Hola, Brett said: > Of course, they still have to earn their stripes in the same way - > consistent contribution that shows they care about the project. > > > If Joe Q. Random emailed us saying he thinks [some currently in > > incubation project] is great and he's a technical writer and would > > like commit access so that he can write up the docs for it, would he > > get that access? > > No, but neither would a random coder, they'd have to show merit. > > > Probably not, but the difference here is that the > > proposed documentors and QA people are already part of the team, so > > they're not random... > > And the same with the coders. They shouldn't be treated any differently. > > > I also suppose we can always review the status of documentation and > > test cases at the end of incubation, see who did what, and accordingly > > adjust the commiter list during incubator graduation? > > Sure, at graduation, the entire set of committers should be > re-assessed (not just those that did particular tasks) to see who was > really active. > > To an extent, the proposers need to be trusted to have provided a list > of people who will be active. <snip />
Well-said, I completely agree. This is the phrasing I was searching for the whole day. So we agree that we allow the current proposed committer list as-is, but when we look at graduation from the incubator we examine test case and documentation as well as the product source code itself, because by bringing these people in as committers through the incubator, the OpenJPA team commits to working on test cases and documentation as much as product code? -- Yoav Shapira Senior Architect Nimalex LLC 1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310 Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
