> BTW, I think it would be great now that we have
more members that we have
> at least two approvers for the committer votes.
I very much do not like the idea. What's the purpose/reason?
Seems to add process, bureaucracy, and confusion for little (if any) gain.
Plus, if there is a real disagreement or question,
another member could still vote "-1" ... even if it was to say
"wait, we need to discuss in a meeting". Remember, we are merely
approving that the committers "followed the rules of Eclipse"
in voting in a new committer; we ourselves are not deciding if they should
be a committer or not ... that's up to the project committers ... as long
as they are following the Eclipse process rules! [Note: mechanically, in
Portal, I think you should just say "wait" ... I believe a literal
'-1 vote' in the portal will terminate the process and the committers would
have to re-nominate and re-vote in that case, which is overkill, if a PMC
member just thought it needed more discussion before final decision.]
I would recommend if a PMC member has some question
or doubt, they could post a message saying they wanted to discuss at meeting
(even if no one had voted yet).
We can discuss the concept more at our meeting next
week, if you'd like.
You did ask! :)
Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
Tools PMC mailing list
02/07/2014 09:40 AM
PMC approval needed for committer vote for Dawid Paku?a
BTW, I think it would be great now that we have more members that we have
at least two approvers for the committer votes. Thoughts?
On 2/7/2014, 9:29 AM, "portal on behalf of emo"