Giacomo Pati wrote: > David Crossley wrote: <snip/> > > How would you define 'active committer'? > By CVS commit rates? > By RTs? > By mail posts/replies? > > ATM I don't fall in none of these categories but still like to > be in the PMC.
Some time ago we used to have a committers list at cocoon/who.html which was just one long list of all committers. Then cocoon-dev decided to categorise that into three types of committer "active", "in-active" and "emeritus". Actually, i do not want to define "committer categories" when we are talking about PMC membership. I want all committers to be invited. This is the resolution that we have arrived at elsewhere in this thread. > > So, we need to define very carefully what constitutes a PMC > > member and how/when PMC members are considered to be retired. > > We must get this whole PMC setup correct from the beginning. > > I have the impression you'd like to exclude volunteers if they > don't have > a measurable weight (which ever this might be)? Why so, or did I > misunderstud your concerns by 'We must get this whole PMC setup > correct from the beginning'? You did mis-understand my concerns. Actually, i do want to ensure that no-one is ever excluded, either now or in the future. The previous proposal to only have "active committers" on the PMC, was what i was disputing. If we do not clearly define what constitutes PMC membership, then we risk confusion later. --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
