What's the result of this discussion? I don't think I really get it. I think that contributors and committers are sufficiently defined, except that the definition is not sufficiently acknowledged. But we've managed to make a non-Java person a FOP committer as he deserved IMO (ok, it took two attempts).
On 30.06.2004 21:20:58 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:18:10PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On 28 Jun 2004, at 21:10, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > > > > >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. > > > > cliff's comments pretty well tally with my experience over in > > jakartaland. documentation is just as much source as the bits with > > brackets around and good documentation writers are harder to attract > > than good coders. > > FOP's repository mainly contains program code, and at the time of the > discussion it was felt by some that committers are by nature > coders. The remark which lead to my reaction, is the result of that > discussion. You have a point indeed, documentation and web site stuff > may be in the repository as well, and require committer status and > karma. > > > there are lots of people who contribute in many ways. people who answer > > questions on user lists are very important (to the health of a > > community) as are those on the development list who contribute to > > discussions but these don't have (or need) an official ASF status. but > > google knows and remembers :) > > A status is nice to have. Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
