The bar is set by the project lead and committers.
Employment/funding status, or employer should not impact the
decision to nominate somebody as a committer.
Having said that, an individual who is funded will at least
potentially have the necessary time to produce a string of quality
patches; by extension, they should have a easier time of becoming a
committer than somebody who doesn't have that same sort of support.
If reviewing changes is a challenge for the development team, then
perhaps its reasonable to suggest that that team focus (at least in
the short term) on reviewing/accepting contributions from
individuals who are the most likely candidates to become committers,
thereby increasing the team's capacity to review/accept
contributions.
Again, this give advantage to individuals who are funded/supported.
To be clear, I still don't think employment/funding status should be
directly considered when considering a committer nomination. The
natural advantage provided by funding should manifest in the
contribution record.
Maybe Wim's right.
Wayne
On 10/16/2013 11:27 AM, Wim Jongman
wrote:
If the member agrees to pay for a new platform developer then
the path to committership should not be as hard as it is now for
newcomers. This is something that the WG could define as
one of its main tasks.
|