RE: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Ambarish Rapte]

Vote: Yes

-Original Message-
From: Guru 
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>
Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

Vote: YES

> On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> 
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> 
> Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
> 
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
> Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> 
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
> Committer is described in [6].
> 
> By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, Rajath 
> has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> 
> [2] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=auth
> or%28rkamath%29 [3] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=raja
> th.kamath
> 
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> 
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> 
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> 
> [7] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/02149
> 9.html
> 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Guru]

Vote: YES

> On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> 
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> 
> Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
> 
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
> Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> 
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
> Committer is described in [6].
> 
> By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, Rajath 
> has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> 
> [2] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
> [3] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath
> 
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> 
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> 
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> 
> [7] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html
> 

RE: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Ajit Ghaisas]

Vote: Yes

Regards,
Ajit

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Rushforth 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:12 PM
To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net; Rajath Kamath
Subject: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.

Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 changesets 
[2][3] to OpenJFX.

Votes are due by April 12, 2018.

Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.

For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
Committer is described in [6].

By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, Rajath has 
contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.

Thanks.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath

[2]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
[3]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath

[4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx

[5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus

[6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer

[7]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[ankit srivastav]

Vote: Yes

--Ankit

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Kevin Rushforth <
kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:

> I note that this vote is not valid. Only existing OpenJFX Project
> Committers are eligible to vote.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> Shiv Kumar Ganesh wrote:
>
>> VOTE: yes
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 10:23 AM Arunprasad Rajkumar <
>> arunprasad.rajku...@oracle.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>> VOTE: Yes
>>
>> > On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth
>> >
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
>> >
>> > Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed
>> 17 changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
>> >
>> > Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
>> >
>> > Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this
>> nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this
>> mailing list.
>> >
>> > For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a
>> project Committer is described in [6].
>> >
>> > By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since
>> then, Rajath has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > -- Kevin
>> >
>> > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
>> >
>> > [2]
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=
>> 20=author%28rkamath%29
>> > 20=author%28rkamath%29>
>> > [3]
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=
>> 20=rajath.kamath
>> > 20=rajath.kamath>
>> >
>> > [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
>> >
>> > [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
>> >
>> > [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
>> >
>> > [7]
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-Febr
>> uary/021499.html
>> >
>>
>>

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Phil Race]

Vote: yes

-phil.

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Kevin Rushforth]

I note that this vote is not valid. Only existing OpenJFX Project 
Committers are eligible to vote.


Thanks.

-- Kevin


Shiv Kumar Ganesh wrote:

VOTE: yes

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 10:23 AM Arunprasad Rajkumar 
> wrote:


VOTE: Yes

> On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth
>
wrote:
>
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
>
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed
17 changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
>
> Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
>
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this
nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this
mailing list.
>
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a
project Committer is described in [6].
>
> By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since
then, Rajath has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
>
> [2]

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29


> [3]

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath


>
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
>
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
>
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
>
> [7]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html
>

RE: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Murali Billa]

VOTE: YES


> On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> 
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> 
> Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
> 
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
> Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> 
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
> Committer is described in [6].
> 
> By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, Rajath 
> has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> 
> [2] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=auth
> or%28rkamath%29 [3] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=raja
> th.kamath
> 
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> 
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> 
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> 
> [7] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/02149
> 9.html
> 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Shiv Kumar Ganesh]

VOTE: yes

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 10:23 AM Arunprasad Rajkumar <
arunprasad.rajku...@oracle.com> wrote:

> VOTE: Yes
>
> > On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:
> >
> > I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> >
> > Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> >
> > Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
> >
> > Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this
> nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> >
> > For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project
> Committer is described in [6].
> >
> > By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then,
> Rajath has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- Kevin
> >
> > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> >
> > [2]
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
> > [3]
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath
> >
> > [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> >
> > [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> >
> > [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> >
> > [7]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html
> >
>
>

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Arunprasad Rajkumar]

VOTE: Yes

> On 29-Mar-2018, at 10:12 PM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> 
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> 
> Votes are due by April 12, 2018.
> 
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
> Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> 
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
> Committer is described in [6].
> 
> By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, Rajath 
> has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> 
> [2] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
> [3] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath
> 
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> 
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> 
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> 
> [7] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html
> 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Kevin Rushforth]

Vote: YES


Kevin Rushforth wrote:

I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.

Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 17 
changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.


Votes are due by April 12, 2018.

Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this 
nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing 
list.


For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a 
project Committer is described in [6].


By way of background, an earlier nomination failed [7]. Since then, 
Rajath has contributed 2 more test fixes and 1 more product fix.


Thanks.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath

[2] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29 

[3] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath 



[4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx

[5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus

[6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer

[7] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-February/021499.html 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Kevin Rushforth]

Hi Ankit,

If you read my response to your first email, I thought I was clear that 
we don't count test bugs the same as product fixes, but neither are they 
worth 0. Meaning that a few test fixes can certainly count towards 
"making up the difference" as I said.


As for your two other points:

I'm still sure that cosmic changes in Editor file should be awarded as 
0.5 instead of 1.

Saying a patch consist of coding, testing and etc, is just play of words.
All those activities are part of code changes and every body does 
that, nothing special about it.

I don't see them as separate activities.


I understand what you are saying here, and there is no objective 
criteria by which a patch is considered significant...it will always be 
a judgment call. The reason I pointed out analysis and testing is to 
distinguish it, for example, from a hypothetical patch to add a null 
check to avoid an NPE, but without any analysis or testing to make sure 
that it isn't just masking a symptom.


I think that all 7 of the ones I listed can be considered significant 
(even though a couple might be on the bubble). Still, to satisfy your 
point, I will wait for one more product fix before putting forth 
Rajath's nomination again.


For 
patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 
  , I 
can see 5 contributors.
I don't know the exact contribution from Rajath, it could be as small 
as a comment change or could be the whole patch itself [ In that case 
why do we have 4 other contributors ].
Considering equal efforts by all contributors [ taking the best case 
], Individual contribution = [1/5] --> 0.2.   For Committer status 
round off --> 0.

So that patch is 0 for me, unless actual code changes can be shown.


I'm sorry, but saying that this changeset doesn't count (for anyone 
according to your math) is quite simply a fallacious argument that isn't 
backed up by any precedent in the OpenJDK community.


-- Kevin


ankit srivastav wrote:



I have no idea when/why test bugs started to get counted for committer 
status.
The last time I checked, number of lines of patch matters the most 
irrespective of the significance of the patch [ that was a very 
strange and funny way of judging a patch, must be an idea from a non 
technical person].


If that would be the it;s way too easy to become committer in Javafx 
community.
Looks like Javafx community does't have any proper way to judge patch 
significance or  the rules can be tailored as per the circumstances.



1) 
Two of my DRT Media patches were counted as 0.5  and those were not 
cosmic changes.[ May be now you give me a reason for that ? I also did 
coding, testing and etc for those patches]


I'm still sure that cosmic changes in Editor file should be awarded as 
0.5 instead of 1.

Saying a patch consist of coding, testing and etc, is just play of words.
All those activities are part of code changes and every body does 
that, nothing special about it.

I don't see them as separate activities.

2)
For 
patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 
  , I 
can see 5 contributors.
I don't know the exact contribution from Rajath, it could be as small 
as a comment change or could be the whole patch itself [ In that case 
why do we have 4 other contributors ].
Considering equal efforts by all contributors [ taking the best case 
], Individual contribution = [1/5] --> 0.2.   For Committer status 
round off --> 0.

So that patch is 0 for me, unless actual code changes can be shown.


Rest of the things look fine to me.

--Ankit













On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:34 AM, ankit srivastav > wrote:


Dear Kevin,

I will get back to you on this shortly with substantial claims.


