Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval needed for committer vote for Lucas Pa

[Eric Rizzo <eclipse-mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/11/11 5:43 AM, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:

2011/12/10 Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Greetings PMC.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that we take this approach with elections that we might otherwise veto.

What is important is that the meritocratic process is followed; merit demonstrated on a public thread (even after the election has completed) is good enough, IMHO.

Ultimately, this election may be vetoed if they cannot provide the required demonstration of merit, but I'd like to give them a chance to respond.

Make sense?

+1

As part of the portal election box, we could add a box (and require it) for at least a bug or list of reference commits (since git makes it very easy to track the author of commits). This could at least help remind people when creating the actual committer nomination request.

I like that idea a lot, Chris.
My only response to Wayne was that it aggravates me that the policies are documented and published but sometimes it appears that project members don't bother to look.  What bothers me even more is the apparent ignorance of how Eclipse works at a very fundamental level; is there ANY Eclipse project that would permit such a nomination? I surely hope not. It dismays me that some project members would think such a nomination would be acceptable. In other words, IMHO EVERY Eclipse project committer should be ACUTELY aware that employment != committership and of what it is supposed to take to gain committership.
There's some kind of gap there that we should find and try to close. Maybe this is an issue bigger than just the Tech project...

Eric