Thanks for your response Mark. Based on this I will veto the current
vote and ask that you or the original nominator restart the election.
Hopefully more people will be around to vote this time.
Jeff
Mark Rogalski wrote:
To me, it looks "open" enough
since all the patches and voting are public. The problem is that it
looks
like we have a bunch of apathetic or non-participating committers.
Let's
re-run the the vote and find out if that's the case or whether it was
just
an ill timed vote.
Mark
The difficulty from the outside is that this looks
like
one team of people accelerating the committership for a co-worker.
Short
incubation time, few votes, all from the same team, none of the leaders
voting, ... It does not look "open" from the outside. Would
it be reasonable to re-run the election?
Jeff
Mark Rogalski wrote:
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
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
|
