Re: Astonishment

tor 2002-09-19 klockan 23.43 skrev Chema Celorio:
I am not arguing for lifelong coasting on old accomplishments. I am just
arguing that both elapsed time and magnitude of contribution have to be
taken into account. And I cannot see that the membership guidelines
contradict this view.

I am not so sure that coasting old contributions for a very long time is
wrong. For people that made a significant contribution, their code is
probably going to be used in years and years to come and i don't see how
that compares as smaller to someone doing a tiny contribution recently.

My point is that arguing for lifelong coasting of accomplishments does
not seem crazy to me.

What I wonder is what you guys think the foundation is? A Hall of Fame
for people that wrote a great piece of code?

I really can't see why inactive developers should be part of the
foundation no matter how much code they historically wrote. If I take a
break from a GNOME for say a year or more I wouldn't expect that I would
be allowed voting for the board. 

If a person takes a break (like Martin clearly have), he isn't involved
in the project and doesn't know what needs to be done. If I where in the
same situation I wouldn't even have bothered to apply for membership
(why should I be a member of GNOME foundation when I don't work on the

If a person that is on a break for say a year decides to come back and
start working on the project again he can always reapply, right? And if
his work matches the criteria for membership he's approved. How hard can
it be??

I *REALLY* can't see why people are arguing here, unless you think of
the foundation membership as a "I'm so cool, I'm a foundation
member"-kinda thing.

  Mikael Hallendal
Mikael Hallendal                micke codefactory se
CodeFactory AB        
Office: +46 (0)8 587 583 05     Cell: +46 (0)709 718 918

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