Resending to remove the spam tag... Matt Hogstrom wrote: > On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> We have people, such as yourself, who have been very active on this >> project. In fact you are one of the people who comes to my mind when I >> think about folks who have been very active in being a part of this >> project. In my opinion I think you are a person who deserves to be a >> part of this, as I believe anyone who has been active should be. It is >> my belief that there should be no line between a PMC and the committers >> list, and especially in this case where the project is brand new. IMHO, >> this community has been pretty healthy, and starting off with a cherry >> picked elite group is not the way to kick off strong community. > > I understand your points above but there was ample time to discuss this > topic in Brett's original post (March 21st) about graduation and David's > original stab at the resolution (March 28th). The time for this > discussion was on that thread.
I was unaware that there are time limits on threads...I don't recall seeing one attached to that, and I certainly do not see any rule sets regarding that. I find your comment here unnecessary. > I know that I have not been actively > following OpenEJB lately as I tend to be interested in doing performance > work and not building the container. My last commits were sometime last > year I think. > I guess that excludes you ;-) > Perhaps another approach would have been to solicit the community on who > wants to be responsible for the project and then we wouldn't have > started with a pre-defined list. I expect David's intent was not to be > elitist but simply kick start the discussion. (Although, David is best > equipped to comment on his thinking so speculating is probably not > profitable). > > Regardless, The project has been working really well and has gotten a > lot of really good work done. Communicated and worked together well. > > I believe that the community will work out these issues as it moves > forward and that there was no malice intended and this is perhaps more > of a procedural boo boo. I am certain no malice was intended. But I think this is a bit more than a procedural boo-boo. It doesn't take a rocket science to see there will be hurt feelings. My vote stands. I will be the dissenting vote.
