Dear all,
Can I interpret the info below as follows :
- The project committers get to vote first on a new candidate
committer, and can do so based on evaluating a combination of (within
the scope of the specific project):
- past & expected contributions to the project and its
core dependencies etc
(e.g. in our case Ptolemy is the core dependency, with a long
and active history.
Getting experienced Ptolemy contributors on-board would be a
big step forward for Triquetrum)
- proven skills and interest in doing open source with/at
Eclipse
- commitment of the person to have a long-term active
involvement
- When the project team gives sufficient votes, the Science PMC
then does the final check/approval, taking into account overall
Eclipse Foundation principles & procedures, possibly adapted
to Science WG specifics.
The point I want to understand is : who evaluates what?
Is a PMC responsible for evaluating merit, skills, commitment etc or
is this the actual project team/lead (which I would assume)?
thanks,
erwin
Op 12/21/2016 om 5:11 PM schreef Wayne
Beaton:
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
_______________________________________________
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
![Eclipse Converge]()
Dit tekstgedeelte wordt op aanvraag gedownload.
|