| Re: [technology-pmc] Committer Nominations |
|
Thanks for starting this discussion. I agree with your list. Can I assume, though, that we still need to have an actual statement of merit that summarizes the manner of the contribution? FWIW, I think that we can generate a reasonable default merit statement 80% of the time. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=366435
I'm inclined to interpret this as a 0 and an indication that we need to provide better education for new committers and project team.sEven worse, there is a +1 vote from another committer with the comment "I don't know who this person is." (!).
On 11/06/16 04:57 AM, Gunnar
Wagenknecht wrote:
Technology PMC Members, Given the recent case - I'd like to have a discussion about the "meritocratic nature" of the nomination process. I see the following possibilities for demonstrating merit: (1) Contributions to an existing projects -> proof is Gerrit, bugs with patches, pull requests and/or wiki edits (2) Ownership of new component brought (migrated) into a project -> proof is CQ with source and commit/author info (ideally log) (3) Project reboot (existing committers are inactive and need to be replaced to keep project alive) -> proof of inactivity Thoughts? Note:Even worse, there is a +1 vote from another committer with the comment "I don't know who this person is." (!).That's a clear no-go. It's our responsibility as a PMC to catch this. For me this translates into a -1 (ignoring the actual vote). As such, I'd immediately veto the committer election. -Gunnar _______________________________________________ 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 
|