Keith Campbell has been an active contributor to the Eclipse OMR project since its inception in 2016. Keith has deep knowledge in many components in OMR such as the Port Library, Tracing, DDR, and Build Infrastructure. Keith has contributed over 150 pull requests (209 commits) to the project, and has repeatedly demonstrated thoroughness in his implementation and quality assurance of each of those commits. Keith also monitors and provides responses to questions asked on the Eclipse OMR Slack workspace, particularly in areas dealing with the Port Library, Tracing, and Build Infrastructure. He is a regular participant in the OMR Architecture Meetings, and offers thoughtful opinions and insights in the discussions.
One of Keith's invaluable strengths is the thoroughness of his code and design reviews. He has formally reviewed well over 70 PRs and has been indirectly involved in shaping many others. He is also proactive in his monitoring of new PRs/Issues to provide feedback before being requested to do so. All of Keith's contributions to Eclipse OMR reflect the ideals of the project and a desire to continually improve it. For example, he has opened several PRs whose primary purpose is to clean up the code and reduce the technical debt of the project.
I believe Keith is an excellent candidate to become a committer on the Eclipse OMR project.
| Voter | Vote | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Irwin D'Souza | +1 | +1 implied by nomination |
| John Duimovich | +1 | |
| Kazuhiro Konno | +1 | |
| Charlie Gracie | +1 | |
| Daryl Maier | -1 | If the path to becoming an OMR committer was based purely on the number of commits or competency in a particular area of the code base then the decision would be easy. However, since its inception six years ago, OMR has worked hard to establish itself as a language-agnostic runtime toolkit independent of its parent project J9. One of the election criteria established by previous OMR committer nominations is a demonstration by the candidate of their commitment to OMR as a language-agnostic project. I think Keith needs to do more to demonstrate in the community his support for and his investment in the language-agnostic goals of the project. If he does so, I will be happy to support--and even put forth myself--Keith's nomination. Fortunately, this is easy to correct and in my mind there are many things that a prospective committer can do in order to demonstrate support for the project ideals. A non-exhaustive list includes: * regular attendance and active participation in OMR architecture meetings * proposing topics for discussion at OMR architecture meetings * encouraging refactoring the code--either by deed or through comments reviewing others' code--to make it more language agnostic and easier to consume in non-OpenJ9 projects * working on incorporating OMR into another language runtime, or helping others to do so * developing a new language-agnostic feature in OMR, or helping others to do so Additionally, a couple of months ago I was approached by another contributor asking for my feedback on what it would take for me to either nominate them or support another's nomination of them as a committer. At that time I gave much the same feedback as above: while they have a solid number of commits to the project I had no sense of their opinion of OMR as an independent project or their involvement with it outside of OpenJ9. I made a number of suggestions to them and since that time this contributor has been making great progress to improve that perception. Since I have the same reservations with the current nomination it would be hypocritical of me to set one standard for one contributor and apply a different standard to another. Simply abstaining from voting does not resolve this ethical dilemma for me. I spoke with Keith about my decision and the criteria I am looking for in order to support a future nomination. I agree that Keith has tremendous technical depth in certain areas that will be valuable to the project, and I do look forward to welcoming him as an OMR committer in the future. |
| Mark Stoodley | -1 | I am going to add my -1 as well, for many of the same reasons Daryl mentioned, primarily the uniform application of the standards for committership. This is not a "no" forever; it's a "no for now" and I also look forward to being able vote "yes" at some point in the future. |