incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache Initial Committer Status
Date Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:48:50 GMT
Am 07/23/2011 06:29 PM, schrieb IngridvdM:
> Please find my comments inline.
> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
>> *initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
> I don't have gotten that wrong. I was talking about the initial
> committers too.
>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>> July or latestly end of August.
> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.

But I don't see an argument to keep the door open endlessly. At some 
point in time the inital thing is done and over. Or do you think 
different? ;-)


>> When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
>> answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
>> time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
>> Marcus
>> Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>> Hi Ingrid, *,
>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed
>>>> some day
>>>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
>>>> very
>>>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>>> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times
>>> already.
>>>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA
>>>> only next
>>>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>>> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
>>> part of it from the very beginning.
>>>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>>>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>>> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>>>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that
>>>> is of no
>>>> harm.
>>> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
>>> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
>>> project).
> There can be a difference in number between initial committers and
> 'completed' committers in both cases. Whether we put a deadline on this
> or not does not change that.
> And I think it is not ok to call those who have not completed the legal
> paper work yet to be 'fake' committers.

View raw message