On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:16 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Monday 12 September 2005 18:16, David Crossley wrote: > > We seem to be having endless discussions at some > > projects about what it means to be a committer and > > a PMC member and an ASF member. > > Some "heavy-weighters" have been arguing for long that "committer" is not a > role but a right/status, and that all committers should be PMC members. Not > sure if such argument is still current or not though.
Consider the situation where a company is dedicated to a certain project. Surely many patches will arise from the employees of the company. That will become pretty soon overkill for existing committers to apply those patches. Now given them the right to commit their changes will help leverage the work load of the project. Normally because it is their working job they are more concerned about the code then the community. We always state community is more important then code. Following this thought would mean that this patch provider have to still learn the ASF way and should not be PMC member. That is were the committer right comes into play. That became IMO the incubation for PMC members. The new committer are learning the responsibilities of a PMC member. I am actually unsure whether or not a committer role makes sense because e.g. the cocoon based projects have given the commit right to each other. That means per definition of the role (that we have now) that new committer entering e.g. forrest will be as well committer to cocoon without even to have to submit a single line of code. I see it more as right that makes IMO the following roles user -> senior user (with commit rights)->PMC member->ASF member salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
