You're absolutely right, Eric.
I've been taking steps to make understanding and following the
requirements easier. Right now, it's basically impossible for
project teams to know all the rules because everything is so spread
out, and a lot of the "rules" are intrinsic in our principles and
haven't been called out yet.
For example, I have a vendor neutrality issue that I need to sort
out this morning: the projects involved aren't violating any
specific rule, but they are providing downloads in a manner that
seems to indicate a vendor-specific bias. FWIW, none of the projects
that I've identified--so far--are Technology projects. My point is
that there are lots of rules, but I don't capture them all very
well.
I do hope to address this with portal replacement and in some new
replacement wiki page that spell it all out better (rather than the
twisted web of impossible-to-follow links we have today).
Wayne
On 12/12/2011 08:53 AM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
  |
