On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page saying that they're interested.This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never actually participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?Keep in mind that isn't universally true, some TLPs are more liberal or flexible than others. E.g. APR handed out commit bits to other project committers, while in httpd it takes 6 mos or so of consistent contribution.We already have the concept of emeritus members who, having contributed in the past, are no longer active. I'd like to leave it up to each PMC to decide whether or when to change the status of previous committers/PMC members.+1 - and I feel it's the same w/ each podling. It is truly their callhow to handle this based on how commit privs were granted in the first place.
And I feel that we have a duty to podlings to teach them the Apache Way, which grants commit privileges based on merit.
I'm having difficulty understanding your position. Podlings can grant commit privileges to anyone with no notion of merit? And no oversight from the incubator? It's their call?
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
