Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[technology-pmc] What do we need to see in a committer nomination?

Greetings fellow Technology PMC members

I would like to provide some more specific guidance for committer nominations in our projects.

I strongly believe in meritocracy; specifically, that prospective committers need to earn their way into committership. There are many ways to earn that appointment:

   * Provide a significant contribution
   * Actively engage in the project through the mailing list,
     newsgroups, bugzilla, etc.
   * Provide patches of sufficient quality (i.e. that get committed).
   * Have the faith of the existing committers.

When it all comes down to it, the last one is the one that really matters. If the committers vote for a person, it's a pretty good indicator that they have faith in them.

So... should that be enough?

Our current "policy" is that some evidence needs to be provided. A list of bug reports that the prospective committer has participated in is common.

Your thoughts are appreciated. Other list participants are welcome to weigh in as well.



Back to the top