On 11/8/11 1:47 PM, Markus Knauer wrote:
Based on the assumption that a package maintainer committer must
have a deep knowledge about his/her package internals (i.e. the
projects that go into a certain package) it is an absolute
requirement that he/she is already committer on one or many of
those projects. Because of this existing committership on other
projects, I wouldn't expect too many problems to justify an
election. Or am I wrong?
Unless the Technology Project's written policy on committer
elections is changed, that EPP policy would contradict it. Here's
the quote from the Tech Project page at
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Technology#Committer_Elections
"The Technology PMC requires that all committer nominations include
specific rationalization of the merit of the individual. At a
minimum, we expect that all committer nominations include a
list of bugs (including ids) that the candidate has contributed
patches to, and that those patches have been accepted (committed) by
an existing committer."
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the concept that's being
proposed for EPP, just pointing out the apparent contradiction in
published policies. What I am opposed to is having a published
policy for EPP that does not completely comply with the published
policy of the Technology Project. But I do think it's something we
can remedy; in my message a few minutes ago I proposed the type of
modification to the Tech Project's policy that I think would
accommodate EPP's proposed policy.
Eric
|