+1 :) ("learn not to appear arbitrary and capricious")
On 3/19/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > On 3/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> What we'll probably do is run it like we're running Harmony. The list
> > >> of committers on the proposal are the people we expect to show up, but
> > >> we won't be creating accounts by default - we'll need to have each
> > >> person say "yes, I'm ready and will be contributing immediately" before
> > >> making the account for them.
> > >
> > > this seems a useful tradition: is it too early to codified this into
> > > policy?
> >
> > I think so. One problem is that it places special status on some people
> > that others don't have, once you get rolling.
> >
> > So n months into the project, if one of the listed people pops up and
> > gets working, fast-tracking commit might make others that have been
> > working in the project (and don't have commit) unhappy.
> >
> > Maybe the solution is a well-codified policy with some time limit, so
> > that it doesn't seem arbitrary and capricious.
>
> alternatively having to learn not to appear arbitrary and capricious
> might be a good exercise for a ppmc...
>
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
