Leo,
regarding my "yes-men" comment: In short: I'm sticking
by it. Long reply: see below.
That pleases me mightily, not.
Granting voting rights to people based on how they will vote isWe are supposed to wait six months vefore promoting the person to committer status. We should know the character, maturity, wit of a person by then.
just plain bad. For example, what will you do if someone, after having
been granted voting rights, suddenly disagrees vehemently with the
vision of the project? Revoke voting rights?
And no, a majory 3+1 vote takes it. What makes Avalon apart is that a sub-sub-subproject can have people making commits to it that have never been part of it before. Were is the respect in that?
Regarding that: If this really is a meritocracy, shouldn't merit, and not administrativeRank is not being advocated here, community is.
rules be used to make people uncontested rulers? To me, meritocracy meant that
ones design decisions are so good that they are accepted without having to
pull rank.
Where is the demarcation of meritocracy for a hypothetical project X? The contributors? The world?
-ph
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
