[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
|
Hi Doug,
the CDT is different than the projects we're dealing with
here -- it's got
a mature, much-used code base and most contributions are bug
fixes.
The projects that we're dealing with here are young and
it's very important
for them to get new committers. Therefore, we try to make
the roadblocks
for new committers as small as possible; especially in
cases where
committers from other projects (with existing Eclipse / IP
process
knowledge) get added to the new
project.
I agree, though, that we must not risk weakness of the IP
due diligence
process as well as the Eclipse principles of Meritocracy,
Openness
and Transparency. That's why it's important for me to have
the 3
contributions referenced by means of a clickable hyperlink,
to make
the review process as sooth and easy as possible.
Reviewing
these contributions should then allow at least some
judgement
of the contributor.
Requiring the patch to be actually applied is a good idea,
since that
highlights the requirement to have gone through the IP due
diligence
process at least once. I agree that as the PMC we should
encourage
projects to use bugzilla, ipzilla, CVS/SVN and the patch
mechanism
a lot, because with using it comes the experience that
makes the
process smooth and not a hurdle any
more.
What about the following:
Committer
Nominations must reference (by
clickable hyperlink) at least
3 good quality, publicly visible
records
of contribution. At least one of these
must be a patch in bugzilla
on behalf of the nominating project, which has
been applied into the codebase.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
The CDT standard is around 10 patches. They don't have to
be big, though, but they do have to have been applied, which I assume (hope)
implies quality. And we only have the "community" road. I imaging smaller
projects may require a "company" road to build up their numbers, but it does
go against the meritocracy theme, and there is no reason why these guys could
work with the committers they work with to get their patches through until
they earn their rights.
Doug.
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
