[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cdt-dev] Proposing Mikhail Sennikovsky for MBS committer
|
> Hi Doug,
>
> I agree with both of your suggestions:
>
> > The build component should really be a part of the core
> component, as
> > it was before we broke out the build plugins.
>
> > Even if we don't do that, it does point out that the CDT
> really is one
> > project and one group of committers and we should probably
> vote that
> > way.
Doug, Leo - are you suggesting we just roll up the the build plugins under
cdt-core, and join the committers together?
If so, all we need is to propose and vote :-)
>
> Thanks to Sebastien and Doug for following up on the voting question.
No problem. Mikhail, I will need you to email me your contact info. See
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committer_request.html
-- this is what I need to fill out. Just provide me the info pertaining to
you, I'll fill in the rest.
Thanks,
Sebastien
>
> Regards,
> Leo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Douglas Schaefer
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:44 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Proposing Mikhail Sennikovsky for MBS committer
>
> Thanks for the great clarification, Sebastien. This actually
> brings up something we've talked amongst ourselves (IBM gang)
> about, that the build component should really be a part of
> the core component, as it was before we broke out the build
> plugins. Even if we don't do that, it does point out that the
> CDT really is one project and one group of committers and we
> should probably vote that way.
>
> Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer Ottawa Lab, IBM
> Rational Software Division
>
> cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/02/2005 08:22:18 PM:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Great discussion... I think Doug is correct, or at least his
> interpretation
> > is what we have been generally using for the project... Although a
> read
> of
> > the actual process is ambiguous. For those that are
> interested, here's
>
> the
> > full description.
> >
> > The general commiter guidelines are here:
> >
> > http://www.eclipse.org/legal/newcommitter.html
> >
> > This describes the selection of new committers as being a specific
> process
> > for a specific top-level project:
> >
> > "
> > New Committers are selected and vetted using the processes
> defined by
> the
> > individual PMC's in their top-level project charter.
> > "
> >
> > Since we are in the tools PMC, one has to look at the Eclipse Tools
> Charter:
> >
> > http://www.eclipse.org/tools/eclipsetools-charter.html
> >
> > And under the "committers" section, the following is described:
> >
> > "
> > In order for a Developer to become a Committer on a
> particular Project
> > overseen by the PMC, another Committer for the same Project (or
> component as
> > appropriate) can nominate that Developer or the Developer can ask to
> be
> > nominated. Once a Developer is nominated, the Committers for the
> Project
> (or
> > component) will vote. If there are at least 3 positive votes and no
> negative
> > votes, the Developer is recommended to the PMC for commit
> privileges.
> If
> the
> > PMC also approves, the Developer is converted into a Committer and
> given
> > write access to the source code repository for that Project (or
> component).
> > Becoming a Committer is a privilege that is earned by
> contributing and
> > showing discipline and good judgement. It is a responsibility that
> should be
> > neither given nor taken lightly.
> > "
> >
> > This is where things get interesting. We have effectively broken the
> > "Project" up into multiple "components", and have granted commit
> status
> per
> > component (which are actually groups of plugins). This
> split, though,
> was
> > done by us and not the PMC. We have also in the past
> treated committer
>
> votes
> > as being "global" (we vote as a "Project"), in part because the
> components
> > have been small (we don't even always have 3 committers on a
> component),
> and
> > in part because the components are quite inter-related.
> >
> > As for the process going forward, we really have 2 options:
> continue
> using
> > the same procedure for committers (e.g. global votes), or move to
> > per-component votes. I'd personally vote (!?) to continue as we're
> doing
> > today as it has worked well; I'm not sure the "components" are big
> enough to
> > warrant the second option.
> >
> > Anyways, feel free to comment on this (JohnD, any opinions?).
> >
> > In the case of MikhailS, let's follow what we've historically done.
> We're
> > happy to welcome Mikhail as a new committer to CDT. Welcome (and
> congrats)
> > Mikhail!
> >
> > Sebastien
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Douglas Schaefer
> > > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:11 AM
> > > To: CDT General developers list.
> > > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Proposing Mikhail Sennikovsky for MBS
> committer
> > >
> > > >From my reading of the governance, no. The committers of the
> Project
> > > >vote
> > > in new committers. cdt-build and it's peers are subsystems,
> > > not projects.
> > > So following that logic, we are committers on the CDT project
> > > who have write access to certain subsystems and get to vote
> > > in new *CDT* committers. I'm missing the governance, though,
> > > that determines how to add/remove subsystems to your write
> > > list. But anyway, vote away...
> > >
> > > Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer Ottawa Lab, IBM
> > > Rational Software Division
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > > Sent by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 05/02/2005 09:55 AM
> > > Please respond to
> > > "CDT General developers list."
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > > "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > cc
> > >
> > > Subject
> > > RE: [cdt-dev] Proposing Mikhail Sennikovsky for MBS committer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do I need to be a committer on the build plugins to vote?
> > >
> > > JohnC
> > > www.eclipse.org/cdt
> > >
> > > cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/01/2005 11:27:43 AM:
> > >
> > > > It's not clear to me whether I get to vote after
> > > nominating, but if I
> > > > do:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Leo
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > On Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:30 PM
> > > > To: CDT General developers list.
> > > > Subject: [cdt-dev] Proposing Mikhail Sennikovsky for
> MBS committer
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to nominate Mikhail Sennikovsky for committer in
> > > the Managed
> > > > Build System component. Mikhail works for Intel.
> > > >
> > > > Mikhail provided the CDT 1.2 and 2.0 project conversion
> design and
> > > > implementation for CDT 2.1.
> > > >
> > > > For CDT 3.0, he has provided 3 designs:
> > > >
> > > > - Tool-chain Installation Support (# 87478)
> > > > - Managed Build Process Environment and Build Paths
> > > support (# 88497)
> > > > - Managed Build Macros proposal (# 89210)
> > > >
> > > > He has provided patches for the first 2 and is working on the
> third.
> > > >
> > > > I am nominating Mikhail because:
> > > >
> > > > - His designs and implementations have been excellent.
> > > > - He is very productive and dedicated.
> > > > - He makes very good engineering tradeoffs.
> > > > - He has become familiar with most parts of the MBS
> > > > - He knows Java very well (better than I do...).
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that Mikhail has a lot of visibility with
> other CDT
> > > > committers. You can take a look at his designs and/or at
> > > the patch that
> > > > he submitted today (and I have applied), if you want to. I am
> > > > nominating him now, rather than waiting for him to gain
> > > more visibility,
> > > > because I am going to need help in the CDT 3.0 "end-game".
> > > I will be
> > > > away for 10 days in June for my son's graduation and there
> > > will likely
> > > > be a large volume of patches that will need to go in from
> > > mid-May until
> > > > the 3.0 GA. This is not to suggest in any way that I don't feel
> > > > confident in nominating Mikhail at this point in time.
> > > >
> > > > Please give his nomination your consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Leo
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
