hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lei Chang <chang.lei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Date Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:17:43 GMT
Nice. Looks quite similar to what we have here.

Cheers
Lei


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Greg Chase <greg@gregchase.com> wrote:

> Following up...
>
> The Committers at Geode ended up choosing a fairly liberal criterion for
> nomination and voting new Committers, as is stated here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Becoming+a+committer
>
> Specifically here:
>
>
> >    1. Committers should nominate fellow contributors when a candidate has
> >    shown a consistent history of participating in the development
> process or
> >    community, and has demonstrated that they understand and follow the
> development
> >    process and community standards of the Apache Geode project.
> >
> >
> >    1. The members on the PPMC will consider both the history and quality
> >    of the contributors' participation, and vote whether to grant commit
> >    privileges to the candidate, or provide feedback and mentoring to the
> >    candidate to help further groom them to become a Committer in the
> future.
> >
> >
> >    1. Contributors who have shown a consistent history of participating
> >    in the development process or community, and have demonstrated that
> >    they understand and follow the development process and community
> >    standards of the Apache Geode, and who show promise for future
> >    contributions should generally be accepted by the PPMC as a new
> Committer.
> >
> >
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Gregory Chase <gchase@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > This discussion just came up in Apache Geode as well, and I suggested the
> > following:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 1. "The Committers" are currently the same as "The PPMC".  So at this
> > > point, voting someone as a committer is voting them as the potential
> > future
> > > PMC of Apache [HAWQ].
> > >
> >
> >
> > > 2. Becoming a committer should be used to recognize a contributor as
> > having
> > > further potential to contribute even more, and to encourage them to
> > > participate with and collaborate more with the community.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > In my personal opinion, contributors who show themselves as
> > collaborative,
> > > community building, or supportive of users with a likelihood of
> > > contributing even more should be nominated and likely voted by the PPMC
> > to
> > > be a contributor.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > While not the only source, many behaviors related to being
> collaborative,
> > > community building, or supportive of users is captured by our community
> > > dashboard: [http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-hawq/browser/]
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Thus I'd expect high contributors in these areas to rank in top lists
> as
> > > follows:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Collaborative:
> > > Jiras: open, comment, close
> > > Dev mail list: open threads, reply
> > > Git: commits
> > > Code reviews
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Someone who does not collaborate and only develops would likely only
> show
> > > up in pull requests, but not other collaborative infrastructure.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Community building would include:
> > > Dev & user mail lists
> > > Wiki / confluent editing
> > >
> >
> >
> > > User supporting would include:
> > > User mail list responses
> > > Jiras opened and commented on
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I'm sure these lists can be better refined.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > While I wouldn't quantify this, I would argue that if someone shows up
> in
> > > multiple categories of contribution on top lists for more than one 30
> day
> > > period, they are likely candidates to be nominated as a committer.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I know of at least a couple of companies that pay their employees to be
> > > contributors to Apache [HAWQ].  If their job changes, or they move to a
> > > different company, will they stay as a contributor if we make them a
> > > committer?  I'd argue this is much more likely if we see them
> > contributing
> > > in multiple categories rather than just a single way.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Finally, we need to create a model and standard of how we want our
> > > community to act.  By being more specific about asking for broader
> > > contribution to be recognized as a committer, this will help train new
> > > members of this community how to participate fully.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Caleb Welton <cwelton@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments
> for
> > > clarity and excess redundancy.  The last paragraph could still use a
> bit
> > > more work.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> justin@erenkrantz.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the writeup.  One minor suggestion:
> > > >
> > > > Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> > > > existing committers.
> > > >
> > > > I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> > > > everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
> > > >
> > > > Cjeers.  -- justin
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Greetings.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for
> > any
> > > > > further comments.
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Lei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Justin,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for
> > further
> > > > >> discussions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> Lei
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> > > > justin@erenkrantz.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Lei,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos
> already
> > > > said.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably
> better
> > > to
> > > > >>> err on the side of inclusion.  Especially given the early
> adoption
> > of
> > > > >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted.  Not everyone is
going to
> > be
> > > > >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper
for
> > > > >>> commit access.  Chances are that folks who contribute at
this
> early
> > > > >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors.
 As a
> > > > >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before
> > graduation
> > > > >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and
> recognize
> > > > >>> them accordingly?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document
-
> > what
> > > > >>> the definition of sustained contributions are.  While it
