I'd vote against a contrib area at the moment, because it would stand in the way of unifying, shrinking and stabilizing the codebase.
--sebastian Am 13.04.2014 19:36 schrieb "Andrew Musselman" <andrew.mussel...@gmail.com>: > > > On Apr 13, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Apr 13, 2014 10:22 AM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1, but more importantly, reject any new author who doesn't agree to > >>> explicitly plegdge a multi-year support. > >> > >> I am a little bit negative about this requirement. My feeling is that > it > >> will wind up with accepting naive optimists (the ones we don't want) and > >> rejecting realists because they know that a true multi-year commitment > is > >> subject to buffeting by real-life. > > I true. I guess i mean more along the criteria lines, not about how we > make > > the inference. I meant if we really had a way to make reliable inference > > here. It may well be the case there's no such way. Usually the first good > > sign is that contributors are sticking to their issue in the first place > > for some time. > > This is where a contrib or piggybank-style sandbox could help, so people > could submit things "in probation" until they're proven out.
