Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [iot-pmc] Request assistance for Eclipse Cyclone DDS

https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.cyclonedds/who lists 3 (!) project leads and 4 committers

Ok, just noticed that there are 2 duplicates. Nonetheless, it leaves 5 people with commit rights on the project.


On 18. Sep 2018, at 16:39, Kai Kreuzer <kai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Erik,

Thanks for this further information, it is much appreciated.

As I was the one that vetoed the election, let me respond to it:

First of all, it is very important to understand that this veto was not at all about Jeroen in person, but rather about the way the nomination was done. You are at any time free to do a new nomination of Jeroen.

The veto has been expressed because a nomination should show a track record of work of the nominee, which proves that he understands the project, its processes, that he did valuable contributions already and that it is likely that he will continue that way. All of this was missing in the description of the nomination.

has worked on what is now Eclipse Cyclone DDS internally before it was contributed to Eclipse

This is an important argument for the nomination. It should be possible to link to commits or code in the project that he has authored, so such links would be helpful.

 is currently undertaking relevant work, work that he simply hasn’t yet felt ready to share

This sounds as if it might simply be too early for a nomination. Let him contribute all those great things as a regular contributor and once it is accepted and merged, it should be a good time to make him a committer as well.

 that in itself does not eliminate the conflict of interest that is inherent in a committer approving his own contributions, which is basically what I have been forced to do, though it bothers me quite a bit. 

I think we all agree that no committer should be forced to approve his own contributions, so having more than one committer in the project is indeed essential. It leaves me quite puzzled though that https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.cyclonedds/who lists 3 (!) project leads and 4 committers. So what exactly is wrong here that you so strongly require another committer?

Hope this clarifies the reasons for the veto and what is expected of a committer nomination.

Best regards,
Kai


On 18. Sep 2018, at 15:51, Erik Boasson <erik.boasson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Discussion regarding Election for Jeroen Koekkoek as Committer on Eclipse Cyclone DDS

https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.cyclonedds/elections/election-jeroen-koekkoek-committer-eclipse-cyclone-dds

I believe there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding of the position of Jeroen that caused his nomination as a committer to have been rejected. If it is possible, I would like the decision to reject to be reconsidered. If I am wrong in sending to this list on this particular issue, then please forgive me and direct me to the appropriate procedure instead.

Two points were raised essentially. The first is that it carried a whiff of him having been hired for the express purpose of becoming a committer. That, however, is definitely not the case.

He has been with ADLINK for several years, has worked on what is now Eclipse Cyclone DDS internally before it was contributed to Eclipse, and is the only one besides myself who has actually made substantive contributions to the project: the work on continuous integration is his, and I know from personal conversations that he is a strong supporter of the project and is currently undertaking relevant work, work that he simply hasn’t yet felt ready to share. This includes:

  • FreeRTOS support — quite valuable for embedded systems, which is one of the strong points of DDS
  • various improvements to the testing, as we have some issues with intermittent tests on Windows due to a problematic library we depend on
  • the beginnings of proper C++ support
  • assembling a list of issues that need to be addressed, so that others in the community can actually see if there is anything they can do without first digging into all the details.

On the second point, regarding the existence of proper procedures for contributions from non-committers, I agree that these procedures are in place. However, that in itself does not eliminate the conflict of interest that is inherent in a committer approving his own contributions, which is basically what I have been forced to do, though it bothers me quite a bit. Having an active co-committer would solve that. In my personal opinion and having known Jeroen for years, he is someone who will take on that role in a meaningful manner.

I am aware that there are a number of other committers, but they have not taken that active role, as the record shows. Still, they have voted in favour. Finally, outside this group of people, the community really is but nascent, with only a few people having asked questions so far and only one truly external contribution.

Given all that, I feel my vote should carry some weight, and it is fully behind Jeroen becoming a committer.

Best regards,
Erik Boasson
_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc



Back to the top