This looks pretty good to me overall. However for the contributor to committer process, I wonder if we should have a vote in the private list (as we have been doing) instead of someone implicitly becoming a committer if there are no vetoes from the discussion. My concern is that the message may be missed and other committers miss the opportunity to share their views in favor or against. What are your opinions on this? Also I'd be happy to draft the doc by the way.
-Matt On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Russell Jurney <russell.jur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, it looks good to me. I like it as is. > > Russell Jurney @rjurney <http://twitter.com/rjurney> > russell.jur...@gmail.com LI <http://linkedin.com/in/russelljurney> FB > <http://facebook.com/jurney> datasyndrome.com > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Sam Shah <shah...@umich.edu> wrote: > > > Looks good to me. I like the inclusion of non-code contributions as a > path > > to committer status as well. > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Russell Jurney <russell.jur...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Something came up as we prepare DataFu for graduation. We haven't > > > documented the process of nominating and approving new committers. From > > the > > > thread with Matt Hayes: > > > > > > > > > > So far the process has been that I start a discussion in the private > > list > > > > when I think someone has made enough good contributions. If there's > > good > > > > feedback we vote. Anyone in the PPMC can initiate this; we just > > haven't > > > > documented it. > > > > > > > > > A good example of a page that roughly works this way is here: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/ > > Becoming+a+Committer > > > > > > What do folks think of using this as a template for our process? Any > > > additions/edits people want? > > > > > > Russell Jurney @rjurney <http://twitter.com/rjurney> > > > russell.jur...@gmail.com LI <http://linkedin.com/in/russelljurney> FB > > > <http://facebook.com/jurney> datasyndrome.com > > > > > >
