El dom, 23-04-2006 a las 11:44 +1000, David Crossley escribió: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > David Crossley escribi??: > > > Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > > > > > > > Wasn't that what the term active was meant > > > > to say in the first place: Active in terms of coming forward to cast a > > > > vote? > > > > > > I like your interpretation. > > > > I see activeness different then coming forward and voting. > > Thorsten, please answer the following questions. > Perhaps you have foreseen a problem that i cannot.
You made a proposal regarding the problem I see ([Proposal] Project Management Roles). ;) > > What is your reason for wanting to prevent > certain PMC members from having binding votes? > All PMC members exist because we saw that they > are committed to the project and we trust them > to have the project's interests at heart. > > We have a principle that people can be as active > as they choose, with no pressure from the project. > > So what is wrong with them being quiet and > speaking up occasionally when they see a topic > that motivates them enough to cast a vote? You are right, the slightest activity from anyone in this community is helping the project. Removing the active/inactive concept will help to clarify this. We are all part of a community, doing what we can. There is absolute no need for stating who is active and who not, that can be seen in the svn log, the mailing list, etc.. +1 to remove the active/inactive concept -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
