Hello all, I am considering running the logback project as a commitocracy. The idea is to settle non controversial questions by consensus. However, whenever a decision cannot be reached by unanimous agreement, a vote is called for. The commit-point for or against a motion are summed, the total accumulated commit-points determining the outcome. Developers earn one commit point per day for every day in which they commit code to the project. For git, the dvcs we use in logback, the following command computes the commit-points accumulated by Alice. git log --format='%ad %an' --date=short|uniq|grep Alice|wc -l At present time, the commit-points for the logback project: Ceki Gulcu 486 commit-points Sebastien Pennec 164 commit-points Tomasz Nurkiewicz 10 commit-points A committocracy may be less efficient than the BDFL model for decision making, and compared to the Apache-way, it grants less power to newcomers. However, a committocracy is a fair system in the sense that the same rules apply to all. Today's committer with the most committer-points can be different than that of tomorrow. Moreover, compared to the Apache-way, a committocracy drastically reduces the risk of a project going haywire after admitting a new member. As a corollary, a project can safely reduce the wait-and-see period preceding the admission of new committers. Thus, newcomers may be granted committership status immediately (after their first commit). Your comments welcome. -- Ceki