Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > >And at large, it entitles you to have an @apache.org email address, to have > >access to our live servers, entitles you to be a part of the whole Apache > >family... > > > you're point being? I think that the point is that when you gain an @apache

RE: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

> I'm sorry, but I believe that any time a new committer is made, > we _need_ to > put some thought in what we're "giving away", we're not just letting a guy > commit to our CVS server... +1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

> > >What I said was "but I believe that this group (as noted on the members >meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer privileges a little bit too >easily"... I don't think that sound like "this is a resolution passed by >members" or "this is a guideline given at that meeting"... > >To me it

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

"Leo Simons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm >>> quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new >>> quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) >>> we should know about. >> >> The ASF members didn't impo

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > It is of general interest (IMO) because becoming a committer entitles you > not only to a little peaceful heaven in your own little project, but > entitles you (and, frankly, obliges you) to be a part of the Jakarta > Community at large. You will be giv

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > >> Personally, I feel this discussion belongs solely on the tomcat list and >> is up to the committers of Tomcat to resolve. If the Tomcat community >> feels the bar should be raised, let them raise

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > Personally, I feel this discussion belongs solely on the tomcat list and > is up to the committers of Tomcat to resolve. If the Tomcat community > feels the bar should be raised, let them raise it. If they do not, then > it shall not be raised.

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

Personally, I feel this discussion belongs solely on the tomcat list and is up to the committers of Tomcat to resolve. If the Tomcat community feels the bar should be raised, let them raise it. If they do not, then it shall not be raised. I don't feel it should be up to anyone else. -Andy

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

> > I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm > > quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new > > quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member ) > > we should know about. > > The ASF members didn't impose any standard. Read my mail on _why_ I CC

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That leaves me perplexed for several reasons... > > First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any > reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some > new "member's" standard we don't know about. Dan put t

Re: [VOTE] New Committer Dan Sandberg

That leaves me perplexed for several reasons... First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some new "member's" standard we don't know about. Dan put the SSI system in a decent shape, that's similar with the