On Sunday 13 April 2008 19:30, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
IMHO the emphasis on committer affiliation is misguided. overloading
the word diversity was also probably a mistake. maybe we need to focus
on narrower concepts with alternative names.
1. the incubator should be concerned about the composition of the
proposed PMC.
Only that the community will be welcoming to newcomers and not treat the
ASF community-project as the "company's private project"; e.g. stdcxx is
largely one company, yet and still they brought across 2 mentors (Justin
and myself) to ensure we continue to foster community with the stdcxx
user community. A good c++ programmer/open source library user is always
a potential patch contributor, more akin to apr, and very unlike httpd,
and we see those users to become potential contributors.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
Also, my personal and highly subjective interpretation of the (if present)
intent around diversity boils down to one scenario;
* A company pulls the plug for paid developers - will the project survive?
Actually I think we are far too obsessed with the prospects of letting
a given project or podling die. So the project passes into lethargy
and it's time ends, what's really so "negative" about that? We don't
hold committers to the grindstone, why should we treat employer sponsored
committers any differently?
So, for the case of Tuscany; I am satisfied with the diversity goal, and
encourage Tuscany community with the aid of Mentors to move for graduation.
++1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
