Hi Phillip, Thanks for your feedback, see some more comments below:
On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:54 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
Our expectation when we submitted the proposal was that the initial
set of
committers would comprise the people who have initially contributed
to get
the current code to this stage, and we were not expecting arbitrary
requests
to join the initial list of committers.
Part of the focus of the incubator, as I've understood it, is to
promote sufficient
diversity in the community and the team, that no one "block" of
people can kill
the project by dropping out or whatever. Having new initial
committers that have
no outstanding connection to the project is one way to achieve that.
In this regard, the
incubation period is radically different from other times in the
project lifecycle.
Or, again, that has been my understanding.
I tend to agree with this observation that it is important to increase
diversity when the initial group is too homogeneous. However, I don't
see this risk with the group we proposed originally, we are coming
from different companies, and our interests converge to S4, but
overall I would say that our motivations are pretty different.
Then again, maybe it only appears that way because some projects make
it a point to
appeal to people *to* join in as initial committers.
Of course, as a potential Apache
project (now potentially incubator, but looking forward to being
TLP in the
future), we are ready to work towards building a community, which
includes
granting the status of committer to contributors. However, we'd
like new
committers to earn their status by showing commitment to the
community and
demonstrating technical merit.
Absolutely, and entering the incubator is the only time - AFAIK -
that projects
here tend to take a slightly different stance. It's all about seeding
the initial pool
before the project gets underway. That said, I'm not sure projects
are required
to accept an additional initial committers beyond what the proposer
suggests.
To emphasize, just in the case it was not extra clear in the previous
message, it is not that we don't want new committers, but our
preference, assuming it doesn't go against the principles stated by
the community, is to grant committership status once we get to work a
little longer together.
For my own part, I'll just say that I'm excited about S4, very happy
to volunteer to help, and
if you guys want me, I'm in. If not, take me off the list and it'll
all be cool. FSM knows, I have
plenty of stuff to keep me occupied already. ;-)
I'm sure you're busy and have other things to do, but that was not the
point. We want to get all help we can to make sure S4 succeeds in
building a strong community. We just feel that committership is a
separate issue and should be earned.
As far as introduction goes... Well, I founded Fogbeam Labs, started
the ScrewPile project to
develop an OSS suite of Enterprise Knowledge Management software.
I've been a professional
software engineer for the past 12-13 years, working mostly in Java,
but some C, C++, Python
and Groovy as well. If anyone wants to know more about me, just ask,
or see: https://plus.google.com/u/1/114301088526097505896/about
Thanks again, Phillip. We are looking forward to working with you, so
please consider contributing independent of the committership issue.
Cheers,
-Flavio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
