On Monday 10 March 2008 17:30, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 2) non-code contributors now get listed in the "Contributors" section,
> but are not eligible for the "Major Developers" section. This is a
> compromise between previous practice (not listing non-code contributors
> at all) and what some people would like to see ("Major Contributors"
> with non-code contributors); I figure we'll revisit this policy in a
> year or so.
>
<snip>
> > First off, Robert Treat did *not* do anything about non-code
> > contributors, as evidenced by the fact that there are exactly zero
>
> I didn't say he did. Once again you are flailing about like a upside
> down turtle. I said, that he stated that is how he made the *****sment.
> Just because his follow through may or may not have been (I actually
> don't have an opinion on that) isn't what it should have been doesn't
> excuse the fact that it is what he in theory used to make the
> selections for submission to core.
>
Please guys, continue to interprete my words to serve your own agendas
rather
than asking me for any kind of clarification. Really. It's fine.
For the rest of the world, my definition of non-code contributors are
contributors who have not contributed C code to the back end. To that end,
the bit that non-code contributors can't be considered major contributors
is
pure bunk; several people have made it into the list of "Major
Contributors"
who fit that mold, and actually we have 3 core team members who, were they
to
step down from core, I suspect would be placed in the list of Major
Contributors as well.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
|
