Ever since I reappeared the only argument against my so called candidacy to the core team has been a political argument and not a technical one.
Neophytos, I interpreted what you said before in this thread as saying you did *not* want to candidate. (What will it be?)
Yes, you as well as others have contributed a lot of very useful stuff and AFAICT most, if not all, community members recognize that!
You suggest a few people as candidates (which I say nothing against) and when you come to Jon Griffin you say:
Jon Griffin: He has been here as far as I remember and he also contributed more packages than anyone else (I'm talking about packages which were not derived from funded projects). He is also a security expert.
Honestly, speaking of technical arguments, what the heck has funded project or not got to do with technical skills?? Had his code been derived from funded projects (which it might), would it have made him less skilled or suitable as a candidate?
I will give you the benefit of a doubt, however 😉:
I think it *is* appropriate to distinguish between those contributions (code/documentation/administration, etc.) that have been funded and those that have been strictly voluntary.
That is important from the point of view of gratitude. In a funded project the funder is the one to feel grateful toward. And in a "non-funded" project it is actually the volunteering developer who's "funding" it ...
However, the _source_ of funding says nothing about technical skills of the developer.
In one of our central package listings we might consider stating who the volunteer is, or, if it's a funded project, who funded it _and_ who implemented it. That way both the funder and the developer get credit...
Just my two cents.