--Ankit

On 28 Feb 2018 2:23 a.m., "Kevin Rushforth"
>
wrote:

Hi Ankit,

In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at
the the list of changes, and believe that my earlier
nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX Project Committer was
justified, if perhaps barely so.

While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a
particular changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look
at 2 to 4 trivial fixes or test-only fixes to "make up the
difference" in case only 6 or 7 are deemed "significant". This
is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes before we nominate
someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over whether one
or two are worthy of being counted.

Rather than respond to each of your comments individually
(although I do have one point below), I will instead list the
fixes I consider significant.

In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Jonathan Giles]

Ankit,

You should zoom out a little bit and look at the bigger picture. Does
OpenJFX want more or less contributors? Does OpenJFX want to make the
burden to becoming a committer easier or more difficult? Does OpenJFX want
to be a community that welcomes or shuns people who are ready to contribute?

Trying to objectively quantify contributions to a community is difficult,
so the question I always ask myself is - do we want to welcome this person
into the community even further, by enabling them to grow and offer more,
or do we want to keep pushing back on the contributor until they either
meet some goal or leave in frustration? Based on this criteria, and the
contributions that Kevin has outlined, I would much rather we have Rajath
be part of our community than not. Delaying his committer status has no
real effect here other than to cause slow downs - he is a member of the
JavaFX team at Oracle, this is what he will be doing regardless - just with
more hurdles in place until he becomes committer :-)

I would advocate for your acceptance of Rajath, in the spirit of community
harmony and further progression of JavaFX. Being a committer does not imply
that Rajath has unfettered access to OpenJFX with no risk of reprisal - he
still has to go through the same review process as everyone else - it just
means that at the very end, once the work is reviewed and accepted, he can
push it to the repo on his own, without requiring the input of anyone else.
Committer status, in other words, should not require a huge burden of
excellence - it should require just enough to know that the person is
committed to the cause, and to not desire to cause havoc in the repo :-)

-- Jonathan


On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:44 AM, ankit srivastav  wrote:

> I have no idea when/why test bugs started to get counted for committer
> status.
> The last time I checked, number of lines of patch matters the most
> irrespective of the significance of the patch [ that was a very strange and
> funny way of judging a patch, must be an idea from a non technical person].
>
> If that would be the it;s way too easy to become committer in Javafx
> community.
> Looks like Javafx community does't have any proper way to judge patch
> significance or  the rules can be tailored as per the circumstances.
>
>
> 1)
> Two of my DRT Media patches were counted as 0.5  and those were not cosmic
> changes.[ May be now you give me a reason for that ? I also did coding,
> testing and etc for those patches]
>
> I'm still sure that cosmic changes in Editor file should be awarded as 0.5
> instead of 1.
> Saying a patch consist of coding, testing and etc, is just play of words.
> All those activities are part of code changes and every body does that,
> nothing special about it.
> I don't see them as separate activities.
>
> 2)
> For patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1
> ,
> I can see 5 contributors.
> I don't know the exact contribution from Rajath, it could be as small as a
> comment change or could be the whole patch itself [ In that case why do we
> have 4 other contributors ].
> Considering equal efforts by all contributors [ taking the best case ],
> Individual contribution = [1/5] --> 0.2.   For Committer status round off
> --> 0.
> So that patch is 0 for me, unless actual code changes can be shown.
>
>
> Rest of the things look fine to me.
>
> --Ankit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:34 AM, ankit srivastav 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Kevin,
> >
> > I will get back to you on this shortly with substantial claims.
> >
> >
> > --Ankit
> >
> > On 28 Feb 2018 2:23 a.m., "Kevin Rushforth" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ankit,
> >>
> >> In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at the the list
> >> of changes, and believe that my earlier nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX
> >> Project Committer was justified, if perhaps barely so.
> >>
> >> While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a particular
> >> changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look at 2 to 4 trivial
> fixes
> >> or test-only fixes to "make up the difference" in case only 6 or 7 are
> >> deemed "significant". This is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes before
> we
> >> nominate someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over whether one or
> >> two are worthy of being counted.
> >>
> >> Rather than respond to each of your comments individually (although I do
> >> have one point below), I will instead list the fixes I consider
> significant.
> >>
> >> In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the following 7
> >> non-test fixes to be significant, even though several of them were only
> a
> >> few lines of product code changed:
> >>
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88
> >> 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[ankit srivastav]

