[ZF] Committers vs Committer members and getting more of each

[Stephan Richter]

On Monday 05 June 2006 18:18, Jim Fulton wrote:
> - The process should be simple

I agree.

> - It should be possible to become a committer without
>    being a committer member.  I like the lightweight process we
>    have now for enabling committers.  I think it has served us well.
>    IMO, a committer agreement submitted to legal at zope.org
>    should be all that's required.

I totally agree. In fact, I would speak up very loudly, if this would not be 
the case!

> - I think that becoming a committer member should require
>    significant contributions, which need not involve actual commits
>    to the repository.  IMO, becomming a committer member should
>    require some sort of majority vote of existing committer members, as
>    adding new committer members dilutes their votes.

Majority is tough, since the community is split over many parts. For example, 
before the Snow sprint I knew almost none of the Plone developers. I think a 
certain number of supporters, like 5-10 would be sufficient.

> - The bylaws anticipate separate projects with their own governance.
>    I think individual projects should, if they wish be able to control
>    who can commit to their areas of the repository.  (Note that  
> subversion
>    now provides facilities to implement this.)

That's cool. I have not thought about sub-governance much yet.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training