Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <441DDA1A.1050802@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:24:26 -0500
From: Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [POLICY] Lazy account creation [WAS Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenJPA
 as an Incubator Podling]
References: <f470f68e0603191351q47c4ef02w826523d2dd26a6db@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f470f68e0603191351q47c4ef02w826523d2dd26a6db@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 3/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> What we'll probably do is run it like we're running Harmony.  The list
>> of committers on the proposal are the people we expect to show up, but
>> we won't be creating accounts by default - we'll need to have each
>> person say "yes, I'm ready and will be contributing immediately" before
>> making the account for them.
> 
> this seems a useful tradition: is it too early to codified this into policy?

I think so.  One problem is that it places special status on some people 
that others don't have, once you get rolling.

So n months into the project, if one of the listed people pops up and 
gets working, fast-tracking commit might make others that have been 
working in the project (and don't have commit) unhappy.

Maybe the solution is a well-codified policy with some time limit, so 
that it doesn't seem arbitrary and capricious.

geir

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org