Jim Jagielski wrote:Noel J. Bergman wrote:Leo Simons wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I have no idea where that 50% stuff came from.
me neither! But I figure it was added for /some/ reason :-D
IMO, there ought to be a sufficient independent community such that if commercial interests drop out, the project can continue.
And the creation of such a community should be a key goal in the incubation.
As I see it, that is part of the definition of a healthy community, which is one of the two primary goals for incubation, the other being IP clearance.
I agree. The whole point is that we explain what is "healthy", right? Shall we change the policy docs then?
Instead of
"No single organization supplies more than 50% of the active committers (must be at least 3 independent committers)"
we make that
"The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there's several legally independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project)"
it makes more sense to me to say what we mean to say.
cheers,
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
