Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] RE: Committer Status for ...

I was the first one to go through the voting process to become a
committer in WTP and all the committers were expected to vote at that
time. I remember that after my voting completed(thanks to the efforts
of Dominique) there was a discussion on the inpracticality of this
voting rule and it was changed. I checked the project charter and
there is a note added  on voting stated as "As per the Eclipse Board
meeting of December 8, 2004, the WTP PMC interprets this to mean; at
least 3 positive and no negative votes within a given voting period".
I guess this means we are OK.
Gorkem Ercan

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:46:31 -0500, Arthur Ryman <ryman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bjorn, 
> I think we do need to change the voting process. At present all committers
> are expected to vote because we have a fairly small number of committers.
> Now that BEA has joined, the number will soon double. We should start to
> divide CVS access according to components, and only require that committers
> within that component to vote for a new committer. For voting purposes,
> components will really be more like subsystems, not the granular components
> we have at present. 
> Committers within a component should be aware of the contributions, so I
> don't think it's necessary to provide a lot of supporting information. If
> you don't already know about the candidate then you shouldn't be voting. 
>  Arthur Ryman,
>  Rational Desktop Tools Development
>  phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
>  assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
>  fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
>  mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
>  intranet: 
>  "Bjorn Freeman-Benson" <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent by: wtp-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 02/25/2005 12:43 PM 
> Please respond to
>  wtp-dev 
> To <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> cc 
> Subject [wtp-dev] RE: Committer Status for ... 
> I wonder if (for the future, no need to fix the past) when we nominate
> someone for committer we might include links to a couple of representative
> bugs they have fixed (the bugs should have the patches attached, so we can
> see the patches). Maybe a few newsgroup postings (we can link through the
> archives), that sort of thing. This way those of us who have not worked with
> the individual can get some sense of the technical abilities of the person
> being nominated. 
> Sound reasonable? 

Back to the top