[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [stp-pmc] PMC meeting minutes 9may06
|
Carl,
Thanks for the quick answer. This all makes good sense to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:cctrieloff@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: May 15, 2006 8:47 AM
> To: cctrieloff@xxxxxxxxxx; STP PMC list
> Cc: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [stp-pmc] PMC meeting minutes 9may06
>
>
> Mike.
>
> Correction on late night mail - new baby in the house at -> <-.
>
>
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I wanted to make it clear that we are out of ->initial
> submission (not
> > incubation) <- and new committers need to come through standard
> > process - per Dan Berg's mails.
> >
> > "we need to bring on more committers faster than the
> process allows so
> > we need to figure out a way to end-run the process".
> > NO - I DID NOT MEAN THAT. I was just going through that
> the only way
> > that commiters can join the project is if a new project that passes
> > creation review wants STP to incubate it.
> >
> > STP is just starting to come together, more commiters at this point
> > will most likely not be able to stay out of each others
> way. The goal
> > of the conversation was to make sure the PMC collectively
> understands
> > that the PMC can't vote commiters onto STP, group recap of Eclipse
> > processes ( I like to make sure we cover all the mails to
> the PMC in
> > our meetings). the fact that it is in the public notes means we are
> > not plotting anything :-) If you have any more questions feel free.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Carl.
> >
> > Carl.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> >>
> >>> -> Carl raised possibility of adding committers to the project
> >>> by having them bring a subproject for incubation, rather than
> >>> having a code base to bring with them.
> >>>
> >>> . Implication is that their project will need to go through the
> >>> usual project review cycle before it, and it's committers, can be
> >>> adopted by STP.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand this statement. This could be
> construed to
> >> say "we need to bring on more committers faster than the process
> >> allows so we need to figure out a way to end-run the process".
> >> Which is the behaviour expected from people on a mission :-)
> >>
> >> But what I don't understand is the motivation for the
> increasing the
> >> rate of new committer adoption. It seems to me that there
> are already
> >> quite a few committers for the size of the code base, so I'm
> >> obviously missing a pertinent fact or two. What are they?
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> stp-pmc mailing list
> >> stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-pmc
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > stp-pmc mailing list
> > stp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-pmc
>
