On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two: > > > > - interested developers > > - initial committers > > > > This way a podling can engage with the interested developers and > > quickly form an (expanded) community. IMO when an existing project > > comes in, the initial committers list should consist of the original > > committers. Anyone interested should be added to interested > > developers. > > > > Empty, new proposals can either start with a list of initial > > committers or with a list of interested developers who get voted in by > > the mentors as they engage in a community on dev@. > > Existing projects can add new interested developers to either list, > > depending on what their preference is. I'd expect Apache committers > > with no prior stake in the project to explicitly ask to be listed as > > merely an interested developer and earn their merit through > > contribution rather than moving directly to committership. > > +1 > > Adding an "Interested Developers" section is an improvement over the patch > to > the proposal template suggested at the top of the thread because it gives > newcomers a way to express interest and the proposed podling a way to say > "Thanks! I've added you..." instead of "Thanks but...". > > The new section should contain a note guiding interested parties to send > email > to general@incubator asking to be added. > > Martijn's suggestion preserves the best aspects of "open enrollment" while > appropriately delaying delicate discussions about meritocracy and openness > until incubation is underway. > Well put ... I think this is the solution in the process that will prevent these kinds of misunderstandings in the future. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
