Berin Lautenbach wrote: > Cliff,
Firstly - thanks for all the thoughts. Great stuff! (I think. Grumble grumble, more work, mutter mutter :>)
Hehehe, you write stuff too well ;-)
...
* "On acceptance of a candidate project, the assigned Shepherd and nominated Sponsor shall be added to the set of committers for the duration of the incubation process." Does this mean that these two
are removed from being committers on the project once it escalates?
Also, the general idea of automatically giving specific people
committership seems somewhat contrary to a meritocracy. I actually
don't think this is a bad idea; it just seems a little messy and somewhat inconsistent.
I remember a similar discussion with Ted and Steve early in the Incubation process. I agree that this is not necessarily the case, but I will bow to the superior wisdom of the consensus of this list.
Others?
Sometimes a sponsor or a shepherd has to act fast and remove from CVS things that are not correct, like licensing. Or simply to give a hand, always about incubation things.
I don't find it inconsistent with meritrocracy, as they should be committers only to things that regard the incubation, not for general programming. What I mean is that they have commit access but are not listed /automatically/ as developer, nor can vote on project matters.
If the project is new though, like Geronimo, it's a different matter, as they can be the start of the community, not outside helpers.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
