Hi Erwin,
Please help me further understand the
issue.
This
information is not available to us or anyone else not previously
working with him in the old tools. It would help if this information can
be made available when nominating someone as committer.
After reading this:
It seems that Jonah is working on a new component of the
project. It's totally fine to bring in new committers working on new
components. It's even easier if the component is already existing and is
being made open source / transferred to the Eclipse project.
In this case, I would suggest
the following process:
- file CQ with old work
- make sure to document his commit/author activity on the CQ
- start committer process referencing the CQ
Thanks!
-Gunnar
PMC members,
For what it's worth, Jonah is well-known in the science group and
by me, and his contributions are many and much appreciated.
He has just not yet contributed to Triquetrum as we're a young
project, and he was not added upfront as a committer in the
proposal (which would have passed without these reactions).
At today's unconference in Toulouse, Jonah has kindly offered to
migrate previous work into Triquetrum, on a specific way to
integrate between Java & external Python processes.
This is a thing of great value for scientific workflows.
He and Matt were the core developers on the previous
implementation (Matt knows Jonah well, just made a sarcastic joke
which was well understood by our group).
So it only seemed correct for me that this would be formalized by
having Jonah as committer for his work.
If this is not sufficient as merit (i.e. only historical merit
tracked in eclipse tools is acceptable for some reason), we'll
take the overhead of handling this in another way.
I would hope that the resulting contributions can then count as
proof-of-merit to give Jonah a-posteriori the committer status to
help maintaining this and to be able to add further value and
skills to our team and the project.
regards
erwin
Op 10/06/2016 om 21:02 schreef Jay Jay Billings:
That bug, and the ones
that it links to, are good but I think we also need to address a more
fundamental root cause. It should not surprise a project lead that he
needs to provide evidence of merit; it should be part of what he is
educated about in the process of becoming a committer and project lead.
I'll be honest: it absolutely shocks me that we have people in the
position of project leadership who do not fundamentally understand this.
*That* is what I consider more important than making the system prompt
and/or enforce; if we solve the root problem, those other things are
just convenient reminders.
Like many problems in software development, it seems like it's really a
communication problem.
Eric
Guys,
I totally agree. Unfortunately Erwin didn't reach out to
the other committers before nominating Jonah, so I didn't get to tell
him about the meritocratic requirement. This wouldn't be a problem if it
was on the form, I think.
Jay
