Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for Committer status for Patrick Chuong was started by Pawel Piech

Thanks Alena, I certainly understand your point and respect that.

The committer election is about trust, trusting the candidate with
write permissions to our assets and, if we voted more, that you trust
that they wouldn't derail the CDT architecture and plans.

I think that's sufficient guideline. I'd hate to generalize a
definition of trust, since that really depends on the person who's
doing the trusting. And in that regard, I think it's a responsibility
of the nominator to ensure that there is enough evidence for all
committers to gain that trust. I just ask you to be sensitive to the
your fellow committers, and make sure things will go smoothly (for
example, ask the list and have the discussion before doing the


On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Alena Laskavaia
<elaskavaia.cdt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ok. I will abstain from voting this time (consider that you and Doug
> convinced me),
> but next time (for next committer) I would like to see some evidence of
> involvement in the community and coding practices. IMHO demo of some
> functionality is not a prove of anything,
> and I don't see enough patches to have any conclusions (even including
> platform ones). Pin and clone support
> was not even mentioned in nomination and I don't know if it even
> exists in a form of patches. I asked a statement from
> a nominee because you did not put any effort of explaining who he is
> and what is intentions for cdt (at least in the beginning).
> I still don't know his intentions for cdt contributions (only the platform).
> Btw, platform stuff with James was a different case because James was
> already a committer on another eclipse project,
> which is big evidence on its own.
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The way I read it, the committer nomination guildelines do not list any
>> specific number of patches, dev list posts, etc., that are required for a
>> committer nomination.  It only specifies that contributors need to earn
>> other committers' trust.  As far as I know CDT doesn't have any written
>> guidelines on what contributors have to do to earn commit rights and instead
>> it has always relied on the judgment of existing committers.  Also, as long
>> as I remember, CDT community has been relatively open and welcoming of new
>> members and I believe that's been a big part of the project's success.  So
>> in my judgment Patrick has met this historical standard of trust.
>> Patrick did not ask me to nominate him and I don't know his intentions.  I'm
>> actually not even sure whether TI will give him permission to be a
>> committer.  However, given that TI's product is CDT based, and that they've
>> been involved with it for at least the last 5 years, I assume that he will
>> continue to be involved.  Also, I've never seen anyone before asking for a
>> statement from the nominee so your request is rather unusual, but it's up to
>> him to answer.
>> -Pawel
>> On 10/05/2010 01:43 PM, Alena Laskavaia wrote:
>> Well you are saying you did it as a "reward"? I don't think it is
>> right approach.
>> First of all lets not involve platform into this decision, because if
>> you think he has enough
>> contributions for the platform you should have nominated him for the
>> platform.
>> Does he plan to be an active committer on cdt project? If he committed
>> 7 patches over 5 years I won't call
>> it active... What is he planning on contributing to cdt?
>> Does he actively participate in cdt dev list? (I have not even herd of
>> him at all before cdt summit...)
>> Does he ask you to nominate him or it was your idea? Can I hear from
>> him actually?
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> I feel I should apologize here, because I sort of "winged" this nomination
>> and I didn't take the appropriate amount of time to explain my motivation to
>> nominate Patrick.  Unlike most committer nomination, which are made for a
>> colleague, I have no vested interest in this nomination.  I've simply found
>> that Patrick's bugs and patches have been very helpful to me and I hoped
>> that I could make it easier for him to continue to help out.  Also,
>> especially after today's call where we put Mike Wilson on the spot over
>> platform commit rights, I thought it would be appropriate to recognize his
>> contributions which have come over the last 5 years (maybe more).
>> Cheers,
>> Pawel
>> On 10/05/2010 12:03 PM, portal on behalf of Pawel Piech wrote:
>> tools.cdt Committers,
>> This automatically generated message signals that Pawel Piech has
>> nominated
>> Patrick Chuong as a Committer on the tools.cdt project. The reason given
>> is
>> as follows:
>> Patrick has committed several fixes in breakpoints and disassembly views
>> and DSF.  He also recently helped with migrating the Breakpoints view to
>> flexible hierarchy in Platform, making him an expert in this area.
>> The vote is being held via the MyFoundation portal: voters *must* use the
>> portal for the votes to be properly recorded.  The voting will continue
>> until either all 25 existing Committers have voted or until they have been
>> given enough time to vote, even if they do not do so (defined as at least
>> one week). Patrick Chuong must receive at least three +1s and no -1s for a
>> successful election.
>> Eligible Committers must cast their votes through their My Foundation
>> portal page (do NOT just reply to this email; your vote will not be
>> correctly recorded unless you use the portal):
>> The project Committers eligible to vote are:
>>     James Blackburn
>>     Francois Chouinard
>>     John Cortell
>>     David Dubrow
>>     Emanuel Graf
>>     Andrew Gvozdev
>>     Mikhail Khodjaiants
>>     Marc Khouzam
>>     Vivian Kong
>>     Mike Kucera
>>     Elena Laskavaia
>>     Anton Leherbauer
>>     Teodor Madan
>>     Warren Paul
>>     Pawel Piech
>>     Sergey Prigogin
>>     Chris Recoskie
>>     Randy Rohrbach
>>     Ken Ryall
>>     Doug Schaefer
>>     Markus Schorn
>>     Ed Swartz
>>     L. Frank Turovich
>>     Ling Wang
>>     Ted Williams
>> *NOTE*: Successful elections are left open for a maximum of 60 days to
>> allow for processing of paperwork.  After that time the election will be
>> expired, regardless of its current status.  Should papework processing on
>> the part of the candidate take more time than allowed, a new election will
>> have to be held.
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your project
>> lead, PMC member, or the EMO<emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top