> > Case can be made that since putting something in CVS is putting > > something up for lazy majority vote (and I subscribe to that), this is > > not a good 'use case'. But what is wrong with a role for people that > > have the option to propose something for a lazy majority vote, and then > > no right/obligation to actually vote on that 'something' or anything > > else? > > > > I think with rights comes responsibility.
Yeah, exactly. And what if there is someone who actually wants less responsibility and less rights than a committer, but still more than a contributor? It is all about granularity: less rights, less responsibility. > "Gee I'd like to dump my code > here and not bother with the community".... "Gee I've created this amazing forked version of your codebase (this amazing book about your project, ..., ...) and now got permission from my employer to contribute it back. This is quite a lot of stuff, you can find it at http://somewhere/ to look at. If you accept, do you want 20MB worth of patches or can you give me CVS access?" What if the community would very much like you to provide that stuff, you're already committer in other apache projects, but have no time to support your submission for longer than, say, a month? Should you be committer for a month? etc etc etc. cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
