>What we saw with CeltiXFire was a piling on of a lot of people who wanted >to be on the initial contributors list --- voted in by virtue of having >self-signed up --- and whom had never contributed anything to the project.
FWIW that isn't correct. The individuals on the list had either contributed to the Celtix or Xfire projects in the past or had expressed a clear intention to contribute in a significant and (we thought at least, i.e. the project's proposers) meaningful way to the new project. Eric -----Original Message----- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and > > then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in > > a manner you find offensive. > > > > Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further > > access"? > We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. What we saw with CeltiXFire was a piling on of a lot of people who wanted to be on the initial contributors list --- voted in by virtue of having self-signed up --- and whom had never contributed anything to the project. We've seen two problems repeatedly: -- ASF Committers wanting to join, and feeling excluded so people started joining on the Initial Committers list, leading to: -- piling on of people who want to be elected by virtue of having been on the list when the project is voted. Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing the project is the best solution to both. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
