Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from
this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's
authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if
they make such an important decision as this they should at least
communicate the above.
- Dan
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]
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
