+1. I like this wording.
From:
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:29 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: 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
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:25 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
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.
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:09 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: 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
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CLONINGER ERIC-DCP874
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:43 PM
To: DSDP PMC list
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
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?
From: dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Rogalski
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:58 AM
To: DSDP PMC list
Cc: DSDP PMC list; dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dsdp-pmc] PMC Meeting - Thursday August 7
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
|
