On 4 Dec 2002, David Crossley wrote: > 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".
Yes, I remember. > 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. The word "committer" itself is misleading for us CVS aware people ;) (a committer issues CVS commits). > > > 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. Ok. I see it this way. As soon a someone committs itself to the PMS it *is* an active committer, don't you? > If we do not clearly define what constitutes PMC membership, then > we risk confusion later. Yes, sure. Being part of the PMC is a 'committment' :) Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
