On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Buhrmaster, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> ... Comments welcome, either privately >> or ideally to [email protected] . >> >> http://www.openafs.org/foundation/gatekeepers.html > > I note that item 3 of the gatekeeper responsibilities > could negate the necessity of including the contributor > responsibilities (since item 3 indicates the gatekeepers > will develop/publish the standards for contributions). > I guess I would prefer that the contributors responsibilities > section be eliminated, and instead that content become > a potential draft that the gatekeepers can choose to > use to meet their requirements to publish contribution > standards (and could be used until a further revision > is available).
You're proposing... gatekeepers publish requirements for submitters later? > If one wants to be paranoid, one might also consider > that a gatekeeper should not approve their own > contribution. However, that might be a commit too far. > If it's an architectural change, they can't. Otherwise, I don't really see that it makes a difference. Others? _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
