Hi,
I know that this does not address the concerns regarding the
discussion who's electable for the council but I also think that this
is not the main point to get the CC to get the work done. From my
experience from the last years in the CC I just can say that I'm not
able to follow _and_ to work on all the stuff we had on the agenda,
what I would like to do is either to judge and vote about well
prepared proposals or to work in just one area for the CC. And having
the proposals is the harder work to do. But sceptic as I am, I don't
think that we'll find people for the all above proposed Offices. And I
just don't think that the proposed changes alone in the charter for
making more people electable for the CC makes the work in CC better.
regarding the new draft of the charter
(<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Community_Council/Items/Charter_Proposal>)
there is a paragraph 4.1.1 "Three “Code Contributor Representatives”
Three persons who represent the developers who actively contribute
source code t the OpenOffce.org code repository. They communicate
concerns and proposals of individual as well as corporate code
developers. Typically they should be members of the core projects of
OpenOffice.org."
From my perspective with active code contributor a people described,
who constantly contribute code to the project under the general rules of
the project, meaning, being a doamin developer having commit access to
the code, contributing code with the established child workspace
processes and under the accepted term and conditions of the project
(SCA, formerly known as JCA).Personally I would also expect that such
described contributor also constantly takes over ownership of child
workspaces.
Is this something we can agree on as being an active code contributor
for OpenOffice.org ?
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
