A list of specific contributions is always best, IMHO.
However--not that I want to muddy the waters
here--rationalization that an individual has made
significant contributions to the initial contribution in the
past is also sufficient. e.g. "Bob has made significant
contributions to the project; he created the such-and-such
subsystem. He is joining the project to maintain and grow
that functionality." (or something like that).
For earlier nomination of a committer who was originally
listed on the project proposal, but timed out providing
paperwork, rationalization that they were listed as an
original committer will suffice. "foo-bar" isn't quite
enough for us to go on :-)
In the case of a project like ICE or DawnSci which has a
long history that was squashed when the project moved to
Eclipse, it may be impossible to provide very specific
pointers to very specific contributions. You don't need to
be "very specific", but you do need to demonstrate why they
should be a committer.
Wayne
On 24/02/15 11:20 AM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
Everyone,
If I can chime in as a project lead, I think I
might be able to clear some of it up. Both DAWNSci
and ICE are large government-funded projects that
existed outside of the Eclipse Foundation for a
long time. We had our own governance models for
years. DAWN has upwards of fifty current
developers and ICE has upwards of 15 (not all of
which are Eclipse "commiters;" some of the code is
internal). Thus, it was more a "migration" to an
Eclipse project than starting a new one and we
just didn't expect it would be a problem to bring
our people on board with minimal justification.
(Matt, I hope I'm not putting words in your
mouth.)
It wasn't clear to me when we started that the PMC
needed to vote on *my* committers and, as we
discussed with Andrew Bennett for ICE, it seemed
hilariously strange to me that you were saying "No,
they have to make contributions through Bugzilla
before they can commit, even if they have been
funded as full-time employees on the project for
years and they were omitted from the paperwork by
accident." Don't get me wrong; I really like the
nomination process and I am now finding it very
valuable, but it was just something new that I
wasn't used to nor expected.
So, pardon my long winded discussion, but I think it
might make it a little clearer why both Matt and I
submitted nominations for people with minimal
justification. As Chris suggests, the resolution to
the problem is probably a better discussion of this on
the nomination form. I'm certain too that this was in
the process literature that I read on the Eclipse
wiki, but it could likely use some bold text or
otherwise more explicit presentation.
Again, don't get me wrong; I now find this process
really valuable since I've been stalking the list for
awhile seeing how and why people are nominated to be
committers.
My guess is that they simply
forgot to point to their record of
contributions, some of the people they
have nominated do have a track record of
contributions:
You both are listed as mentors. :) I
apologize for dumping work on you. Do
you have any idea what's with those
committer elections? The nomination
looks totally bogus. I already
rejected one. But now there are three
more. Thus, I'm not sure if there
actually is a story behind the scenes.
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten
Nachricht:
>
> Von: portal-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx
(portal on behalf of emo)
> An: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Datum: 24. Februar 2015 11:36:01
MEZ
> Betreff: [technology-pmc] PMC
approval needed for committer vote for
Michael Wharmby
> Antwort an: Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> technology PMC Members,
> This automatically generated
message marks the completion of voting
for
> Michael Wharmby's Committer
status on the technology.dawnsci
project. As a
> PMC member, you can approve or
disapprove this vote through your My
> Foundation portal page:
>
> http://portal.eclipse.org/
>
> Michael Wharmby was nominated by
Matthew Gerring as follows:
> Committer to DAWN
>
>
> Vote summary: 2/0/0 with 0 not
voting
> +1 Peter Chang
> +1 Matthew Gerring
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options,
retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten
Nachricht:
>
> Von: portal-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx
(portal on behalf of emo)
> An: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Datum: 24. Februar 2015 11:37:02
MEZ
> Betreff: [technology-pmc] PMC
approval needed for committer vote for
Jacob Filik
> Antwort an: Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> technology PMC Members,
> This automatically generated
message marks the completion of voting
for
> Jacob Filik's Committer status on
the technology.dawnsci project. As a
PMC
> member, you can approve or
disapprove this vote through your My
Foundation
> portal page:
>
> http://portal.eclipse.org/
>
> Jacob Filik was nominated by
Matthew Gerring as follows:
> Committer to DAWN
>
>
> Vote summary: 2/0/0 with 0 not
voting
> +1 Peter Chang
> +1 Matthew Gerring
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options,
retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten
Nachricht:
>
> Von: portal-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxx
(portal on behalf of emo)
> An: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Datum: 24. Februar 2015 11:37:02
MEZ
> Betreff: [technology-pmc] PMC
approval needed for committer vote for
Matthew Webber
> Antwort an: Technology PMC <technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> technology PMC Members,
> This automatically generated
message marks the completion of voting
for
> Matthew Webber's Committer status
on the technology.dawnsci project. As
a
> PMC member, you can approve or
disapprove this vote through your My
> Foundation portal page:
>
> http://portal.eclipse.org/
>
> Matthew Webber was nominated by
Matthew Gerring as follows:
> Build engineer for DAWN
>
>
> Vote summary: 2/0/0 with 0 not
voting
> +1 Peter Chang
> +1 Matthew Gerring
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options,
retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc