[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
|
Hi all,
my experience with other (larger projects) is, that there
are basically
two roads to becoming a committer:
-
The "community" road: a person or company gets interested in some
technology, starts using it, finds bugs or wants enhancements and starts
contributing. On this road, it is typical to have 5 patches or more in
bugzilla before the project team invites the person to becoming a committer.
I've seen this in my own project, but also the Platform, Apache Commons,
RXTX, JSch.
-
The "company" road: company X already has some committers on the
project and wants to add one more. On this road, requirement for publicly
visible contributions is an annoying barrier, but still important in order to
give the entire community a chance to vote on the new
person.
In both cases, I do not think that there is a strict
requirement with respect to the quality of the patches. For one, I've had a
contribution which in the end DELETED one line of code only (so the count is -1
LOC) but it was a very valuable bugfix and result of some deep investigations of
the code.
But also in the "company" case, what really counts for me
is the public visibility, and fostering a process walkthrough and understanding.
If company X tries to push in a committer with low-quality one-liners, then the
rest of the community (or even the PMC) could still vote -1 on the committer.
What we are establishing here is, in my opinion, not a strict guideline on how
the project or the PMC must vote (we are not vote machines after all), but a
guideline what the nomination should look like.
But I don't want to stand in the way if a majority likes
the "quality" term. After all, "Eclipse Quality" is among the guiding principles
of our development process, so why not shoot for it from the
beginning.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
I'm in agreement with Mark on this one. The
commitments should have some heft to them in terms of impact. Making three
changes to misspelled words or linking something in a plugin
manifest isn't exactly a quality contribution.
So says the man whose one code commit to date is a
one-line change to plugin.xml...
In practical terms, I don't see a
lot of people standing in line to be committers one way or the other. How does
this work in bigger projects? Do you have a lot of people who don't work
for the primary corporate sponsors
making a lot of contributions?
-E
I agree to defer to the project
committers on determining what makes for a quality contribution to a specific
project. However, I think our policy statement should give some guidance to
the projects regarding our expectation that the contributions be of some
quality rather than just some trivial thing done to check the box. So can we
add the word "quality" or "significant" in front of contribution?
Mark
"Gaff, Doug"
<doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/11/2008 08:37 AM
|
Please respond
to
DSDP PMC list
<dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "DSDP PMC list"
<dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting -
Thursday August 7 |
|
I like your suggestion Martin. Does
anyone else on the PMC have an opinion?
Committer Nominations must reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of
contribution. At least one of these must be a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the
nominating project.
From:
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, August
08, 2008 6:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc]
PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
Hi all,
I don't think that quality of the contributions is really
relevant at this point,
since
that's up to the project (and nominator) to decide. What counts for
me is openness, transparency, and
observing IP rules of engagement.
Moreover, becoming
a committer is about committing Code, so at least
one of these contributions should be some code which
actually made it into
the code
base and thus shows that the contributor went through the
IP process.
Since Bugzilla is the only allowed means of inbound contribution
(yes,
you cannot just copy &
paste stuff from the mailing list into CVS -
see Figure 11
on http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
I'm in favor of requiring one
bugzilla.
There's a corner case in Figure 2 of the Legal poster (contributors
from
same company under supervision of the
pmc don't need bugzilla). But
since this corner case is neither Open nor Transparent, I'm in
favor
of requiring bugzilla also
in this case.
All this being said, what about this
wording:
Committer Nominations must
reference at least 3 publicly visible
records of contribution. At least one of these must be
a patch in
bugzilla on behalf of the nominating project.
References should be by means of hyperlink (URL) for easy
review,
and can be mailing list,
wiki or newsgroup contributions.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP
PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Friday, August 08,
2008 2:42 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list;
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting -
Thursday August 7
I like it with the
following adjustments:
Candidate should have 3
good records of contribution: patches in bugzilla, good mailing
list, wiki or news group contributions. One contribution must be from the
nominating project.
"Gaff, Doug"
<doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2008 09:45 AM
|
Please respond
to
DSDP PMC list
<dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "DSDP PMC list"
<dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday
August 7 |
|
Minutes updated. Thanks again for the progress on the project
plans.
Here is our proposal for future committer votes:
Propose 3 good records of contribution:
patches in bugzilla, good mailing list contributions. Ok if one of those
records is from another project.
Is this what we agreed to?
Action items:
Mark: Convert his eRCP plan slides to
XML format by end of August
All: Finish project plans
by Aug 31 so we can review in Sept meeting.
ALL: Complete the drafts of Board Report by end of August. Word
document.
Mark: Check with Uriel to see if he's
going to submit a paper to ESE.
Christian: Submit an ESE
talk - could cover MTJ and TmL or Eclipse in Mobile.
Dave: Submit an ESE talk.
Doug: create the
DSDP incubator and build the initial website.
Dave: Contact Eclipse legal about best terms of use for their
vserver wiki.
From:
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 05,
2008 1:02 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: [dsdp-pmc] PMC
Meeting - Thursday August 7
Hi folks,
I’ve
updated the agenda for the meeting.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/DSDP/PMC/PMC_Minutes_7Aug08
Please
add anything else you’d like to talk about. If you cannot attend, please let
the group know.
The most important action item
is a first draft of your project plan to review prior to the meeting. Please
link it in the portal so that we can view them rendered, e.g.
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=dsdp.tm
Doug_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing
list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing
list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
