Committers review and approve contributions

[waynebeaton]

The Eclipse S-CORE documentation introduces a notion of technical lead which is not formalised in the Eclipse Foundation Development Process (EDP).

In the description of the role, it is suggested that technical leads are responsible for reviewing and approving contributions.

score/docs/platform_management_plan/project_management.rst

Line 52 in 8e8891d

* Review and approval of contributions, e.g. *Feature Requests*, which add or modify S-CORE platform features.

Per the EDP, this is a responsibility for committers. As a minimum, anybody who is designated as having this responsibility must have committer status as that role is defined in the EDP.

It is completely reasonable to define the role, but those who hold the role only have as much authority as the project committers grant them.

Further, when you are defining a formal role, there must be a well defined open path to achieve that role. "Project leads get to appoint who they want" (paraphrasing) isn't particularly open.

e.g,.

1. Individual shows up to the vendor neutral open source Eclipse S-CORE project and starts making contributions
2. After having publicly made a significant number of high quality contributions and demonstrating that they understand the open source process, the individual is invited to join the project as a committer
3. After publicly demonstrating technical leadership by (for example) mentoring other committers, contributors, and adopters, the individual is invited to join the technical lead circle.

[FScholPer]

Thank you @waynebeaton Added todays agenda https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516

[johannes-esr]

@waynebeaton, we want to discuss this with the PLs of the project - can you join our weekly sync on Friday 10 am CET? The invitation is in the Eclipse SDV calendar.

[waynebeaton]

@johannes-esr I'm in the Eastern Time zone. 4 AM is a little early, but I'll see what I can do.

I am concerned about a general theme of authority flowing from the top-down.

Each Project Lead is allowed to nominate one Technical Lead.

I've further commented on two recent elections where it appears that project leads are being designated based on decisions made within the management chain of an organisation (or at least made without consideration of actual contribution to the project).

• https://www.eclipse.org/lists/score-dev/msg00037.html
• https://www.eclipse.org/lists/score-dev/msg00047.html

It can't work this way in an open, transparent, and meritocratic process.

In an open, transparent, and meritocratic vendor-neutral process authority comes from the folks who are actually doing the work (that is, bottom-up).

This isn’t a silly or unnecessary hoop to jump through. It’s a practical, essential part of professional development within the open source world. If a developer is truly ready for the responsibilities of a committer, technical lead, project lead, etc. they should be able to produce a few high-quality contributions, participate in discussions, and generally engage with the community in a way that is visible and valuable. This process might take a few weeks or a few months, but it’s an invaluable period of acclimation. It’s during this time that they learn the project’s codebase, its community norms, and its technical direction. They get to know the people, and the people get to know them.

Committer status is not a symbolic or honorary title. It is not a administrative hurdle on the path to becoming a project lead. It comes with real, practical responsibilities and powers: the ability to merge code, to approve releases, and to make binding decisions on the project’s future. It is a position of trust, and that trust must be earned and demonstrated.

This process is what ensures the project’s long-term health and independence.

[johannes-esr]

@waynebeaton, I fully get your points - unfortunately the project lead circle meeting next Friday got cancelled. Would the 12th of September also work for you? Then I'd also check with @antonkri to move the meetings by some hours so it's easier to join from your end.

[waynebeaton]

Add me to your meeting and I'll do my best to attend.

[johannes-esr]

Hi @waynebeaton, the meeting on Friday will be again cancelled, therefore I wrote @chheis so he can schedule a meeting to discuss this topic more in detail.

[waynebeaton]

We connected and discussed this. What is the resolution?