"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That leaves me perplexed for several reasons...
>
> First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any
> reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some
> new "member's" standard we don't know about. Dan put the SSI system in a
> decent shape, that's similar with the contributions many others have
> done to become commiters.
>
> Second, if the 'members' and/or PMC has anything to say, I believe
> it should do it directly and in a public forum. Beeing talked about
> behind our back is not very comfortable.
>
> I nominated quite a few of the current tomcat commiters, and
> each of them made important contributions to tomcat. I used the
> same 'standards' that Bill used when proposing Dan.
>
> I believe we deserve some explanation from the 'members', I'm
> quite unhappy about this whole issue. If there are some new
> quantitative standards for becoming a commiter ( or a member )
> we should know about.
The ASF members didn't impose any standard. Read my mail on _why_ I CCed the
members list (I just explained it, the "issue" of bars and such was brought
up, meaning that there's interest) and I'd like to do some cross-project
pollination....
Dan made some excellent contribution to the SSIServlet, great, but on my
archive, I can see that he posted 7 times to the list, and the first time
exactly 24 days ago.
He sent a patch, thank you, but in my book this is far for being a member of
the developers community. I'm just uncomfortable with the bar set by this
community to accept new committers in, and since nothing gets discussed
unless someone does something "outrageous" like voting -1 on a new
committer, well, there's no better troublemaker than me to do it :)
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