I have no idea when/why test bugs started to get counted for committer
status.
The last time I checked, number of lines of patch matters the most
irrespective of the significance of the patch [ that was a very strange and
funny way of judging a patch, must be an idea from a non technical person].

If that would be the it;s way too easy to become committer in Javafx
community.
Looks like Javafx community does't have any proper way to judge patch
significance or  the rules can be tailored as per the circumstances.


1)
Two of my DRT Media patches were counted as 0.5  and those were not cosmic
changes.[ May be now you give me a reason for that ? I also did coding,
testing and etc for those patches]

I'm still sure that cosmic changes in Editor file should be awarded as 0.5
instead of 1.
Saying a patch consist of coding, testing and etc, is just play of words.
All those activities are part of code changes and every body does that,
nothing special about it.
I don't see them as separate activities.

2)
For patch http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1  ,
I can see 5 contributors.
I don't know the exact contribution from Rajath, it could be as small as a
comment change or could be the whole patch itself [ In that case why do we
have 4 other contributors ].
Considering equal efforts by all contributors [ taking the best case ],
Individual contribution = [1/5] --> 0.2.   For Committer status round off
--> 0.
So that patch is 0 for me, unless actual code changes can be shown.


Rest of the things look fine to me.

--Ankit













On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:34 AM, ankit srivastav  wrote:

> Dear Kevin,
>
> I will get back to you on this shortly with substantial claims.
>
>
> --Ankit
>
> On 28 Feb 2018 2:23 a.m., "Kevin Rushforth" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ankit,
>>
>> In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at the the list
>> of changes, and believe that my earlier nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX
>> Project Committer was justified, if perhaps barely so.
>>
>> While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a particular
>> changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look at 2 to 4 trivial fixes
>> or test-only fixes to "make up the difference" in case only 6 or 7 are
>> deemed "significant". This is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes before we
>> nominate someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over whether one or
>> two are worthy of being counted.
>>
>> Rather than respond to each of your comments individually (although I do
>> have one point below), I will instead list the fixes I consider significant.
>>
>> In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the following 7
>> non-test fixes to be significant, even though several of them were only a
>> few lines of product code changed:
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 (see
>> comment below)
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/9f43fb83e989
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b
>>
>> In all cases there needed to be an analysis, a fix, and testing to ensure
>> that the bug was fixed without introducing a regression. As for your
>> assertion about his part of the collaborative fix to upgrade WebKit to
>> v605.1, JDK-8187483 (changeset dc2963c3f7d1), you make an unsubstantiated
>> claim regarding his contribution. As he did contribute to that fix, I don't
>> see any reason to question how significant it was.
>>
>> In addition to the above 7, and excluding JDK-8185314 (the removal of
>> unused files, which I would agree does not count at all), the other three
>> test fixes are in my opinion enough justify the nomination.
>>
>> I would finally point out that Rajath contributed three additional test
>> fixes during the two week voting period, for a new total of 14 changesets
>> (13 excluding the unused file removal).
>>
>> Please respond to the list as to whether you feel the additional three
>> test fixes, along with my additional explanation, is enough to satisfy your
>> concerns over this nomination, and if not, why not. I would like to put the
>> nomination forward again for a vote once the objections are resolved.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> ankit srivastav wrote:
>>
>> NO,
>>
>> Please go through the table, all the points accumulated are not even more
>> then 7.
>> I have given reasons for my points.
>>
>>
>> *age*
>>
>> *author*
>>
>> *description*
>>
>> Points
>>
>> Reason
>>
>> 8 days ago
>>
>> rkamath
>>
>> 8196802: 3D unit tests listed as pass  although they are actually skipped
>> 
>>
>> 0.5
>>
>> Test file, not a direct 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[ankit srivastav]

Dear Kevin,

I will get back to you on this shortly with substantial claims.


--Ankit

On 28 Feb 2018 2:23 a.m., "Kevin Rushforth" 
wrote:

> Hi Ankit,
>
> In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at the the list
> of changes, and believe that my earlier nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX
> Project Committer was justified, if perhaps barely so.
>
> While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a particular
> changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look at 2 to 4 trivial fixes
> or test-only fixes to "make up the difference" in case only 6 or 7 are
> deemed "significant". This is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes before we
> nominate someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over whether one or
> two are worthy of being counted.
>
> Rather than respond to each of your comments individually (although I do
> have one point below), I will instead list the fixes I consider significant.
>
> In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the following 7
> non-test fixes to be significant, even though several of them were only a
> few lines of product code changed:
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 (see
> comment below)
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/9f43fb83e989
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b
>
> In all cases there needed to be an analysis, a fix, and testing to ensure
> that the bug was fixed without introducing a regression. As for your
> assertion about his part of the collaborative fix to upgrade WebKit to
> v605.1, JDK-8187483 (changeset dc2963c3f7d1), you make an unsubstantiated
> claim regarding his contribution. As he did contribute to that fix, I don't
> see any reason to question how significant it was.
>
> In addition to the above 7, and excluding JDK-8185314 (the removal of
> unused files, which I would agree does not count at all), the other three
> test fixes are in my opinion enough justify the nomination.
>
> I would finally point out that Rajath contributed three additional test
> fixes during the two week voting period, for a new total of 14 changesets
> (13 excluding the unused file removal).
>
> Please respond to the list as to whether you feel the additional three
> test fixes, along with my additional explanation, is enough to satisfy your
> concerns over this nomination, and if not, why not. I would like to put the
> nomination forward again for a vote once the objections are resolved.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> ankit srivastav wrote:
>
> NO,
>
> Please go through the table, all the points accumulated are not even more
> then 7.
> I have given reasons for my points.
>
>
> *age*
>
> *author*
>
> *description*
>
> Points
>
> Reason
>
> 8 days ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8196802: 3D unit tests listed as pass  although they are actually skipped
> 
>
> 0.5
>
> Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.
>
> 10 days ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8089454: [HTMLEditor] selection removes CENTER alignment
> 
>
> 0.5
>
> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
> product.
>
> 13 days ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8196615: Skip 3D unit tests on system without 3D capability
> 
>
> 0.5
>
> Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.
>
> 4 weeks ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8165459: HTMLEditor: clipboard toolbar buttons are disabled unexpectedly
> 
>
> 0.5
>
> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
> product.
>
> 7 weeks ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8088925: Non opaque background cause NumberFormatException
> 
>
> 0.5
>
> A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
> directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
> the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
> product.
>
> 2 months ago
>
> rkamath
>
> 8090011: 'tab' key makes control loose focus
> 
> jdk-10+36
>
> 0.5
>
> A very small change, why 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Kevin Rushforth]

Hi Ankit,

In response to your veto, I took the opportunity to look at the the list 
of changes, and believe that my earlier nomination of Rajath to OpenJFX 
Project Committer was justified, if perhaps barely so.


While there is no objective criteria by which one can say a particular 
changeset is worth 0.5 of a fix, we do often look at 2 to 4 trivial 
fixes or test-only fixes to "make up the difference" in case only 6 or 7 
are deemed "significant". This is why we usually want 10 or 12 fixes 
before we nominate someone for Committer -- to avoid quibbling over 
whether one or two are worthy of being counted.


Rather than respond to each of your comments individually (although I do 
have one point below), I will instead list the fixes I consider significant.


In looking at the list of fixes again, I would consider the following 7 
non-test fixes to be significant, even though several of them were only 
a few lines of product code changed:


http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/3d5c22069d1f
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/5a3cc1b5bb22
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/674513271a88
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dc2963c3f7d1 (see 
comment below)

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/9f43fb83e989
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/dedd5afd753e
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/rev/cfa038af148b

In all cases there needed to be an analysis, a fix, and testing to 
ensure that the bug was fixed without introducing a regression. As for 
your assertion about his part of the collaborative fix to upgrade WebKit 
to v605.1, JDK-8187483 (changeset dc2963c3f7d1), you make an 
unsubstantiated claim regarding his contribution. As he did contribute 
to that fix, I don't see any reason to question how significant it was.


In addition to the above 7, and excluding JDK-8185314 (the removal of 
unused files, which I would agree does not count at all), the other 
three test fixes are in my opinion enough justify the nomination.


I would finally point out that Rajath contributed three additional test 
fixes during the two week voting period, for a new total of 14 
changesets (13 excluding the unused file removal).


Please respond to the list as to whether you feel the additional three 
test fixes, along with my additional explanation, is enough to satisfy 
your concerns over this nomination, and if not, why not. I would like to 
put the nomination forward again for a vote once the objections are 
resolved.


Thank you.

-- Kevin


ankit srivastav wrote:

NO,

Please go through the table, all the points accumulated are not even 
more then 7.

I have given reasons for my points.


*age*



*author*



*description*



Points



Reason

8 days ago



rkamath



8196802: 3D unit tests listed as pass  although they are actually 
skipped 





0.5



Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product. 


10 days ago



rkamath



8089454: [HTMLEditor] selection removes CENTER alignment 





0.5



A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets 
called directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is 
required to make the change, which actually defies the purpose of 
getting knowledge of the product.


13 days ago



rkamath



8196615: Skip 3D unit tests on system without 3D capability 





0.5



Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product. 


4 weeks ago



rkamath



8165459: HTMLEditor: clipboard toolbar buttons are disabled 
unexpectedly 





0.5



A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets 
called directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is 
required to make the change, which actually defies the purpose of 
getting knowledge of the product.


7 weeks ago



rkamath



8088925: Non opaque background cause NumberFormatException 





0.5



A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets 
called directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is 
required to make the change, which actually defies the purpose of 
getting knowledge of the product.


2 months ago



rkamath



8090011: 'tab' key makes control loose focus 
jdk-10+36




0.5



A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets 
called directly from the APP 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[ankit srivastav]

NO,

Please go through the table, all the points accumulated are not even more
then 7.
I have given reasons for my points.


*age*

*author*

*description*

Points

Reason

8 days ago

rkamath

8196802: 3D unit tests listed as pass  although they are actually skipped


0.5

Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.

10 days ago

rkamath

8089454: [HTMLEditor] selection removes CENTER alignment


0.5

A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
product.

13 days ago

rkamath

8196615: Skip 3D unit tests on system without 3D capability


0.5

Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.

4 weeks ago

rkamath

8165459: HTMLEditor: clipboard toolbar buttons are disabled unexpectedly


0.5

A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
product.

7 weeks ago

rkamath

8088925: Non opaque background cause NumberFormatException


0.5

A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
product.

2 months ago

rkamath

8090011: 'tab' key makes control loose focus

jdk-10+36

0.5

A very small change, why I’m saying so, as the file modified gets called
directly from the APP written. No debugging/a little is required to make
the change, which actually defies the purpose of getting knowledge of the
product.

*age*

*author*

*description*

Points

Reason

2 months ago

mbilla

8187483: Update to 605.1 version of WebKit


0

Unless you directly point what changes you have made in the patch I will
count it has 0. Most probably you have made changes for DRT, which even a
tester can do. Moving DRT is a non technical task, requires no technical
skills.

3 months ago

mbilla

8187928: [WebView] Images copied from clipboard not written in source file
format


1


4 months ago

ghb

8178290: Intermittent test failure in test.com.sun.webkit.network.CookieTest

jdk-10+29

0.5

Changes in Test file, not a direct impact-able code change in product.

4 months ago

mbilla

8187726: [WebView] Copy and Paste of Image not resulting in expected
behavior

jdk-10+27

1


4 months ago

mbilla

8187671: [WebView] Drag and Drop of text or html results in an image


1


5 months ago

ghb

8089124: HTML5: Number input allows non-numeric input


0.5

Only setting value changes. For me this kind of change was not even get
considered for Author status.

5 months ago

ghb

8185314: Remove unused third-party python scripts from WebKit sources


0

No actual code change, you have only removed it.It seems it was not even
getting called otherwise you must have change some other files which calls
function from these files.


Adding all the points, total sum = 7.
So it's a NO for me.
I think you have to solve at least 3 more issues to get to the committer
status.

*The whole idea behind becoming a committer is to get good solid product
knowledge not the issue count.*
*Quality matters over quantity.*

Which one can only get after solving variety of issues with various  level
of difficulty level.

Here I can see you have 3 checkins for  file HTMLEditorSkin.java.
This file basically  gets I/P from APP written.
No/little debugging skill is require to solve the issue in this file.

For all the test changes I have awarded 0.5 as no direct impact on product.
For DRT, moving DRT from one revision to another is just a side job.
Anybody can do that.
If I tell a 12th grader then even he can also do that.
Also I'm not sure what's the actual contribution so awarded as 0.

Removing a file, that's too unused, no code change so 0.

*I have awarded 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Semyon Sadetsky]

Vote: yes

--Semyon


On 02/12/2018 02:02 PM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:

I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.

Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11 
changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.


Votes are due by February 26, 2018.

Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this 
nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing 
list.


For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a 
project Committer is described in [6].


Thanks.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath

[2] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
[3] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath


[4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx

[5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus

[6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer

RE: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Guru Prasad HB]

Vote: Yes

-Original Message-
From: Kevin Rushforth 
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:32 AM
To: Rajath Kamath ; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.

Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11 changesets 
[2][3] to OpenJFX.

Votes are due by February 26, 2018.

Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.

For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
Committer is described in [6].

Thanks.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath

[2]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
[3]
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath

[4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx

[5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus

[6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Arunprasad Rajkumar]

Vote: YES

> On 13-Feb-2018, at 3:32 AM, Kevin Rushforth  
> wrote:
> 
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
> 
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
> 
> Votes are due by February 26, 2018.
> 
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this nomination. 
> Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing list.
> 
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a project 
> Committer is described in [6].
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
> 
> [2] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29
> [3] 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath
> 
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
> 
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
> 
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
> 

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Murali Billa]

Vote: YES


Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.
>
> Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11 
> changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.
>
> Votes are due by February 26, 2018.
>
> Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this 
> nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing 
> list.
>
> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a 
> project Committer is described in [6].
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Kevin
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath
>
> [2]
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=auth
> or%28rkamath%29
>
> [3]
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=raja
> th.kamath
>
>
> [4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx
>
> [5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
>
> [6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer
>

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Philip Race]

Vote: yes

-phil.

Re: CFV: New OpenJFX Committer: Rajath Kamath

[Kevin Rushforth]

Vote: YES


Kevin Rushforth wrote:

I hereby nominate Rajath Kamath [1] to OpenJFX Committer.

Rajath is a member of JavaFX team at Oracle, who has contributed 11 
changesets [2][3] to OpenJFX.


Votes are due by February 26, 2018.

Only current OpenJFX Committers [4] are eligible to vote on this 
nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to this mailing 
list.


For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5]. Nomination to a 
project Committer is described in [6].


Thanks.

-- Kevin

[1] http://openjdk.java.net/census#rkamath

[2] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=author%28rkamath%29 

[3] 
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt/log?revcount=20=rajath.kamath 



[4] http://openjdk.java.net/census#openjfx

[5] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus

[6] http://openjdk.java.net/projects#project-committer