A list of specific contributions is always best, IMHO.
However--not that I want to muddy the waters here--rationalization
that an individual has made significant contributions to the initial
contribution in the past is also sufficient. e.g. "Bob has made
significant contributions to the project; he created the
such-and-such subsystem. He is joining the project to maintain and
grow that functionality." (or something like that).
For earlier nomination of a committer who was originally listed on
the project proposal, but timed out providing paperwork,
rationalization that they were listed as an original committer will
suffice. "foo-bar" isn't quite enough for us to go on :-)
In the case of a project like ICE or DawnSci which has a long
history that was squashed when the project moved to Eclipse, it may
be impossible to provide very specific pointers to very specific
contributions. You don't need to be "very specific", but you do need
to demonstrate why they should be a committer.
Wayne
On 24/02/15 11:20 AM, Jay Jay Billings
wrote:
Everyone,
If I can chime in as a project lead, I think I might be
able to clear some of it up. Both DAWNSci and ICE are
large government-funded projects that existed outside of
the Eclipse Foundation for a long time. We had our own
governance models for years. DAWN has upwards of fifty
current developers and ICE has upwards of 15 (not all of
which are Eclipse "commiters;" some of the code is
internal). Thus, it was more a "migration" to an Eclipse
project than starting a new one and we just didn't expect
it would be a problem to bring our people on board with
minimal justification.
(Matt, I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth.)
It wasn't clear to me when we started that the PMC needed to
vote on *my* committers and, as we discussed with Andrew
Bennett for ICE, it seemed hilariously strange to me that
you were saying "No, they have to make contributions through
Bugzilla before they can commit, even if they have been
funded as full-time employees on the project for years and
they were omitted from the paperwork by accident." Don't get
me wrong; I really like the nomination process and I am now
finding it very valuable, but it was just something new that
I wasn't used to nor expected.
So, pardon my long winded discussion, but I think it might
make it a little clearer why both Matt and I submitted
nominations for people with minimal justification. As Chris
suggests, the resolution to the problem is probably a better
discussion of this on the nomination form. I'm certain too
that this was in the process literature that I read on the
Eclipse wiki, but it could likely use some bold text or
otherwise more explicit presentation.
Again, don't get me wrong; I now find this process really
valuable since I've been stalking the list for awhile seeing
how and why people are nominated to be committers.
Hope this helps,
Jay
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
 |
