Sorry for letting this one sit on the backburner for a while.
Replying to Merlijn's mail:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Merlijn van Deen <valhallasw(a)arctus.nl> wrote:
Lewis asked me on IRC to reply, so a short reaction.
On 4 January 2011 19:36, Lewis Cawte <lewiscawte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
* Be active on the IRC channel or mailing list
and have submitted a few good
patches via Sourceforge or other methods.
* Keep it flexible, don't get strict on commit access, we haven't been up
before. It'd be nice to see a flow of new developers.
* Gained community consensus via the mailing list. "The request for commit
access can be simultaneous with the mail to the mailing list"
I would change community consensus to 'no objection'. It's OK if code
quality isn't perfect, it just shouldn't be horrible.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with such a low bar. I'd like to know a
list of core committers, any one of which could give a "+1" for
someone, and so long as there isn't an objection from anyone else
after a fixed period (for example: 4 days), we'd grant access.
Ideally, the list of core committers would actually live in a text
file in the SVN repository.
Alternatively, if there was someone in the community that the core
committers approve to be the person that vets access requests, that
works for us as well.
Also, we need to figure out who makes the call when someone requests
that we revoke the access for someone else. Having that information
live in the aforementioned core committers list would be ideal.