I may be speaking out of turn, but why not elect them directly to the PMC? If they make a giant non-coding contribution, they belong on the committee even if they aren't committers.
Of course, you could avoid any unhappy reactions to this by electing them as committers (a la ted) first and then as PMC members. Clearly you would trust them to commit if they ever felt the urge. On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Put them in the list of contributors at least. > > And frankly, I was asked to be a committer on Mahout largely based on > similar contributions (with some code). I have subsequently > contributed quite a bit of code, but the original offer was made somewhat > speculatively. If these contributors of yours > were able to fix javadocs and other documentation autonomously, the project > would be better off, right? > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org>wrote: > >> Quick question for ComDev folks: Over in the Subversion project, we've >> had a number of people who have contributed in somewhat intangible >> ways. There are several denizens of the us...@subversion.apache.org >> mailing list who know how to use Subversion far beyond many of the >> developers' capabilities, and who are valuable assets to the >> Subversion community at large. >> >> What's a good way to reward these individuals? If somebody were >> submitting patches as fast as these folks answer questions, they'd >> have commit privileges long ago, and probably be on the PMC by now. >> But in this case, the contributions are much more intangible, though >> just as important. How can we reward / recognize these people (thus >> encouraging them to continue to participate by having an "ownership" >> stake in the project)? >> >> -Hyrum >> >
