Re: [science-pmc] Getting new committers onboard for Science projects

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The real value that you add over the Technology PMC is that you understand your domain better and have a better grasp of what constitutes reasonable merit.

FWIW, the Technology PMC would consider it completely reasonable to cite authorship of a significant contribution that's been accepted as merit.

Fundamentally, the question that you need to first answer is whether or not the individual can execute on the responsibilities of being a committer. If you can answer yes, then the merit statement needs to provide enough information to get everybody else to agree with you.

HTH,

Wayne

On 21/12/16 10:13 AM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:

Mike,

You're completely correct, of course, and that is a very helpful clarification of the process. I should have been more precise in my wording: We have a different definition of what is meritorious in Science compared to Technology, and that criteria is what we have always want to refine in terms of committer elections. Thus we do not seek to change the process per se, but what we value from potential committers when the PMC votes, which is a purely political change.

I'm happy to discuss this more and we could, possibly should, chat about it on the next PMC call.

Jay

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jay, Erwin, et al,

How committers are brought on board is specified in your top-level project charter. You may think that simplifying committer selection was a goal, but you have not year accomplished it. The existing Science TLP charter actually just uses the standard Eclipse template....just like Technology.

Here is the trail of breadcrumbs:

1. The opening paragraph of the Science TLP charter says: "This charter was developed in accordance with the Eclipse Development Process and outlines the mission, scope, organization, and development process for the Science Project. This document extends the Eclipse Standard Top-Level Charter v1.2, and includes the required content and overrides which follow. "
   
   
2. The Eclipse Standard Top-Level Charter then says in part:
   "Committers
   Contributors who give frequent and valuable contributions to a Project can have their status promoted to that of a "Committer" for that Project respectively. See 4.7 Committers and Contributors of the Eclipse Development Process for the process and responsibilities that entails."
   
   
3. That section of the EDP then states in part:
   "Becoming a committer is a privilege that is earned by contributing and showing discipline and good judgment. It is a responsibility that should be neither given nor taken lightly, nor is it a right based on employment by an Eclipse member company or any company employing existing committers." It then goes on to describe the standard nomination and election process.
   

It would be unprecedented, but it is definitely an option for the Science community to specify a new and different process for how committers are onboarded. However, you have actually not done that to this point.

All that said, I would like to say for the record that meritocracy is a principle that has served Eclipse and other open source communities well for many years. Becoming an Eclipse committer truly is a privilege, and it also comes with significant responsibilities. I would suggest that you come up with a solution that does not throw out the baby with the bath water.

HTH

On 2016-12-20 8:07 AM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:

Streamlining the way we handle committer elections was one of the reasons that drove us to create this TLP. We all had some trouble with the technology PMC and their strict "number of bugs" requirement.

That said, I think you should still provide a justification in the nomination as opposed to leaving it blank or vague. Something like "X is contributing code that does Y and has agreed to maintain it" is enough for me. It should be enough information for committers to make an informed choice, but, in my opinion, does not need to be tied to prior bugs closed or such.

Jay

On Dec 20, 2016 6:48 AM, "Greg Watson" <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes as Torkild points out, it is necessary to follow the committer election process. However it is up to the project members to decide if the candidate should be elected. There may be contributions that the nominee has made, other than directly working on the project. Project committers should use their discretion in this case.

Greg

> On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Torkild U. Resheim <torkildr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Erwin,
>
> If he don’t have an Eclipse account he must create one first, then just nominate him as a committer using the portal. The project lead don’t have the power to decide alone. As far as I know there does not _have_ to be any prior work, so you should be able to proceed without it.
>
> If the vote succeeds there is some paperwork to do. And then he should be able to contribute without having to file a CQ.
>
> There is a summary of the process at the Wiki[1]. The Eclipse Project Handbook is also a useful resource [2].
>
> Best regards
> Torkild
>
> [1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Becoming_a_Committer
> [2] https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/
> --
> Torkild Ulvøy Resheim
> Consultant / Eclipse Committer / Senior Software Developer
> Itema AS - http://itema.no
>
>> 20. des. 2016 kl. 10.36 skrev Erwin De Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> Dear Science PMC colleagues,
>>
>> We've been in touch with someone who is preparing a very interesting contribution for Triquetrum and is interested to become a committer.
>> Christopher and me would definitely like to have him on-board and his work would become a strategic part of Triquetrum.
>>
>> I've hit a procedural wall not so long ago when trying to get Jonah accepted as a Triquetrum committer, while still with the technology PMC.
>>
>> So I would like to know what the procedure is now for the Science PMC.
>>
>> - Can we accept that project leads are able to decide who can become a committer?
>> - Or do we still need some "red tape" like e.g. first go through a CQ and me committing his work and then using that as merrit to get him accepted?
>> - Or...?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> erwin

-- 
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

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

--

Jay Jay Billings

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings

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

--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation