qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From michael goulish <mgoul...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Committership Criteria
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:02:45 GMT
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 12:48 -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > As there have been no comments or questions on the discussion thread, 
> > I'm going to move this to a vote:
> > 
> > Qualities we look for:
> > 
> >   - A candidate must demonstrate an understanding of how our project
> >     is structured and how we work.
> > 
> >   - A candidate must communicate openly about work planned/in-progress.
> > 
> >   - A candidate must demonstrate expertise in a significant area of
> >     the existing code base.
> > 
> >   - A candidate must demonstrate an extended commitment to the
> >     project.
> > 
> > Tests for these qualities:
> > 
> >   - contacting the right team members to discuss changes
> > 
> >   - actively soliciting feedback for significant changes or new
> >     development
> > 
> >   - multiple independent contributions over a period of several months
> > 
> >   - sponsorship by someone who has worked directly with the candidate
> >     reviewing and committing patches
> > 
> >   - detailed positive feedback from those who have worked directly
> >     with the candidate
> > 
> >   - a record of patches that maintain or improve the quality of the
> >     code without the need for feedback or rework
> 
> 14 Binding +1 Votes:
>    Rob Godfrey
>    Rafael Schloming
>    Kim van der Reit
>    Steve Huston
>    Robert Greig
>    Rajith Attapattu
>    Jonathan Robie
>    Ted Ross
>    Martin Ritchie
>    Alan Conway
>    Robbie Gemmell
>    Aidan Skinner
>    Marnie McCormack
>    Nuno Santos
> 
> 2 Non-Binding +1 Votes:
>    Andrew Stitcher
>    Sam Joyce
> 
> Gordon Sim commented that the first quality should be clarified.
> Mick Goulish voted +1 with the caveat that the first quality should be 
> clarified/removed.
> 
> There were no zero or -1 votes.
> 
> I believe this passes. I'm not sure what the official rules are around 
> the caveats, but I'm happy to work to clarify the first quality either way.
> 
> --Rafael
> 

I think the rules around such caveats have to be as follow:

  1. If the vote passes without the caveat votes, then it passes.

  2. If the vote does not pass even with the caveat votes, then it does
not pass.

  3. If the vote passes only with the caveat votes, then you satisfy the
caveats before considering it to have passed.


In this case, it passes regardless of caveats so you can ignore them at
your pleasure -- however, since they are asking for clarification, and
since the item in question definitely needs a little, and since you're
happy to do it -- take a whack at it and post the clarification.

Can you make a 5- to 15-point list of "how our project is structured and
how we work" ?




---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message