| Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval needed for committer vote for Judith Gull |
Eric, thanks for your reminder on the eclipse guidelines for committer nominations Wayne, thanks for your comments regarding the recent Scout committer nominations. Please let me comment on the abcence of bugzilla evidence and/or not proposing these people on our project proposal: Hannes was actually listed on our project proposal but missed the deadline for filling in his paper work. Daniel, Andi, Judith, and Peter have not contributed significant portions of Scout at the time of our project proposal but started to do bugfixing during 2010. As we decided to work with bugzilla only after we have committed our sources to the eclipse repository we could not provide a list of bugzilla tickets to justify the nominations. As we have begun to commit the sources to eclipse this November we will start to transfer our internal Scout tickets to bugzilla. From that ponint on, we will stick to the regular committer election guidlines and cite actual bugzilla tickets for our next nominations. Matthias 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 _______________________________________________ technology-pmc mailing list technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature