Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-2474-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B046362C3
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:49:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 51653 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2011 16:49:20 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51581 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2011 16:49:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 51573 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jul 2011 16:49:19 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:49:19 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de designates
 213.209.103.15 as permitted sender)
Received: from [213.209.103.15] (HELO smtp4.wtnet.de) (213.209.103.15)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:49:12 +0000
X-WT-Originating-IP: 84.46.106.252
Received: from f9.linux (pop8-761.catv.wtnet.de [84.46.106.252])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by smtp4.wtnet.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6NGmqwT009090
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:48:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2AFB72.1030905@wtnet.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:48:50 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
 Committer Status
References: <018b01cc481c$e46a5600$ad3f0200$@apache.org>
	<BLU0-SMTP10302E6E8D3421D1EFC3026D94E0@phx.gbl>
	<010801cc48af$8f1cfca0$ad56f5e0$@acm.org>
	<CALRLYE=Qy6JLcK7RgCWskqV2=HnUwb_r7qurtj=fv-xmKo+QDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<016201cc48fb$cd5d80b0$68188210$@acm.org>	<4E2AA459.8010007@gmx-topmail.de>
 <CAOPHaVT_NjHD8J5XmxSEMKVWWm+XH1L1S-OUKUncq_YYW9_4rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4E2AC26D.1090701@wtnet.de> <4E2AF6F0.4070201@gmx-topmail.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E2AF6F0.4070201@gmx-topmail.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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? ;-)

Marcus



>> 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<IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de>
>>> 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.