On 7/31/03 10:19 AM, "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, On 31/07/2003 16.13:
AFAIK usually a couple of mentors are added to the committers list. This happened with POI AFAIK for example.
I would keep this, as it helps by example (not on code necessarily but at least about how to manage things), and makes it possible to have more active oversight to the CVS codebase.
No this did not happen with POI. Stefano was added as a mentor but never
acted as a committer,
He had commit access IIRC. Well, it happens most of the time AFAIK that a mentor has commit access.
cast no binding votes, etc.
Not influencing the vote results of something you do not work on is good.
You were added because we valued your contributions on the project and wished to recognize them.
I know ;-P
I have never been slightly important in the POI code, but I helped a bit on the build system and in the discussions too. That's what I advocate here.
I think adding folks as committers is fine, but only *active* committers (people who actually vote AND commit code into the code base) should count towards judging vitality.
Of course.
I was saying "added to the committers list" meaning "added to the CVS avail file", which I regard as more technical than of substance.
And partecipating in the discussions should not mean using binding votes to distort the results.
These are privileges, and as you know they have to be used with care, especially if you are a mentor.
Ok, we agree and it took a lot of lines to say it.. sometimes it happens ;-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
