Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Selecting the Great Fixwinner

+1 for Matthias's comment.

+1 Till Brychcy

+1 for Patrik Suzzi

Dani



From:        "Sohn, Matthias" <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxx>
To:        "eclipse.org-architecture-council" <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        04.05.2016 10:02
Subject:        Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Selecting the Great Fix        winner
Sent by:        eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




From: <eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization:
The Eclipse Foundation
Reply-To:
"eclipse.org-architecture-council" <
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
Wednesday 4 May 2016 at 05:29
To:
"eclipse.org-architecture-council" <
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
[eclipse.org-architecture-council] Selecting the Great Fix winner


Greetings distinguished members of the Eclipse Architecture Council.

As we've discussed in the past, I would like your input into the process of selecting winners for our Great Fixes for Neon skills competition [1].

We selected our first two winners during the face-to-face meeting at EclipseCon. I've announced our first winner Eric Williams [2], and our second winner Nathan Ridge [3].

We need to select the next winner, and I'd like to do this as transparently as possible. The Candidates page [4] lists everybody who has had a contribution accepted by a project that is participating in the Neon release. This list is currently sorted so that contributions to IDE projects are first and weighted based on the number of contributions (with additional weight given to those contributions in areas deemed significant in the list what we provided to FEEP).

I believe that this list is more-or-less automatically selecting our first set of winners, based on the volume of contribution; it's going to get a little harder to select winners as we get to the end of our list of ten. Note that this list is dynamic and will change as contributions are accepted.

For our third winner, I'd like to go with the next person in the list and suggest David Pursehouse who has had (as of May 2), 104 contributions to JGit accepted. I'm making this recommendation based on the contributions in aggregate, not any single contribution. You will notice that many of these contributions are tests which are just as valuable as code contributions.

Please indicate your approval with a +1


-1, all these changes fix warnings, the large majority introduces try with resource,
     if no IP review would be necessary for changes > 1000 LoC most of these changes could have been squashed into a single one

 


Please also take a minute to consider our next candidate. For number four, I think that the list is making a reasonable suggestion, but still want to remain open to qualitative suggestions.

Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,

Wayne

[1]
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/greatfix
[2]
https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/great-fixes-from-eric-williams/
[3]
https://waynebeaton.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/great-fixes-from-nathan-ridge/
[4]
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/greatfix/candidates.php
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation



[attachment "eclipsecon-130x100.jpg" deleted by Daniel Megert/Zurich/IBM] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.



Back to the top