Re: Can we improve things?

On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 17:33 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 12:21 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > 
> > Well, gnome is people that have a choice to contribute or not - making
> > those people (i.e. you me and everyone else) feel accepted and important
> > is central to having a healthy project where everyone wants to be
> > involved. 
> But if people feel unwelcomed just because their blog is not added to
> p.g.o as soon as they asked, they are asking too much IMO.  It's been
> customary in GNOME that people join the project, do more and more, and
> other hackers recognize their effort by asking them to get commit access
> etc.  Same thing about p.g.o.

Ok I think we're starting to split hairs here - I think we do agree
for the most part.

For instance, I agree that requesting p.g.o. syndication should go
through similar pipelines as requesting commit access, it should be
asked for (possibly also vouched for) and approved by a team
(I dont even think the time it takes to get commit access/planet
syndication is a really big problem).

Imagine that to have commit access to svn there was one person
that could approve it, no team, no followups - this would constitute
not only an infrastructural problem but also a social problem.

For my part, if I had anything else to argue it would be that
p.g.o. should be handled by a formal team whos members could
be subject to change from time to time (as I suggested before, 
possibly a marketing team or web team) - as opposed to "add 
someone else to jeff", which might speed up the process for 
planet syndication but still risk leaving applicants in the dark
(and applicants in the dark are the ones I believe might feel
unwelcome, if only because of the non-democratic nature of
the process ;-)).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]