| Re: [technology-pmc] Formalizing some practices |
Wayne Beaton schrieb: > ===Setting Policies and Practices=== > All new policies and practices, and changes to existing policies and > practices, are discussed and voted upon in the Technology PMC's mailing > list. A simple majority of all active PMC members is required to > implement new policies and practices. Does this still allow a strong veto (-1)? > ===Changing a Project Lead=== > Ultimately, the Technology PMC can, at its own discretion, change the > leadership of a Technology project. However, whenever possible, such > action will only be undertaken following a vote (simple majority) from > the project's committers. Any negative votes (-1) must be resolved to > the PMC's satisfaction. I'm not a native English speaker. Thus, I might be wrong. But to me this reads like the Tech PMC can change a project leader without such a change being requested by the project. Should that be possible? > ===Electing Committers=== > The Eclipse Development process allows a project to set its own criteria > for electing new committers. The Technology PMC requires that all > committer nominations include specific rationalization of the merit of > the individual. At a minimum, we expect that all committer nominations > include a list of at least three bugs (including ids) that the candidate > has worked on. If we quantify the number bugs we should define some more numbers. For example, the bugs should be spread across a reasonable time frame and not relate to the same single piece of code. Well, I guess you get the idea. It's not ok to point to three bugs all filed the same day before the nomination. -Gunnar -- Gunnar Wagenknecht gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://wagenknecht.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature