On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We've rolled back the veto and have approved the election.
Some (probably) final observations:
1) The election of Lucas was approved on the grounds that his name
appears as one of the initial committers in the project proposal.
FWIW, when I was prompted the approve or veto the election, I looked
every *except* the project proposal for mentions of Lucas; I'll be
sure to add this to my search list for future cases.
2) Involvement in a project takes many forms, and involvement in
"governance meetings" is considered a contribution.
3) Statements to the effect of "we plan on making code
contributions" are not generally good enough to warrant making
somebody a committer (while we generally find statements of intent
interesting, we put actual value on actual contributions). They are
valueless in the absence of other demonstrations of merit.
Thanks,
Wayne
On 12/22/2011 11:22 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
It's a learning process. We'll try to resolve this as quickly and
painlessly as possible.
FWIW, a response to any of my three notes to the project mailing
list would have resolved this in minutes ;-)
Wayne
On 12/22/2011 09:40 PM, Winston Prakash wrote:
On 12/22/11 5:33 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
This would be perfect rationalization for approving the
election. There's no need to re-earn your stripes, we just
need a public record of why you deserve them.
I'm disappointed that nobody could provide me with this
information when I asked on the hudson-dev newsgroup.
I think it was my mistake. I wasn't clear about why I nominated
Lucas again. I was trying to say what Lucas says now by quoting
"Initial Committer from TaskTop". I should have explained
clearly why I nominated Lucas again. Sorry for all the confusion
:-(
- Winston
I'll see if I can get webmaster to reverse my veto; otherwise,
we'll have to run another election with this listed as the
rationalization.
Wayne
On 12/22/2011 08:19 PM, Lucas Panjer wrote:
Wayne,
Regarding this election. As far as I understand, it
should not have happened to begin with as I am listed as
an initial committer on the original Hudson proposal.
See: http://eclipse.org/proposals/technology.hudson/
For reasons outside my control, I was not successfully
provisioned as a committer to the project upon initial
creation. (I received a notice of a failed election due
to expiration and missing paperwork. Unfortunately I was
never notified that I needed to submit any paperwork.)
My understanding that my being on the proposal should
be sufficient for me to have commit rights on the
project.
In terms of my contribution intentions, I have been
involved in the Hudson governance meetings, representing
Tasktop and we plan on making code contributions when
the project starts being released from Eclipse
infrastructure. I did not realize that this delay would
end up causing any problems of this sort.
In retrospect I should not have requested a new
election as I am joining Hudson as an initial
contributor. What I should have done, and what I am now
asking for is that I be added as an initial committer to
the project as specified in the proposal. The
alternative seems to be to have me refused the commit
rights I was initially granted and to re-earn them. I
don't see the point of that since like other committers
on the initial proposal I have been involved in the
project and have the intent to contribute. While it
seemed redundant, I was happy to see my intent endorsed
by the other committers with their vote.
I look forward to contributing to the project, and
hope we can find a straightforward way for Eclipse
Hudson to benefit from Tasktop's participation.
Regards,
--
Lucas Panjer
Software Engineer, Tasktop Sync and Cloud Services