Newcomer, Eric wrote: > > A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow > the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement > it represents (and carry it out accordingly) and that as Roy said > although it may take some time in the end the right thing will happen.
One thing is still missing here, as a general policy/observation and not applicable to already adopted projects... I for one will be voting -1 on all new submissions that don't include a short biographical on the proposed participants. I don't mean a life story, but their relationship to and history with the incoming code and/or their involvement with the area/technologies covered by the proposal. For OSS transitions from another home, this can often be a short 'Author of the Foo container bits, see also ralphj commits to ___ and mailing list participation on [EMAIL PROTECTED]', or 'contributing author to spec X'. For Corporate contributions, this has to be more detailed. At the very least, justify the individual's participation -in the code-. This would serve to help keep legacy contributors connected to the effort, and explain that connection to newcomers, but justify their participation in a meritocracy. It will help the project, four years down the road, do a /whois and come up with something meaningful about any of their members. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
