It looks good to me, too. But maybe we can make the
inactivity-for-committer-removal period longer than what is described in the
Fineract model? (six months + four weeks notice) That seems too short to me.
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 8:38 PM, Mitul Tiwari <mitultiw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It looks good to me.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matthew Hayes <
matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay will do. I'll reply back when finished.
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Russell Jurney <russell.jur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This sounds better than the objection model. I agree. That's cool if you
> > want to draft it!
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:07 AM Matthew Hayes <
> > matthew.terence.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Russell Jurney @rjurney <http://twitter.com/rjurney>
> > russell.jur...@gmail.com LI <http://linkedin.com/in/russelljurney> FB
> > <http://facebook.com/jurney> datasyndrome.com
> >
>
