Ceki G�lc� wrote:
Roy Fielding once mentioned that anyone with a history of at least 6 months of sustained contributions was entitled to ASF membership.
You have been offered membership in the past but you declined the offer. Correct?
Yes, I'm not comfortable with some of the definitions of "what is a member" :-).
There are plenty of people with lots of contributions, both code and community who are
not members of ASF. I can't believe they "don't believe in collaborative development", or are only
interested in their own project.
It's great that now the PMCs are growing to include most active committers - IMO ASF membership
should be similar with PMC membership ( as admission criteria, etc ), i.e. based on contributions/merit and
without all the "superman" stuff.
In other words - church ( or party ) and state should be separated :-)
Costin
At 12:03 PM 11/27/2003 -0800, Costin Manolache wrote:
There are many ways membership could be defined ( but it isn't ).
Committers are assigning the (copy)rights of their work to ASF - and as was mentioned, the members
"own" the code and all the IP of ASF. It would be nice ( and fair !) to have the membership based on some
objective criteria on code and community contributions.
I can't know the exact rules that are used - but sometimes it feels a lot more like membership to a political party. The scary
thing is that some of the answers to "what is a member" ( and I've seen many of those during the last years ) sound
too much like a certain party :-).
I would assume most people who choose to give significant amounts of time and code to ASF are "serious" and serve the interests of the ASF.
Costin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
