Material contributions that show expertise can easily be documentation or
helping answer questions, right? This was one of the intended ways to
interpret that point.
The same goes for stable and maintainable. Although those are attributes we
commonly think about for code, it's important that contr
Hi Ryan,
Thanks. I think the confusion is about what you describe like
"contributions and reviews", reading the page:
"
..
* Has the candidate made independent material contributions to the
community that show expertise?
...
* Have the candidate’s contributions been stable and maintainable?
...
"
I want to make a clarification. I did comment on that PR that we are
describing how the community is operating today, but that was in response
to suggestions to reference the comdev project, lower the requirements, and
add a requirement for loving the project and helping the community. My
intent is
Hi Justin
For reference, here's the original PR:
https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/11670
I agree with you, and I commented in the PR about the same points:
- considering non code contributions (also referring com dev page
https://community.apache.org/pmc/adding-committers.html as "example")
Hi,
From a quick glance, this seems far too focused on code contributions.
Remember, people can become committers from non-code contributions. A committer
is someone that is committed to the project and may not review or write code.
It would also be good to set some expectations around the amou
Hi everyone,
Earlier this year, there were a few threads on this list that highlighted
that it wasn’t clear enough how contributors become committers, so the PMC
put together a doc to explain some of the common questions, including:
- What are the responsibilities of a committer?
- How are
