I have not been active for past year or so. But here is are thoughts on this process.
The important thing should be "contribution" and a developer's personal satisfaction comes from contribution. The commit access IMO is secondary, but is very important and as it helps contributor to move at a faster pace and increase his scope. I think, that anyone who contributes frequently through patches will get the satisfaction and when a developer who has been committing the patches notices it, he will automatically suggest the next step of giving the commit access to person who has been contributing. I think, this works well instead of giving commit access to encourage contribution. My suggestion will be for David to contribute more frequently, be aligned with more active developers and the commit access might be an automatic next step. -- Senthil On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Ned Deily <n...@acm.org> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:09, Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> wrote: > > > > +1 for commit access, Raymond volunteered as a mentor. > > > > I agree with MAL, it is more beneficial to trust people and give out > commit access early. > > +1, for all of those reasons. My only concern is trying to ensure that > Richard (sbt) is involved as much as he wishes to be in any work on > multiprocessing. > > -- > Ned Deily > n...@acm.org -- [] > > > _______________________________________________ > python-committers mailing list > python-committers@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers >
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
