Re: Subject: CFV: New JDK 10 Committer: Erik Österlund

[Claes Redestad]

On 2017-06-22 14:45, jesper.wilhelmsson at oracle.com wrote:
>> No rule change needed, but a social shift is long overdue.
> I'm not sure what you mean by social shift. Do you mean that we should lower the bar for what a significant change is? Or do you mean that we should let our friends slip by because we know that they are good developers?

I think your bar for what's considered a significant change is generally 
way too high, yes, especially for a Committer rule.

Does it fix a failing test, a failing build, or adjust the behavior of 
the product in some measurable way? -> Significant. Shouldn't matter if 
it's just adding a volatile qualifier.

Fixing typos, adding a test to Problem list -> Not significant

> I agree that the rules could be changed to make it easier to become a Committer. Personally I would like to merge Author and Committer and say that anyone that has proven an interest in contributing to the OpenJDK by submitting a few patches could become what we today call Committer. But the rules are in place as is and we should follow them in the same way as we would if the vote was about someone that we didn't know.

I agree that the rules are to be followed, I just don't agree with the 
justification that any of the changes Erik has done so far are 
insignificant and should motivate a veto.

I fully agree that the rules should be changed, mostly to take out the 
wording of "significant" from the rules (instead explicitly enumerate 
what types of changes are not to be counted), but merging the Author and 
Committer roles would also be welcome.

/Claes