incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Another cut at roles and responsibilities
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:34:02 GMT
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
 > Cliff,
> Firstly - thanks for all the thoughts. Great stuff! (I think. Grumble
>  grumble, more work, mutter mutter :>)

Hehehe, you write stuff too well ;-)

>> * "On acceptance of a candidate project, the assigned Shepherd and 
>> nominated Sponsor shall be added to the set of committers for the 
>> duration of the incubation process."  Does this mean that these two
>> are removed from being committers on the project once it escalates?
>> Also, the general idea of automatically giving specific people
>> committership seems somewhat contrary to a meritocracy.  I actually
>> don't think this is a bad idea; it just seems a little messy and 
>> somewhat inconsistent.
> I remember a similar discussion with Ted and Steve early in the 
> Incubation process.  I agree that this is not necessarily the case, but 
> I will bow to the superior wisdom of the consensus of this list.
> Others?

Sometimes a sponsor or a shepherd has to act fast and remove from CVS 
things that are not correct, like licensing. Or simply to give a hand, 
always about incubation things.

I don't find it inconsistent with meritrocracy, as they should be 
committers only to things that regard the incubation, not for general 
programming. What I mean is that they have commit access but are not 
listed /automatically/ as developer, nor can vote on project matters.

If the project is new though, like Geronimo, it's a different matter, as 
they can be the start of the community, not outside helpers.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message