On 3/9/06, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it's easy to get good open source coders: it's much harder to find > > good documentors who are willing to contribute to open source > > projects. demand for good documentation is always high but supply is > > typically low.
++1. We need to be much more welcoming of people that have skills other than coding. Documentation and testing are certainly on that list. Of course, they still have to earn their stripes in the same way - consistent contribution that shows they care about the project. > If Joe Q. Random emailed us saying he thinks [some currently in > incubation project] is great and he's a technical writer and would > like commit access so that he can write up the docs for it, would he > get that access? No, but neither would a random coder, they'd have to show merit. > Probably not, but the difference here is that the > proposed documentors and QA people are already part of the team, so > they're not random... And the same with the coders. They shouldn't be treated any differently. > I also suppose we can always review the status of documentation and > test cases at the end of incubation, see who did what, and accordingly > adjust the commiter list during incubator graduation? Sure, at graduation, the entire set of committers should be re-assessed (not just those that did particular tasks) to see who was really active. To an extent, the proposers need to be trusted to have provided a list of people who will be active. The only alternative I can think of is to cap the number of committers on a proposal and let the ppmc decide who earns it as the project goes along. But since the ppmc is composed of the people that proposed it, they'll likely bring those people straight in anyway, right? - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
