On 11/08/2011 8:13 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
I was going to say: "That would put Sebb in charge of the ASF!!!", but then I noticed that after the import of Jena Andy Seaborne appears to be the top count committer (I know, that doesn't measure size of commit). [http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search]
The person with the most commit points is not necessarily in charge. Sebastian Bazley's vote would carry more weight than Henri Yandell's or Simone Tripodi's vote, but Henri and Simone voting together would beat Sebastian's *lone* vote every time. It's basic arithmetic and I won't insult you with an example containing figures.
I think the problem with this is that it's an extremely arbitrary way of dealing with failure to find consensus. It's also not very meritocratic - it's based on what people have done and not what people are willing to do. The 'prove it in a branch' is more merit-based and less likely to result in status quo decisions.
Yes, committocracy, i.e. decision making based on a commit point weighted voting system, does only take into account past contributions. Future contributions are ignored until such a time where the future becomes the past.
Yup - . It's a good conversation to have had - great to hear of log4j 2.0 work and to have you still active in the conversation.
Yah, it has been a good discussion. Thanks for your time and input. -- Ceki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
