From general-return-11264-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Oct 03 17:43:33 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76160 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2006 17:43:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2006 17:43:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 51018 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2006 17:43:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 50935 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2006 17:43:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 50881 invoked by uid 99); 3 Oct 2006 17:43:26 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:43:26 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB Received: from [207.155.252.47] ([207.155.252.47:33506] helo=goliath.cnchost.com) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1.1.8 r(12930)) with ESMTP id 66/86-08153-831A2254 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:43:22 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (c-24-15-193-17.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.15.193.17]) by goliath.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 604F02A39 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4522A123.5090400@rowe-clan.net> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:42:59 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Newcomer, Eric wrote: > > A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow > the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement > it represents (and carry it out accordingly) and that as Roy said > although it may take some time in the end the right thing will happen. One thing is still missing here, as a general policy/observation and not applicable to already adopted projects... I for one will be voting -1 on all new submissions that don't include a short biographical on the proposed participants. I don't mean a life story, but their relationship to and history with the incoming code and/or their involvement with the area/technologies covered by the proposal. For OSS transitions from another home, this can often be a short 'Author of the Foo container bits, see also ralphj commits to ___ and mailing list participation on dev@example.com', or 'contributing author to spec X'. For Corporate contributions, this has to be more detailed. At the very least, justify the individual's participation -in the code-. This would serve to help keep legacy contributors connected to the effort, and explain that connection to newcomers, but justify their participation in a meritocracy. It will help the project, four years down the road, do a /whois and come up with something meaningful about any of their members. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org