I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can
you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on
the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final
decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's
email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up
for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important
decision as this they should at least communicate the above.
- Dan
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
increasing the community.
I would recommend that anyone who does not have
commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
which serve to indicate the work they've done.
As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
have been going on, let me also state that it is
really against the ASF to make any sort of development
decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
and any leaking of that information is considered
a VERY bad thing to do.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our
names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are
working on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential
collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
At the formation of the project all members of the group were
asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-
mail. However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they
hadn't turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start
of September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
commiter status was in the works. However, despite several
follow up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer
for the delay provided.
Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision
to limit the number of commiters and not take into account the
listed individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this
normal procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission,
we had already gone through the process of arguing who should,
or should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with
a different result (and one which appears to have been
conducted behind closed doors) is frustrating.
Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the
project was discussed with the project submitters prior to the
formation of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was
no intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know
about) as initial commiters, why did the project submitter
include us? On what basis where these accounts not set up? Is
random denial of initial commiters typical?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
Redhat).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
