Here is a case in point: I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg Reddin's history. He is a committer. On the user list there is also virtually nothing. What stands out is that he was interested in a couple of posts in Shale. What is the possible reason he is a committer and Frank is not? Is this the Way Different Struts-Apache Way. This is crazy! Do people actually believe Ted and Craig?
On 4/25/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > That depends entirely on your meaning of the word "closed". You > > make the > > argument that the number of new committers means it isn't closed, > > and I > > agree with you to a degree. But that's not the only meaning of > > "closed"... the invitations to those people came *soley* from the PMC > > AFAIK... the community had no say in it. That's the thing my proposal > > seeks to address, that the initiation of someone being invited doesn't > > necessarily have to come from those already there (although they would > > still have the final say-so). > > I have some serious concerns about this. Let me just use myself as > an example. I've been a committer for about 6 months or so. I have > absolutely no idea what sort of discussion took place before I > received that invitation. If there was someone among the PMC who was > vehemently opposed to my nomination I'm glad they had a confidential > forum in which to discuss their concerns. Now that I am a committer > I can have an unbiased conversation with anybody else in the group > without any preconceived notion of what that individual's opinion of > me might be. Truly, I don't have confidence that either user@ or > dev@ is a place where concerns can be expressed openly without fear > of unprofessional response. It's just too easy for this kind of > discussion to turn into personal attacks in a forum such as user@ or > even [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When Struts was a Jakarta subproject I remember committer votes > taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always felt just a little uneasy about > it. > 99 times out of 100 it was a unanimous +1 with no discussion. But I > seem to recall at least one case when concerns were expressed (sorry, > I don't remember the specifics, please correct me if I'm wrong). I > feel really bad that this person's personal merit would have to be > discussed in a public forum. I understand some others' concerns > about the community appearing to be closed, but I think there should > be a barrier to entry. Maybe it's too high, but it seems to me that > it should exist. After all it's basically a lifetime appointment and > revocations are very rare if one has ever happened at all. > > Greg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
