forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [DRAFT] Forrest Project Guidelines
Date Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:08:31 GMT
Clay Leeds wrote:
> In my case, I was recently voted to have COMMITTER status, even though 
> I'm not a java developer (I've got other responsibilities[1] <cough>get 
> properly forrest-ed to output Whole Site 
> PDF</cough> ;-)). The fact that I've got VOTE'ing responsibilities--in 
> my mind--gives me the feeling that I've got more ownership of the 
> project. All this does, is give me the feeling that I want to 'care' 
> even more for FOP than I already did. I suspect similar feelings by 
> other VOTE'ing members.

Similar feelings yes, but not because of the ability
to vote. I believe that this dedication stems from
the fact that a group of fellows who we admire have
acknowledged our commitment and put trust in us.

> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > Moreover, if we did have non-voting committers to work on a certain
> > feature, we need to define another process for "graduation" to voting
> > committership.  I don't like having so many levels of stratification, 
> > it makes the community feel less open.
> Defining how to 'graduate' sounds like a reasonable solution if forrest 
> decides to have non-voting committers.
> Another possibility, is that the PMC have either some sort of special 
> voting powers (+2? only PMC can VETO? extra helping of fruit cup?)
> Which brings to mind what I *think* is desired in the non-voting 
> committer: a way of getting procedural issues resolved without having 
> to 'bother' the entire community. This is what I thought the PMC was 
> for.

Some people need to be left to get on with work. The PMC
would shield them from the nasty mundane management stuff.

That is why i think Cocoon just lets those committers who
so desire, participate on their PMC, while all of them
are working committers who vote on general project direction.

> If I'm off-base, perhaps the classifications of community members needs 
> to be spelled out once again, but using better descriptions.

It is hard. We need to refine those words.

David Crossley

View raw message