Re: Pear Comitee

Quoting "Tomas V.V.Cox" <cox@idecnet.com>: <delurk wish="had more time to do pear stuff"> > It's late and I'm not really clever right now so please don't flame > too > much on this. I come with the idea of founding something like a PEAR > Comitee (PC). Well, I know that Stig hates burocracy :) but this > shouldn't introduce too much of it. The task of the PC will be to > analyse and approve package submissions (and why not other conflictive > desicions). +1 or after reading below +1*(2^3.14159 - 1/e :) > 1) Anyone could take part on the comitee. Possible type of members > could > be (in order of relevance): Amen. One previous criticism has een cronie-ism for want of a better way of putting it. Obviously an equitable election system must be in place. > For example a common PEAR developer who votes "Accept this class" and > does a "Deep review" of it, will be given 8U == 8 votes. Now you're not going to make us all think hard are you? :) If the process is too cumbersome then it may as well not exist or people will not submit to the archive because of the complexity. It reads like it'll all be tucked away behind 'karma' and business logic though so that sounds mighty > 7) Any memeber has no obligation to vote, but he will loose his PC > account if doen't vote for more than three submissions. Consecutive I feel would be better although we should obviously account for people to 'opt-out' temporarily due to other commitments/family etc. For example, if I'd been evacuated in the bush fires here in Sydney and my PC went up in flames then I should be kicked. A simple note or update of my record should suffice. </delurk> Cheers, Graeme