Hi Niclas, On Sep 23, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
As for more documentation; I am -0 on that, but I guess Craig and Martijnwill probably jump at the opportunity ;o)
Well, thanks but no thanks. ;-)My views are similar to yours. Diversity is a subjective thing, and every member of the incubator PMC probably has a different point of view. That's both good and bad, for good and bad reasons.
Documents are hard to write and even harder to keep up-to-date.
+1The thing that I would focus on is whether the project would survive if one or more of the participating entities in the project were to pull the plug, i.e. stop funding the developers. Having diversity, meaning independent committers, means that the project is more likely to survive the loss.
I think that Marnie brought up many good examples of evidence of participation, including participation in writing features, submitting bug reports, submitting patches, writing documentation, discussing and voting on potential new committers, voting on releases, discussing new features and bug reports. Given a list of participants, evaluating the diversity of these active participants is necessarily subjective.
One thing that would help, especially in the case of qpid, is to document whether the committers feel that they are independent. That is, whether they would continue to contribute to the project on their own time even if their employer reassigned them to a different project.
Craig
Cheers Niclas
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
