On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. One way to measure is to require activity as an elected member of a sub-project committee, such as FESCO or FDSCo. Perhaps each sub-project could have a way of qualifying. Number of packages owned or reviewed; documents written, edited, or translated; events attended as an Ambassador; etc. Or do we specifically want to allow for the possibility of a disruptive election that can bring in dilettantes who only know how to campaign for votes? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