doesn't
> > have
> > > > >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there
should
> be
> > > > >>> some guidance available.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing
at:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Cheers.  -- justin
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <
> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope,
not
> > > everyone
> > > > >>> can do
> > > > >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors
that
> > have
> > > > >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as
a
> committer.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Cheers
> > > > >>> > Lei
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik
<
> > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry
barrier,
> but
> > > > here
> > > > >>> a few
> > > > >>> >> points to consider:
> > > > >>> >>  - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be
interested
> in
> > > > doing
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> >>    whole laundry list below
> > > > >>> >>  - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers,
contributing
> > > where
> > > > >>> there
> > > > >>> >>    want to and when they have time for it. Expecting
every and
> > > each
> > > > >>> one of
> > > > >>> >>    them to cover 27 different areas of possible
contributions
> > will
> > > > >>> slow the
> > > > >>> >>    community growth to halt
> > > > >>> >>  - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which
is proven
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>> >>    slow-down effect on the participation rate, so
be extra
> > careful
> > > > >>> setting
> > > > >>> >>    such a high bar
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or
arrogant
> > > jack-asses
> > > > >>> should
> > > > >>> >> be
> > > > >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's
doing
> great
> > > job
> > > > in
> > > > >>> the,
> > > > >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps
others to
> > > > understand
> > > > >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution
in the same
> > > area.
> > > > If
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything
else in
> the
> > > > >>> project -
> > > > >>> >> he
> > > > >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following
> > > guidelines,
> > > > he
> > > > >>> >> would
> > > > >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> > > > >>> >>   Cos
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this
yet. I summarized
> > the
> > > > >>> points
> > > > >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here
are a few things
> > that
> > > > >>> >> typically
> > > > >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate
for a
> committer
> > > > >>> >> >    1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > > > >>> >> >    2. code contributions (patches submitted
to JIRA or PRs)
> > > > committed
> > > > >>> >> >    by existing committers
> > > > >>> >> >    3. documentation contributions
> > > > >>> >> >    4. wiki/social media contributions
> > > > >>> >> >    5. review of patches submitted by others
> > > > >>> >> >    6. reviews of release candidates
> > > > >>> >> >    7. bug reports
> > > > >>> >> >    8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially
as a
> > > mentor
> > > > to
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>> >> > contributors
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > Lei
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should
be able to act as a
> > > > mentor,
> > > > >>> work
> > > > >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute
to the project
> > > > >>> continuously
> > > > >>> >> or a
> > > > >>> >> > > long time period.
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > > Lei
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman
Shaposhnik <
> > > > >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the
required level of
> > > > >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> Roman.
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei
Chang <
> > > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>>
> > http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM,
Lei Chang <
> > > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache
process for becoming a new
> > > > committer.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07
AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question.
Certainly this is something
> > > that
> > > > >>> HAWQ
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder
soon enough. There are no
> hard
> > > and
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here
are a few things that typically
> > > would
> > > > >>> prompt
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody
a candidate for a committer:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    1. participation in
the mailing list conversations
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    2. code contributions
(patches submitted to JIRA
> or
> > > PRs)
> > > > >>> >> committed
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    by existing committers
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    3. documentation contributions
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    4. wiki/social media
contributions
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    5. review of patches
submitted by others
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    6. reviews of release
candidates
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>    7. bug reports
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing
to the project in a
> > > > variety of
> > > > >>> >> > >> different
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months
I think it is reasonable
> to
> > > > expect
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>> >> > >> your
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered
as a basis for
> commitership.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at
5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <
> > > > xzhang@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started
contributing to apache-hawq.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's
bar to be considered at a
> > > > committer,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> >> > >> what's
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> the
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit
a request, and when PMC can
> review
> > > the
> > > > >>> >> request.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new
to OSS as well as this project, and
> > any
> > > > >>> >> guidance is
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Chase
> >
> > Director of Big Data Communities
> > http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
> >
> > Pivotal Software
> > http://www.pivotal.io/
> >
> > 650-215-0477
> > @GregChase
> > Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message