On Oct 1, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/1/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
would however encourage only voting people in after they an
appropriate
level of committment and involvement with the project.
This creates a dividing line by omitting past contributions from the
discussion which I feel is inappropriate.
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? --
justin
++1. If the problem is "piling on" in the committer list
for the proposal *then that should be addressed at the
proposal timeframe and before the podling is accepted*!
As mentioned in a different Email, I'm +1 on adding
in, in the proposal: Mentors | Initial PPMC | Initial
Committers if people want it explicit, but no matter
what, this should be handled before podlings are
accepted, not after.
I think that issue is that some Mentors have different
feelings from what is documented... Recall, after all,
that people from the outside ONLY have access to
what is documented, not our internal discussions...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
