If Iain has made contributions to the project, those contributions
need to be taken through the IP process and need to be tracked.
Wayne
On 09/06/2011 06:01 PM, Paul Trevithick wrote:
Wayne/all,
In light of Wayne's points I suggest a new plan. Let's
abandon these bugs. It's too hard to add transparency to these
after the fact. We will start fresh and have Iain create a new
set of bugs that are descriptive, transparent, have the
patches/code attached, etc.
As for Higgins 1.1 we never released it. We took too long to
get it released and in so doing the demand for it faded. There
just wasn't the resources and rationale to release and maintain
1.1. What interest did remain was for a significant change to
the architecture. So a small number of folks started working on
2.0 earlier this year. As we get further along with 2.0 we're
hoping to attract more developers and build up our resources
again. Perhaps we didn't handle not releasing 1.1 properly. If
there's something we need to do, let us know.
Paul
On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
The statement that Iain " has been actively
contributing new code and enhancements to the Higgins
2.0 codebase." worries me. Where is the record of the
contributions? Are they recorded in the project's IP
Log?
I don't see Higgins 1.1 in the project plan. When are
you planning to release that version?
I am also concerned that the level of transparency
demonstrated in these bugs is pretty low. It'd be nice
to see a few words in a comment from the committer
describing the discovered problem and perhaps citing
specific points in the code where changes are required.
Think of the bug as a record of the work done; somebody
reviewing the bugs should be able to at least get a
sense for what has happened.
Wayne
On 09/06/2011 03:26 PM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
Paul,
Those bugs don't appear to have any patches or code
attached to them. The expectation is that Iain's
contributions are documented through the bugs in the
form of code, not just as bug reports that he entered.
You can then indicate in the bugs that you reviewed
and committed the code he attached.
When that's done, I think you'll need to start the
nomination over again because his original nomination
was vetoed by the PMC.
Eric
On 9/6/11 1:25 PM, Paul Trevithick wrote:
Eric,
In the past month Iain has contributed code
and/or fixes related to the following bugs:
I committed the code and all of the above
are now fixed/closed.
How should we proceed there to resurrect
the committer election process for Iain?
Paul
On Aug 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Eric Rizzo
wrote:
Excellent. Thanks for understanding the
need for transparency and openness.
Eric
On 8/8/11 12:06 PM, Paul Trevithick wrote:
I've been committing
code that he hands me (we both work for Azigo.com).
Iain has agreed to
do this more transparently for a month.
We'll create some bugzilla entries and
he'll attached the code to them, and then
I'll review and commit them in. That way
we'll create the proper public record.
Paul
On Aug 8, 2011, at
11:58 AM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
How has he been
contributing code? Is there some other
public record of his contributions
besides Eclipse Bugzilla?
Just for
reference, here's the policy statement:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Technology#Committer_Elections
Eric
On 8/4/11 2:26 PM,
Paul Trevithick wrote:
Eric,
We can ask Iain
to start submitting patches to
Bugzilla and after say a month of him
doing that perhaps I can re-nominate
him. Does that make sense as a
process? Or is there some other way to
do this?
Paul
On Aug 4, 2011,
at 9:03 AM, Eric Rizzo wrote:
Paul,
Nominations
are expected to include direct
references to code contributions or
other concrete evidence of the
nominee's history of contribution.
Usually that includes Bugzilla links
that include accepted patches by the
nominee.
This is not
intended to question or doubt Iain's
worthiness, but rather to uphold our
standards and transparency.
Eric
On 8/3/11
12:01 AM, portal on behalf of emo
wrote:
technology
PMC Members,
This
automatically generated message
marks the completion of voting for
Iain
MacNeill's Committer status on the
technology.higgins project. As a
PMC member,
you can approve or disapprove this
vote through your My
Foundation
portal page:
http://portal.eclipse.org/
Iain
MacNeill was nominated by Paul
Trevithick as follows:
Iain has
over 12 years of software
development experience mostly
building
front-end
web applications. Lately he has
been actively contributing new
code and
enhancements to the Higgins 2.0
codebase. Most recently he's
worked on
creating the "portal" front-end
logic including the context
editor,
integration with the HBX plugin.
Vote
summary: 4/0/0 with 11 not voting
? Paula
Austel
? Duane
Buss
?
Anthony Bussani
? Greg
Byrd
?
Thomas Gross
?
Valery Kokhan
?
Vitaliy Lakhno
? Tie
Li
+1
Sergey Lyakhov
?
Michael McIntosh
+1 Mary
Ruddy
?
Markus Sabadello
? Jim
Sermersheim
+1
George Stanchev
+1 Paul
Trevithick
_______________________________________________
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
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
|