2009/12/9 Gordon Sim <[email protected]> > On 12/09/2009 03:06 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> On 12/08/2009 07:34 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: >> >>> As there have been no comments or questions on the discussion thread, >>> I'm going to move this to a vote: >>> >> >> Sorry for jumping in late here, I was away on holiday when the mail was >> first sent. >> >> Qualities we look for: >>> >>> - A candidate must demonstrate an understanding of how our project >>> is structured and how we work. >>> >> >> Could we make this a bit more concrete/specific? >> >> For me the key to how we work is a collaborative, consensus based >> approach to development. >> >> What is meant by project structure here? A knowledge of the different >> components and how they are intended to work as a whole? Or an >> appreciation of the individuals that work on particular areas (i.e. the >> team structure)? Or something else? >> > > Just to be clear, I am not opposing the vote here. I'm just suggesting that > by spelling out "how our project is structured and how we work" we cold make > the list of qualities more precise. > > Defining how we work and how our project is structured is probably a separate document and a separate vote... I think some of the other threads recently have been moving us forward on those points, and I would like to see that work completed as soon as possible. It doesn't seem to me, however, to be a barrier to voting in the Committership Criteria that we have not yet formally defined these, since we may anyway change our structure and practice over time.
-- Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
