well as Batik committers, we'd like the >> Batik people to speak up. > > I do not think that was the (only) reason to vote in certain > committers despite the fact that they had not contributed much > code. There is a gap between contributors and committers. There is no > recognized role for possible team members who contribute in other ways > than writing code, although we all know that such contributions are > important for projects with an established user base. I think there is > no such role in all of Apache; if there were, the role could be added > to the charter.
I completely agree that people who aren't necessarily writing code make important contributions to a project, but why wouldn't they just be made committers at the appropriate time, in the same way the process works for people writing code. The role of being a committer shouldn't be limited to code decisions IMO. And people who contribute through docs, project management, release management, and other ways actually often need the same karma that code-writing folks do. So while I agree with you about these people being important, I'm not sure I understand why there would need to be a separate category. Cliff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
