Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are others where the
communities thrive and grow because of a more "enlightened" approach!
Plus, sticking with what was agreed collectively prior to the start
of the project is another good community building act: or at least if
you're going to change it, do it publicly and with the involvement of
EVERYONE who was involved with the formation of the project.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 16:05, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These
guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to
contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Uhh, what kind of world are you living in where the only way to
contribute to an open source project is if you already have commit
access? Commit needs to be earned, you earn it by sending in patches,
fixing bugs, filing bugs, etc. None of those things require commit
access, if they did then no open source project would ever get a new
contributor.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
