CFV: New OpenJDK Committer: Martin Balao

Mario Torre neugens at
Thu Jun 28 15:52:26 UTC 2018

I don't think Volker should apologise, his rationale is valid to a
certain degree, however the interpretation of the guidelines has been
clarified multiple times by the Governing Board itself, so I don't
think we should be challenging them again.

For the case in question, those are the additional patches under

 * SunPKCS11 memory leak fix (under review)

 * SunPKCS11 + TLS 1.2 (under review)

 * Fix in SunPKCS11 Secmod

 * TLS Channel Bindings (on hold because of TLS 1.3)

 * Trusted CA Indication extension + Certificate Authorities (on hold
because of TLS 1.3)

There are also a number of other contributions in the pipeline, as you
see at least 3 of them will likely be pushed shortly, reaching the
magic number necessary [1].

Andrew could have waited a couple of weeks perhaps, but honestly I
don't think there's a compelling reason to pause this nomination.


[1] Btw, why we choose "eight" and not some way nicer prime number instead?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty
<daniel.daugherty at> wrote:
> Volker,
> You are not the only one that interprets the rules as 8 or more
> contributions so I don't think you need to apologize.
> Dan
> On 6/28/18 10:50 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi Mario,
>> as I wrote before - if I'm the only one who has misinterpreted the
>> rules I apologize and won't complain any more.
>> Regards,
>> Volker
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Mario Torre
>> <neugens.limasoftware at> wrote:
>>> Hi Volker,
>>> I see your point, but I think this needs to be taken as a general
>>> guidance and decided on a case by case basis, as it has been discussed
>>> over and over. We should be looking instead at the quality of the
>>> current contributions and what they mean to the general development of
>>> the project rather than counting numbers. Or we can keep pushing
>>> patches for Martin if you prefer, he's going to hit the 8 mark in 3
>>> patches, then we can propose the nomination gain and the process will
>>> be happy for the sake of being a process... We all agree here that
>>> Martin is not only qualified, but he is a contributor that is doing
>>> significant work in the area of security and cryptography for OpenJDK,
>>> don't we want that?
>>> Then again, if you prefer we can wait a few months and see what
>>> happens... And no, I'm not saying this because he's a colleague at Red
>>> Hat, a similar issue was raised a few months ago for an Oracle
>>> developer, similar in all respect, including concerns, but then common
>>> sense prevailed.
>>> This entrance barrier is a necessary training, but if someone shows
>>> commitment and value in the work they do it doesn't have to be
>>> strictly at the eight contribution mark. It can be five or ten too.
>>> Generally you want to respect an higher number of contributions when
>>> you are uncertain of the quality and steadiness of the developer, but
>>> doesn't make a lot of sense in this case for me.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mario
>>> Il giorno gio 28 giu 2018 alle ore 08:43 Volker Simonis
>>> <volker.simonis at> ha scritto:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>> I totally agree that we need more OpenJDK developers in the security
>>>> area and I'm sure Martin is a perfect fit for this role.
>>>> But the process document [1] clearly states that a "Contributor should
>>>> make at least eight significant contributions to that Project before
>>>> being nominated". From the references you've provided I can only see
>>>> five changes contributed by Martin. I'd therefore like to kindly ask
>>>> you to withdraw this CFV and postpone it until Martin has reached at
>>>> least the required minimum number of contributions.
>>>> Sorry for nit-picking, but I think we should all play by the same rules.
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Volker
>>>> [1]
>>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I hereby nominate Martin Balao (mbalao) to OpenJDK Committer.
>>>>> Martin has already produced a number of valuable contributions to
>>>>> OpenJDK [0], particularly in the security area, and has more pending
>>>>> review.
>>>>> In an area that seems low on OpenJDK developers, I think we should
>>>>> do our best to support such work.
>>>>> Votes are due by 17h00 UTC on the 11th of July, 2018.
>>>>> Only current OpenJDK Committers [1] 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 [2].
>>>>> [0]
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew :)
>>>>> Senior Free Java Software Engineer
>>>>> Red Hat, Inc. (
>>>>> Web Site:
>>>>> Twitter:
>>>>> PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://
>>>>> Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
>>> --
>>> pgp key: PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
>>> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
>>> Java Champion - Blog: - Twitter: @neugens
>>> Proud GNU Classpath developer:
>>> OpenJDK:
>>> Please, support open standards:

Mario Torre
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat GmbH <>
9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30  9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list