Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago. I just
missed it. Apologies. Ignore me :)
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Should this really be "Shall"? We've been successful in Harmony
with a
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
code.
Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list. The work you did on Harmony:
We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest,
and
just looked for people that followed through once the project got
started.
would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.
How? How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community
until after it got formed and working?
What problem are you trying to solve? Garrett's view is that you
basically
"discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt
with Committers after the fact. So a minimal Initial Committer list
would
be null except for the Mentors.
Yes. But having that list of people interested is useful. Maybe the
name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's
no code.
Anyway, never mind. I was just think that this is a good guideline, but
I'm wary of strict procedure for something like this.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
