> If the difference is whether or not we should include people
> whether or not
> they have expressed any desire to contribute, then I will
> openly admit that
> I don't see the point of automatic inclusion at this time.
>
Anybody needs non committed committers? :)
The last proposal made by Costin addresses very well that part of the
problem, subprojects should vote with the usual rules to share code to
the library, those committers made a proposal with names of commmitters
that the subprojects want to add to the shared library list of
committers..without needing a vote in the library..
The problem is with new committers to the subproject or old "dead"
committers that "revive", they will automaticly added to the library as
part of his committer status? , or a committer not included on the first
list can ask for commit access to the shared library later without a
vote?.., this can be a middle point , no ?
> If there is doubt that darwinian processes will achive stability of
> interfaces in any reasonable period of time, then I would
> like to contrast
> CPAN with some of the existing Jakarta projects which proport to make
> available reusable components with stable interfaces.
>
Please rephrase this a little, I dont understand your point here..
> What am I missing?
>
me :)
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
