Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval needed for committer vote for Judith G

[Eric Rizzo <eclipse-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/30/10 10:19 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> Thanks Eric.
>
> There are four ongoing committer elections for Scout. I'm curious to
> know why these four committers weren't listed on the project proposal?
> They sure sound like people who should have been made committers from
> the beginning.
>
> In the strictest sense, Eric, I believe that you are correct. However, I
> think that in this case, our requirements document is deficient, not
> these particular elections. IMHO, "has been working on Scout for several
> years" is a reasonable enough demonstration of merit for a mature
> project that's been moved to Eclipse. I think that this is very much in
> line with the spirit of our values with regard to committer elections.
> Again, in this case, I think it's strange that these people weren't
> included with the initial project committers.
>
> FWIW there is significant precedent in numerous Eclipse projects for
> making "acknowledged subject-matter experts" into committers in the
> absence of an eclipse.org meritocracy trail.
>
> Rather than veto these election, I respectfully suggest that we approve
> them on the basis of the indicated experience with the code. Also, I
> recommend that we (the Technology PMC) spend a few minutes to update our
> policy document to better reflect reality.
>
> Wayne

I think this is a reasonable position; it's why I left the nominations 
intact without a veto, to see what the group's thoughts are.
Having said that, we must be careful that this kind of allowance does 
not become a loophole. The adjustment to the wording of the wiki page is 
probably good enough, but let's take note of how often this occurs; if 
it happens more than rarely then perhaps we should institute some more 
formal mechanism for adding committers who should have been initial 
committers at proposal time.

Eric

> Eric Rizzo wrote:
> > Matthias&  Andreas,
> > In accordance with the committer elections policy
> > (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Technology#Committer_Elections), each
> > nomination should include specific evidence of the person's
> > contributions to the project. The most typical evidence is Eclipse
> > bugzilla entries that included patches which were reviewed and
> > committed by an existing committer.
> > I'm sure the recent candidates are sufficiently qualified, but in the
> > interest of openness and meritocracy, please re-submit those
> > nominations with the supporting evidence so that we may approve.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > On 11/30/10 5:56 PM, portal on behalf of emo wrote:
> > > technology PMC Members,
> > > This automatically generated message marks the completion of voting for
> > > Judith Gull's Committer status on the technology.scout project. As a PMC
> > > member, you can approve or disapprove this vote through your My
> > > Foundation
> > > portal page:
> > >
> > >       http://portal.eclipse.org/
> > >
> > > Judith Gull was nominated by Matthias Zimmermann as follows:
> > > judith has contributed over 20 bug fixes since july 2010
> > >
> > >
> > > Vote summary: 4/0/0 with 0 not voting
> > >     +1  Andreas Hoegger
> > >     +1  Stephan Leicht
> > >     +1  Ivan Motsch
> > >     +1  Matthias Zimmermann
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > technology-pmc mailing list
> > > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> > _______________________________________________
> > technology-pmc mailing list
> > technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc