Re: [ve-dev] FW: Committer Representation on Eclipse Board

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 09:12, Dave Orme wrote:
> All,
>  
> The Eclipse Foundation has now been formally incorporated as an
> independent legal entity!  

Congratulations!

> If you're not yet a committer in VEP, but want to be, we'll shortly be
> creating a new mentoring structure to help those who want to be
> committers to come up to speed on the code base.  (Thanks to Gili for
> the great idea.)  Stay tuned for more details in the near future.

This is excellent news; I'm very much looking forward to taking part in
this. I'll volunteer myself to be your first guinea pig ;)

regards

Phil Muldoon
>  
>  
> Warmest Regards,
>  
> Dave Orme
> VEP subproject lead
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Duimovich [mailto:John_Duimovich@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:23 AM
> To: sebastien@xxxxxxx; Randy Hudson; rjl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Michael.Norman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kenneth Hussey; Dave Orme; Harm Sluiman
> Subject: Committer Representation on Eclipse Board
> 
> 
>  <snip/>
> The election process is a bit arcane, but designed to ensure that
> smaller companies and independent committers have a voice.  All
> committers who work for a member company of eclipse.org (of which
> there are over fifty at last count!), share a single vote per company.
> Independent committers WHO HAVE SIGNED THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT get a
> single vote each.  The voting process is being decided now, but will
> likely be single transferable vote.  
>  
> As an example, if Sara, Bob and Joe all work for ACME Widgets, which
> is an Eclipse member, then they together share one single transferable
> vote (ie in effect a preference list of nominees).  The mechanism for
> carrying out the voting is still being decided, but I think the
> inclination is to find a way to just collect individual votes from
> each committer and then let eclipse.org do the company consolidation
> during the tally, as opposed to having a two tier vote. But stay
> tuned.
>  
> One thing which I hope is clear is that there is an opportunity for
> small projects with a diverse representation (eg many of the Tools
> projects) to have a real impact on the vote.  In particular, IBM with
> probably 60% or more of the committer population will have ONE vote.
> IBM and the other large members all supported this plan because they
> wanted it to be clear that they felt the committer population should
> be adequately represented.  So it would be shame after all this if the
> franchise was not exercised.
>  
> What I would ask you to do is:
> 1.       make sure your committers know this is happening
> 2.       make the independent committers aware they need to sign the
> membership agreement to vote (whether they choose to sign or not is
> clearly their business)
> 3.       think about nominees for the 2 positions.  The more nominees
> the better.  There will be a call for nominations soon, likely this
> week.
> 4.       send me a list of active committers for your project so I can
> validate against the voter list compiled from the CVS records. Note,
> the commiters are listed at www.eclipse.org/tools/commit.html which
> will be the list Eclipse starts from. 
>  
> If you have any questions please ask.  Thanks.
>  
> John
-- 
Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Red Hat, Inc.