The bar is set by the project lead and committers. Employment/funding status, or  employer should not impact the decision to nominate somebody as a committer.

Having said that, an individual who is funded will at least potentially have the necessary time to produce a string of quality patches; by extension, they should have a easier time of becoming a committer than somebody who doesn't have that same sort of support.

If reviewing changes is a challenge for the development team, then perhaps its reasonable to suggest that that team focus (at least in the short term) on reviewing/accepting contributions from individuals who are the most likely candidates to become committers, thereby increasing the team's capacity to review/accept contributions.

Again, this give advantage to individuals who are funded/supported.

To be clear, I still don't think employment/funding status should be directly considered when considering a committer nomination. Having the funding/time to be able to produce quality contributions provides a natural advantage

Maybe Wim's right.

Wayne

If the member agrees to pay for a new platform developer then the path to committership should not be as hard as it is now for newcomers. This is something that the WG could define as one of its main tasks.