[rt-pmc] Re: Election for Sam Lo

[Mark Rogalski <rogalski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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