Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:15:52 -0500
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Committers <-- this is obvious the only question is it only
>>> committers to the source tree or do we want to give equal billing to
>>> the -www guys (I think yes to equal billing)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I don't have a problem with that, but I think core code committers
>> and www maintainers should be indentified separately.
>>
>
> Why? Then we have to also separate advocacy which is just as important
> and pgfoundry... as well as possibly a host of others. We all have our
> job in the community :).
>
You are being overly sensitive. I never suggested otherwise. I simply
suggested that the roles people do in fact play should be public.
>
>> On a closely
>> related note: last time I looked there was no way for anyone to
>> discover on the web site who the committers actually are. That would
>> also probably be useful.
>>
>
> See Dave's response about core not wanting committers that easily
> identified. I actually recall this argument, basically there are times
> when commit access might be revoked temporarily etc... IIRC..
>
>
>
When I was made a committer, someone, I forget who, but I'm fairly sure
it was some member of core, told me explicitly that it was intended to
assist me professionally (and it has). That seems strangely at odds with
a reluctance to publish the list of names of committers.
It's not something I care deeply about, but it seems more than strange
given that the list of active committers at least is not too hard to
discover.
cheers
andrew