Skip to main content

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

I certainly agree that the trust of the existing committers is key. The fact
that someone has been nominated on and vote for by the existing committers
is a strong endorsement.

But there is a fly in the ointment: many Eclipse projects are lacking
sufficient diversity. We can point to an unfortunate number of incubating
projects for which this is true. Historically, a big part of the reason why
we have pushed so hard for demonstrable contributions prior to a vote was to
mitigate the risk that someone was being added to an Eclipse project simply
because they've been hired or transferred at the company driving an Eclipse
project. Such scenarios fly in the face of the meritocracy that we are
trying to create within Eclipse projects.

The second issue is that absent identifiable contributions, incubating
projects might not necessarily have the skill set to properly identify the
contributors who have the merit to become committers. Perhaps mentors could
play a special role in helping here?

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with you that some recalibration might be
useful. But IMHO any such recalibration needs to squarely put meritocracy as
goal #1. Anything that we can do to help increase diversity would be goal

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223

> -----Original Message-----
> From: technology-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:technology-pmc-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wayne Beaton
> Sent: April-17-09 1:01 PM
> To: Technology PMC
> Subject: [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.
> Thanks,
> Wayne
> _______________________________________________
> technology-pmc mailing list
> technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top