On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
contributed to.
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
communication on the
dev list, etc...). That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
in-appropriate to give them commit access. There name was on the
initial
proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions.
Those
individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the
proposal,
that is enough to get the commit rights.
I think you need to check your facts. We were on the initial
contributor list and have been involved in some email discussions
since the podling started, but since we were not given committer
status as expected, we waited for Jason and others to do their jobs
as they indicated in the very first emails. Kind of putting the cart
before the horse any other way, as far as I can see!
Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial
commiters should
actually be those who contribute/commit stuff. Those who don't
meet that
barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have
commit
rights?
Absolutely none of this was communicated to us or anyone else on the
CXF mailing list AFAIK. If there has been statements like: "we're
waiting to see what/if you contribute" much earlier then we may have
been able to take some appropriate action. There were not. Now unless
you think only psychic people should be allowed into Apache projects,
maybe "we" need to be a little more open and logical about the
process! We were admitted onto the submitters list for a reason, and
argued the case at that point. Any objections should have been raised
there and then, or the list pruned later by constructive and open
debate. Not behind closed doors but a select few.
Mark.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
