|Re: [technology-pmc] Issues with Committer Elections at technology.dawnsci|
So, I think we're good here. If you see Gunnar's statement below and Wayne's earlier guidance, you can re-nominate your developers citing their history with the project and that should clear everything up.
No one wants to see something small like this result in DAWNSci "getting turned off" (especially me). I think we all understand your frustration, but I think both the EMO and the PMC have provided enough guidance on this issue to get your nominations through if you just resubmit them with a clearer statement.
> Am 24.02.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.
Please reach out to your mentors. They are volunteering to help any project with process related questions. Also, no-one is asking for contributions via Bugzilla.
> 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.
Please keep in mind that people outside of your project don't have the context. We need to decide based on the data at hand. The very few words you have written above: "they have been funded as full-time employees on the project for years and they were omitted from the paperwork by accident" instead of "foo-bar" would have prevented it all.
Back to the top