The difficulty from the outside is that this looks like one team of
people accelerating the committership for a co-worker. Short
incubation time, few votes, all from the same team, none of the leaders
voting, ... It does not look "open" from the outside. Would it be
reasonable to re-run the election?
Jeff
Mark Rogalski wrote:
In my case, I was on vacation and
did
not see the vote request until after the voting period closed. Since
many
other people are off at the end of the year, conducting committer votes
in mid December is probably not a good idea if one wants to see good
participation.
We should probably discourage that unless it is critical.
In regards to standards for adding
committers,
we had discussions about this on the DSDP PMC as well. It is hard to
set
a single standard that is applicable to all projects. I think it is the
role of the PMC to ensure there is some level of due diligence and that
may vary by project size or type. For DSDP, we were interested in
seeing
a certain number of "significant " contributions. They could
range from patches to newsgroup responses showing some level of
expertise.
We had no elapsed time consideration at all. In the case of eRCP, where
there are several smaller components to gain expertise in, I think that
2 months is sufficient to demonstrate understanding of a component.
Mark
There was recently an election for Sam Lo as a
committer
on eRCP. The
vot concluded with only 3 people voting (all +1) and 10 not voting.
I'd
like to get some confirmation that this vote has been widely reviewed
and understand why only 3 voted. In addition to that, the nomination
material cited 2 months collaboration on various bugs and articles.
While the development process does not (AFAIK) spec a precise time
requirement, generally speaking it has been held to be 4-6 months of
active collaboration on a project of any significant size.
Jeff
|