Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on
> the verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> communities (like Wicket) where people have earned their access elsewhere,
> we are saying that we do not respect that as we will let the mentors by
fiat
> decide who is worthy or not.
That is simply not factual, and is a fabrication you are making, as well as
a very few others, and one that should be addressed.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the policy, which is entirely limited to
process, that describes the policy driving the process. I agree with you,
as do most, that active committers in the external community should be made
committers as part of the first order of business for the PPMC.
> I am concerned that we may permit PPMCs who view it as their right to
refuse
> access to people who have actively contributed in the past and want to
> continue contributing because they don't like them personally or their
> employer or feel that they are not leadership material. Those aren't
> grounds for barring access.
And just whom do you think would make those decisions, and let them stand?
Remember: the ONLY BINDING VOTES BELONG TO THE INCUBATOR PMC. The Mentors
are PMC members, and therefore their votes are binding. Do you think so
little of the Mentors? Or of the rest of the Incubator PMC, that we should
let such inappropriate behavior stand, even were a Mentor or two to act
inappropriately?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
