> Further to that, on looking at some of the recent membership data
> gathered so far with specific regard to the interns, I have to say, it
> does seem like a few interns have been significantly undervaluing
> their own contributions by waiting much longer to apply than seems
> appropriate for active contributors to be doing with some seeming to
> have waited as long as two years actually, which is of course,
> absolutely ridiculous.
Why would you think this is ridiculous, or has anything to do with
undervaluing ones contributions ?
To be perfectly frank, granting commit access to GNOME revision control
repositories is already a huge token of trust, it normally takes at
least some months (reasonable number anywhere between 3 to 6 months
after the initial encounter ?) before a project maintainer can vouch for
someone to be a committer in full confidence.
I had commit access and my own shell account before considering becoming
a foundation member - not being a foundation member was not a 'bad
thing', it's not like I had no right to discuss the direction of the
project on d-d-l with many other contributors and maintainers, before
becoming a foundation member. You are not a 'less valuable' contributor
for not being a foundation member.
Becoming a foundation member was just where I drew the line between
being a project contributer and maintainer, and decided that I wanted
to have some kind of a say in how the foundation itself was run (and
even this is IMO still of much lesser importance than having a voice
in the direction and development of the projects housed in the GNOME
umbrella, for which, again, a foundation membership is not required).
In any case, you may think that 2 years is a long time, I certainly
think that 2 months is an extremely short time - my personal view on
the thing is that the foundation should be comprised of those who
actually really give a damn, I find it hard to conceive how the MC
could possibly judge the commitment of such a short term contributor.