Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval needed for committer vote for Judith Gull

On 11/30/10 10:19 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Thanks Eric.

There are four ongoing committer elections for Scout. I'm curious to
know why these four committers weren't listed on the project proposal?
They sure sound like people who should have been made committers from
the beginning.

In the strictest sense, Eric, I believe that you are correct. However, I
think that in this case, our requirements document is deficient, not
these particular elections. IMHO, "has been working on Scout for several
years" is a reasonable enough demonstration of merit for a mature
project that's been moved to Eclipse. I think that this is very much in
line with the spirit of our values with regard to committer elections.
Again, in this case, I think it's strange that these people weren't
included with the initial project committers.

FWIW there is significant precedent in numerous Eclipse projects for
making "acknowledged subject-matter experts" into committers in the
absence of an meritocracy trail.

Rather than veto these election, I respectfully suggest that we approve
them on the basis of the indicated experience with the code. Also, I
recommend that we (the Technology PMC) spend a few minutes to update our
policy document to better reflect reality.


I think this is a reasonable position; it's why I left the nominations intact without a veto, to see what the group's thoughts are. Having said that, we must be careful that this kind of allowance does not become a loophole. The adjustment to the wording of the wiki page is probably good enough, but let's take note of how often this occurs; if it happens more than rarely then perhaps we should institute some more formal mechanism for adding committers who should have been initial committers at proposal time.


Eric Rizzo wrote:
Matthias&  Andreas,
In accordance with the committer elections policy
(, each
nomination should include specific evidence of the person's
contributions to the project. The most typical evidence is Eclipse
bugzilla entries that included patches which were reviewed and
committed by an existing committer.
I'm sure the recent candidates are sufficiently qualified, but in the
interest of openness and meritocracy, please re-submit those
nominations with the supporting evidence so that we may approve.


On 11/30/10 5:56 PM, portal on behalf of emo wrote:
technology PMC Members,
This automatically generated message marks the completion of voting for
Judith Gull's Committer status on the technology.scout project. As a PMC
member, you can approve or disapprove this vote through your My
portal page:

Judith Gull was nominated by Matthias Zimmermann as follows:
judith has contributed over 20 bug fixes since july 2010

Vote summary: 4/0/0 with 0 not voting
    +1  Andreas Hoegger
    +1  Stephan Leicht
    +1  Ivan Motsch
    +1  Matthias Zimmermann

technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc mailing list

Back to the top