[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
|
Sounds good.
"Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/13/2008 01:28 PM
Please respond to
DSDP PMC list <dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "DSDP PMC list" <dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday
August 7 |
|
Hi Doug,
the CDT is different than the
projects we're dealing with here -- it's got
a mature, much-used code base and most contributions are bug fixes.
The projects that we're dealing
with here are young and it's very important
for them to get new committers.
Therefore, we try to make the roadblocks
for new committers as small as
possible; especially in cases where
committers from other projects
(with existing Eclipse / IP process
knowledge) get added to the new
project.
I agree, though, that we must
not risk weakness of the IP due diligence
process as well as the Eclipse
principles of Meritocracy, Openness
and Transparency. That's why it's
important for me to have the 3
contributions referenced by means
of a clickable hyperlink, to make
the review process as sooth and
easy as possible. Reviewing
these contributions should then
allow at least some judgement
of the contributor.
Requiring the patch to be actually
applied is a good idea, since that
highlights the requirement to
have gone through the IP due diligence
process at least once. I agree
that as the PMC we should encourage
projects to use bugzilla, ipzilla,
CVS/SVN and the patch mechanism
a lot, because with using it comes
the experience that makes the
process smooth and not a hurdle
any more.
What about the following:
Committer Nominations must
reference (by clickable hyperlink) at least
3 good quality, publicly visible records of contribution. At least one
of these
must be a patch in bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project, which
has
been applied into the codebase.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior
Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target Management Project Lead,
DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:25 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
The CDT standard is around 10
patches. They don't have to be big, though, but they do have to have been
applied, which I assume (hope) implies quality. And we only have the "community"
road. I imaging smaller projects may require a "company" road
to build up their numbers, but it does go against the meritocracy theme,
and there is no reason why these guys could work with the committers they
work with to get their patches through until they earn their rights.
Doug.
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:09 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
Hi all,
my experience with other (larger
projects) is, that there are basically
two roads to becoming a committer:
- The "community" road:
a person or company gets interested in some technology, starts using it,
finds bugs or wants enhancements and starts contributing. On this road,
it is typical to have 5 patches or more in bugzilla before the project
team invites the person to becoming a committer. I've seen this in my own
project, but also the Platform, Apache Commons, RXTX, JSch.
- The "company" road:
company X already has some committers on the project and wants to add one
more. On this road, requirement for publicly visible contributions is an
annoying barrier, but still important in order to give the entire community
a chance to vote on the new person.
In
both cases, I do not think that there is a strict requirement with respect
to the quality of the patches. For one, I've had a contribution which in
the end DELETED one line of code only (so the count is -1 LOC) but it was
a very valuable bugfix and result of some deep investigations of the code.
But also in the "company"
case, what really counts for me is the public visibility, and fostering
a process walkthrough and understanding. If company X tries to push in
a committer with low-quality one-liners, then the rest of the community
(or even the PMC) could still vote -1 on the committer. What we are establishing
here is, in my opinion, not a strict guideline on how the project or the
PMC must vote (we are not vote machines after all), but a guideline what
the nomination should look like.
But I don't want to stand in the
way if a majority likes the "quality" term. After all, "Eclipse
Quality" is among the guiding principles of our development process,
so why not shoot for it from the beginning.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior
Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target Management Project Lead,
DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:43 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
I'm in agreement with Mark on
this one. The commitments should have some heft to them in terms
of impact. Making three changes to misspelled words or linking something
in a plugin manifest isn't exactly a quality contribution.
So says the man whose one code
commit to date is a one-line change to plugin.xml...
In practical terms, I don't see
a lot of people standing in line to be committers one way or the other.
How does this work in bigger projects? Do you have a lot of people
who don't work for the primary corporate sponsors making a lot of contributions?
-E
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
I agree to defer to the project committers on determining what makes for
a quality contribution to a specific project. However, I think our policy
statement should give some guidance to the projects regarding our expectation
that the contributions be of some quality rather than just some trivial
thing done to check the box. So can we add the word "quality"
or "significant" in front of contribution?
Mark
"Gaff, Doug"
<doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/11/2008 08:37 AM
Please respond to
DSDP PMC list <dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "DSDP PMC list"
<dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday
August 7 |
|
I like your suggestion Martin. Does anyone else on the PMC have an opinion?
Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 6:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
Hi all,
I don't think that quality of the contributions is really relevant at this
point,
since that's up to the project (and nominator) to decide. What counts for
me is openness, transparency, and observing IP rules of engagement.
Moreover, becoming a committer is about committing Code, so at least
one of these contributions should be some code which actually made it into
the code base and thus shows that the contributor went through the
IP process.
Since Bugzilla is the only allowed means of inbound contribution (yes,
you cannot just copy & paste stuff from the mailing list into CVS -
see Figure 11 on http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
I'm in favor of requiring one bugzilla.
There's a corner case in Figure 2
of the Legal poster (contributors from
same company under supervision of the pmc don't need bugzilla). But
since this corner case is neither Open nor Transparent, I'm in favor
of requiring bugzilla also in this case.
All this being said, what about this wording:
Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.
References should be by means of hyperlink (URL) for easy review,
and can be mailing list, wiki or newsgroup contributions.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
I like it with the following adjustments:
Candidate should have 3 good records of contribution: patches
in bugzilla, good mailing list, wiki or news group contributions. One contribution
must be from the nominating project.
"Gaff, Doug" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2008 09:45 AM
Please respond to
DSDP PMC list <dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "DSDP PMC list" <dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August
7 |
|
Minutes updated. Thanks again for the progress on the project plans.
Here is our proposal for future committer votes:
Propose 3 good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing
list contributions. Ok if one of those records is from another project.
Is this what we agreed to?
Action items:
Mark: Convert his eRCP plan slides to XML format by end of August
All: Finish project plans by Aug 31 so we can review in Sept meeting.
ALL: Complete the drafts of Board Report by end of August. Word document.
Mark: Check with Uriel to see if he's going to submit a paper to ESE.
Christian: Submit an ESE talk - could cover MTJ and TmL or Eclipse in Mobile.
Dave: Submit an ESE talk.
Doug: create the DSDP incubator and build the initial website.
Dave: Contact Eclipse legal about best terms of use for their vserver wiki.
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:02 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
Hi folks,
I’ve updated the agenda for the meeting.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/PMC/PMC_Minutes_7Aug08
Please add anything else you’d like to talk about. If you cannot attend,
please let the group know.
The most important action item is a first draft of your project plan to
review prior to the meeting. Please link it in the portal so that we can
view them rendered, e.g.
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm
Doug_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc