Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing > the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with the mentors. If I propose a project, it's my proposal. If I have two coproposers, it's our proposal. The moment it's -accepted- it's no longer (our) project, but the ASF's. While it's in the proposal stage, only the submittor(s) should be changing anything, and that includes initial participants. And that -should- include every individual who's contributed to any incoming code. Friendly amendments are always welcome, that includes initial participants, and we've found that most projects are amiable to them. But from the time it launches anyone earns merit; anyone can be considered based on their contributions. Mentors are there to ensure the process is equitable. Are we trying to avoid 'hurt feelings'? Earn merit, or submit a competing project to the incubator. Don't stamp your name on another's proposal for 'free' commit access. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
