Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81899 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2010 16:55:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2010 16:55:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 83026 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2010 16:54:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 82988 invoked by uid 500); 14 Mar 2010 16:54:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 82981 invoked by uid 99); 14 Mar 2010 16:54:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:54:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.176] (HELO mail-gy0-f176.google.com) (209.85.160.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:54:11 +0000 Received: by gyd8 with SMTP id 8so850555gyd.35 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=9Fvqkmvv4pGfLTD5UmKgkik3NTbDAqv424o1K3Us37E=; b=SBthS9nJU0F1S8R23Sxgw1pvxVzC8FAx2lGIMby/53ZCiUr9EFjA/i/7cz+dJp5iHn KWSUECW7X4cPREc+OhDIepvRn0GtyGbF3eX3Vd7QZogSGgYY8XjVOvG5nSyQdX8dByDJ DRzD91BKwN8gnpaw3taFTpDiO47ltewk42BVQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=ZW0J52EoxXwWEvxJKew6HcUhGTYm31/xrsjrS6N0YAPIJxDsX7ASqWGbHg2BKgqR+M bjjI9zV8JgThdyE+9hpyzDg4Yf20oK3M50rg6i22qmBQ2H3SKwuRIh+6bxyaDt/Bp52U 4D4043ssamDvD7xZSgnEkXSv3gLwTpS/q+FFY= Received: by 10.101.177.16 with SMTP id e16mr2952624anp.153.1268585630009; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.77] (adsl-065-013-152-164.sip.rdu.bellsouth.net [65.13.152.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm1109961yxe.39.2010.03.14.09.53.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Grant Ingersoll From: Grant Ingersoll Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [DISCUSS] Do away with Contrib Committers and make core committers Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:53:48 -0400 Message-Id: <1DE0ED55-52A2-4EDB-A10D-1D99BFFA0607@apache.org> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Given the notion of "one project, one set of committers", I think we = should do away with the notion of contrib committers for java-dev and = just have everyone be committers. Practically speaking, this would make = all existing contrib committers be core committers. I think the notion = of contrib committers has added to the confusion about the status of = contrib as well as acted like a "probation" for new committers. To me, = I don't think we should make that distinction, as has been evidenced = time and time again, if we trust someone to commit to contrib, we can = trust them to commit to core. And if we don't trust them to contrib to = core then we probably shouldn't contrib either. Much of being a = committer is about knowing what not to touch as it is to touch and I = trust that all of our contrib committers know that. Thoughts? -Grant= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org