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 contributions many others have done to become commiters.
Second, if the 'members' and/or PMC has anything to say, I believe it should do it directly and in a public forum. Beeing talked about behind our back is not very comfortable. I nominated quite a few of the current tomcat commiters, and each of them made important contributions to tomcat. I used the same 'standards' that Bill used when proposing Dan. 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. Costin On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd like to propose Dan Sandberg (x at cs.stanford.edu) as a new Tomcat > > committer. He has already put in a great deal of work in re-factoring the > > SSIServlet in Tomcat 4.x, and seems to be willing to further contribute to > > working on this. > > -1.... Sorry, but 7 messages posted to the -dev mailing list, and two > patches don't make him reach my bar... > > I hate to be the PITA, as always, and I don't have anything against Dan or > the patches he submitted to SSIServlet, but I believe that this group (as > noted on the members meeting this Tuesday) is giving away committer > privileges a little bit too easily... > > That's my $ 0.02 anyway... > > Pier > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
