On 7/12/2005 6:38 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
companies)
-1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
their commitment to community.
Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to
the project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they
created, maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to
donate with no strings attached to the project for us to do with as
we wish, but also offered an even more precious commodity, interested
and dedicated people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
No, they need to follow through and show that they will be active and
can work well within the community. Showing up to the door with a
donation and good intentions is not enough.
Regards,
Alan
