[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [technology-pmc] Committer Nominations
|
Gunnar, PMC members,
Many thanks for considering this.
I will wait a bit for reactions on the previous email of Gunnar, about
handling new components from new committers (and the related CQ
process), before advancing on this.
Just one reaction on the below : as I mentioned in a previous email, the
"I don't know who this person is" was just a joke that was lost on the
people not acquainted with the science group, I think.
Matt and Jonah know each other very well, they are the original core
contributors to that new component for Triquetrum.
thanks again
erwin
Op 11/06/2016 om 10:57 schreef Gunnar Wagenknecht:
Technology PMC Members,
Given the recent case - I'd like to have a discussion about the "meritocratic nature" of the nomination process.
I see the following possibilities for demonstrating merit:
(1) Contributions to an existing projects
-> proof is Gerrit, bugs with patches, pull requests and/or wiki edits
(2) Ownership of new component brought (migrated) into a project
-> proof is CQ with source and commit/author info (ideally log)
(3) Project reboot (existing committers are inactive and need to be replaced to keep project alive)
-> proof of inactivity
Thoughts?
Note:
Even worse, there is a +1 vote from another committer with the comment "I don't know who this person is." (!).
That's a clear no-go. It's our responsibility as a PMC to catch this. For me this translates into a -1 (ignoring the actual vote). As such, I'd immediately veto the committer election.
-Gunnar
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
