On 10/1/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, if I were to work on a project for many months at Google Code and then propose it to come here, why shouldn't I continue to have a say in what the project does? Why do I need to justify myself all over again? Why aren't my past contributions enough to merit a seat on the PPMC? What gives the mentors the power to 'reset' the community and block me from participating until I jump through their vague and ill-defined hoops?
Personally, I think the bar on commit to incoming projects should be simple, if you've made a contribution (code, docs, whatever) that's significant enough that it would justify commit access here, you should get it. For projects that are coming from the open source world, that just means "If you've got commit on it before it's at the ASF, you still do when it moves to the ASF", if it's corporate then obviously some due diligence needs to be done, but I think that's probably important in order to prevent the problem of providing a backdoor that avoids the whole meritocracy thing. Specifically though, I'd like to be clear that I don't think you should have to be an active participant in the project at the time it moves to the ASF in order to get commit/PPMC membership. As long as you're paying attention enough to sign the paperwork, the fact that you at one point qualified for this sort of access should be enough IMO. I know personally, when I have earned commit access to a project I expect that to still be there in the future, even if I fall off the planet for a while and don't have time to work on it. If the project had moved to the ASF in the meantime and all of a sudden I had to fight my way back to the same level of access I had in the past, I'd be pissed. -garrett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
