Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The people listed in 2 as the leadership structure of git. > ... >> Personally, I favor a small group which can approve new people to >> join, and which can leave at will. Having more than one person >> avoids hit-by-bus problems (or even just dropped-off-net problems). >> There is little enough power in such a position that I'm not too >> worried about some crazed egomaniac becoming the Git-SFC liaison. > > I agree. > > I think a committee of at least 3 people and at most 5, any of whom > can be a benevolent SFC liasion, is fine. As far as selection goes, > the committee can elect or remove a member through a majority vote, > and should base its decisions based on surviving contributions to the > code base, but shouldn't be tied to that (just in case someone > contributes a lot of good code and then becomes a jerk). Small group like 3 to 5 to avoid bus factor sounds reasonable to me. Because my involvement in the project does not relate to monetizing git, I can safely be included in them, I think. If people do not mind me being that jerk you meantioned, that is ;-) >> 3. How much money should we give to the SFC? >> >> A big chunk of their budget comes from taking a percentage of >> member project money. As a project, we set the percentage we give >> them. So we can give them nothing if we want. But they do provide >> useful services, and even without direct benefit to git, the SFC is >> promoting free software. So probably it makes sense to choose some >> non-zero number. > > I agree, a non-zero number. 2-5%? Any idea what is typical? As you two agreed 10% sounds fair to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html