[technology-pmc] What do we need to see in a committer nomination?

[Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Thanks,

Wayne