[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [technology-pmc] Formalizing some practices
|
> I tend to avoid using negatives, but we might consider explicitly
> stating that it doesn't matter if you've been hired to do the job;
> you still have to prove to the community that you're worthy of the
> appointment.
+1
-----Original Message-----
From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Technology PMC
Subject: Re: [technology-pmc] Formalizing some practices
I think that Eric's point is that if you make it so that you have to work to
a number, than there'll be gaming. I feel that any attempt at quantifying
will ultimately fail.
In the end, there has to be a demonstration of real merit. Participation in
bugs, dev list, newsgroups, are all such demonstrations. Maybe it's enough
to state that the candidate must demonstrate real merit and give suggestions
on how that can be shown.
I tend to avoid using negatives, but we might consider explicitly stating
that it doesn't matter if you've been hired to do the job; you still have to
prove to the community that you're worthy of the appointment.
Wayne
Abel Muiño wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> technology-pmc mailing list
>> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 02/21/09
15:36:00
