Skip to main content

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

Maybe a sum of several numbers would make a best criteria?

I usually feel that community members who collaborate on the dev list to add greater value as committers than members that "just fix bugs", because they are involved in the project communication and have a vision on its future (of course "bug fixers" are still very valuable).

Also contributors of big chunks of code (something that needs IP review and adds new functionality) look like better future committers even if the only interact with a single bug report. Besides, they tend to be active on the dev lists too (at least, for researching the info they need for the contribution).

So let's say a committer canditate must score 10 points to be elegible.
- Questions on dev list: 1 point (maybe with a cap... questions show interest, but a committer who only asks is not really a good candidate).
- Answers or suggestions (dev list or user newsgroup): 2 points
- Bug patches or test cases: 2 points
- Big contributions (require IP review): 5 points

(numbers are more or less random).

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Eric Rizzo <erizzo-eclipse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/25/2009 11:23 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
===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.

Like the others, I'm concerned about putting a specific number of bugs as a requirement. Seems to me that will inevitably lead to attempts to game that system. I would suggest simply omitting the "at least three" part from the last sentence.


technology-pmc mailing list

Abel Muiño -

Back to the top