On 26.09.2015 16:16, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Branko,
>
> I am not talking about walls, only about removing confusion from
> definitions.
The question that I keep repeating that you haven't answered is: whose
confusion? Can you show that people are actually confused by our current
definitions? Are *
Branko,
I am not talking about walls, only about removing confusion from
definitions. A contributor can be user, as much as he/she can choose not to
be a user. Similarly, a developer of project A contributing (in whatever
form) to project B can be someone who doesn't use (benefits from) the works
On 26.09.2015 14:45, Pierre Smits wrote:
> It is all about removing potential confusion and sending clear messages.
>
> *re: user*
> A user benefits from the contributions. He/she or them (the organisation)
> can happily do so without ever interacting with a projects community. They
> may even be a
It is all about removing potential confusion and sending clear messages.
*re: user*
A user benefits from the contributions. He/she or them (the organisation)
can happily do so without ever interacting with a projects community. They
may even be a subscriber to any or all mailing lists of the ASF w
Pierre, although your new descriptions make sense I still prefer the
originals. Projects have separate mailing lists for developers and users,
so people need to understand the difference. And users can contribute too.
Perhaps a third description for "contributor" could clarify the overlap.
-- L
On 25.09.2015 08:57, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles we have
> descriptions for the user and the developer roles. But the descriptions are
> overlapping.
So what exactly is wrong with the fact that the roles overlap?
-- Brane
> For *
