Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
I think commitment is important. ... commitment through visible
conduct is part of the determination of merit.
I do not equate that with trustworthiness. ...
Trustworthiness is more difficult to demonstrate. ...
Let us not confuse commitment and trustworthiness.
Thanks Dennis for this important clarification; indeed, my concern was
more related to commitment than to trustworthiness.
My concern is that, when it comes to voting, it should not happen that
an active contributor has no binding vote while someone who never did
anything for the project but happens to be a PMC member has a binding vote.
This would be a credibility issue, and this is what my improperly worded
sentence about the PPMC not "having the trust of the community" due to
initial committers referred to: I'm not implying at all that the PPMC is
untrustworthy, and surely I do trust all active PPMC members.
[ Andrea Pescetti]
The current PPMC, especially due to the bootstrapping phase that allowed
a large number of "initial committers" to enter the project without
demonstrating merit...
Of the initial committers
55 serve on the current PPMC (and all are committers)
15 are committers only
11 did not provide iCLAs and come on board
Thanks for the numbers too. Indeed, these numbers put my concern in the
right perspective: almost all the initial committers who never did
anything for the project are in the second or third group, so they are
not in the PPMC now. Which means that I probably overestimated the
problem, and that the PPMC members who hold that qualification only
because they put their name on a wiki page, did the required paperwork
and subscribed the mailing lists are just a handful of cases, likely not
even considering to join the PMC when the project graduates.
Regards,
Andrea.
