On 10/31/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...if > we explicitly try to *limit* participation in a project then we are doing > two things: > 1. Discouraging involvement - the opposite of the aim of the incubator > 2. Ruling out meritocracy - making it harder for some people to become > committers than others - the opposite of the aim of the ASF....
I tend to agree to your view, but I don't get point 2 above. Getting committership when a new incubating project comes is makes it *very easy* for people to become ASF committers: they basically just have to be on the list of initial committers. And they stay there even if they do nothing for the project. By limiting the number of committers from the same organization when a project enter incubation, we might force the organization to select the best people to drive the project, and others would have to enter the normal way, with the project's mentors having their say. It does make it harder for those people excluded from the initial list to enter the project, but not harder than for any other potential committer. So I would think that's fair, and that might help community diversity in incubating projects, even if that means a longer incubation time. That limit might also be a ratio: if a projects enters incubation with 10 committers from the same company and 10 independent existing apache committers, fine. But a large non-diverse list of initial committers sounds wrong to me. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
