Re: [rt-pmc] Re: Election for Sam Lo

["Gorkem Ercan" <gercan@xxxxxxx>]

I think there had been an infrastructure problem with this voting. I
have not received any notification email form the ercp mailing lists
about. I have also checked the archives of the both new and old
ercp-dev mailing lists for the notification and it is not there. I
only got notice of the voting when the portal send the notification to
the PMC list. I think most of the committers were not aware of the
vote.
--
Gorkem


On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for your response Mark. Based on this I will veto the current vote
> and ask that you or the original nominator restart the election.  Hopefully
> more people will be around to vote this time.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> Mark Rogalski wrote:
>
> To me, it looks "open" enough since all the patches and voting are public.
> The problem is that it looks like we have a bunch of apathetic or
> non-participating committers. Let's re-run the the vote and find out if
> that's the case or whether it was just an ill timed vote.
>
>         Mark
>
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 01/06/2009 09:08 AM
>
> To
> Mark Rogalski/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> Uriel KL Liu <liukl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gorkem.Ercan@xxxxxxxxx, Runtime Project PMC
> mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject
> Re: Election for Sam Lo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The difficulty from the outside is that this looks like one team of people
> accelerating the committership for a co-worker.  Short incubation time, few
> votes, all from the same team, none of the leaders voting, ...  It does not
> look "open" from the outside.  Would it be reasonable to re-run the
> election?
>
> Jeff
>
> Mark Rogalski wrote:
>
> In my case, I was on vacation and did not see the vote request until after
> the voting period closed. Since many other people are off at the end of the
> year, conducting committer votes in mid December is probably not a good idea
> if one wants to see good participation. We should probably discourage that
> unless it is critical.
> In regards to standards for adding committers, we had discussions about this
> on the DSDP PMC as well. It is hard to set a single standard that is
> applicable to all projects. I think it is the role of the PMC to ensure
> there is some level of due diligence and that may vary by project size or
> type. For DSDP, we were interested in seeing a certain number of
> "significant " contributions. They could range from patches to newsgroup
> responses showing some level of expertise. We had no elapsed time
> consideration at all. In the case of eRCP, where there are several smaller
> components to gain expertise in, I think that 2 months is sufficient to
> demonstrate understanding of a component.
>
>                Mark
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 01/06/2009 07:52 AM
>
> To
> Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark
> Rogalski/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Gorkem.Ercan@xxxxxxxxx
> cc
> Subject
> Election for Sam Lo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There was recently an election for Sam Lo as a committer on eRCP.  The
> vot concluded with only 3 people voting (all +1) and 10 not voting.  I'd
> like to get some confirmation that this vote has been widely reviewed
> and understand why only 3 voted.  In addition to that, the nomination
> material cited 2 months collaboration on various bugs and articles.
> While the development process does not (AFAIK) spec a precise time
> requirement, generally speaking it has been held to be 4-6 months of
> active collaboration on a project of any significant size.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
>