Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [technology-pmc] Formalizing some practices

Wayne Beaton schrieb:
> ===Setting Policies and Practices===
> All new policies and practices, and changes to existing policies and 
> practices, are discussed and voted upon in the Technology PMC's mailing 
> list. A simple majority of all active PMC members is required to 
> implement new policies and practices.

Does this still allow a strong veto (-1)?

> ===Changing a Project Lead===
> Ultimately, the Technology PMC can, at its own discretion, change the 
> leadership of a Technology project. However, whenever possible, such 
> action will only be undertaken following a vote (simple majority) from 
> the project's committers. Any negative votes (-1) must be resolved to 
> the PMC's satisfaction.

I'm not a native English speaker. Thus, I might be wrong. But to me this
reads like the Tech PMC can change a project leader without such a
change being requested by the project. Should that be possible?

> ===Electing Committers===
> The Eclipse Development process allows a project to set its own criteria 
> for electing new committers. The Technology PMC requires that all 
> committer nominations include specific rationalization of the merit of 
> the individual. At a minimum, we expect that all committer nominations 
> include a list of at least three bugs (including ids) that the candidate 
> has worked on.

If we quantify the number bugs we should define some more numbers. For
example, the bugs should be spread across a reasonable time frame and
not relate to the same single piece of code. Well, I guess you get the
idea. It's not ok to point to three bugs all filed the same day before
the nomination.


Gunnar Wagenknecht

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Back to the top