I would agree with the notion of a low bar to membership for
incubators. I run the JBossESB effort which has really only been
going since March and we've taken a similar approach. The community
has grown immensely since then, with a dozen serious committers from
a range of companies. Give people a chance and they'll help. Add
barriers to entry and they'll go elsewhere.
Mark.
On 29 Sep 2006, at 14:47, 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
