hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Becoming a Committer
Date Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:54:46 GMT
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I certainly did not mean offense by
starting this discussion - it largely stems from my own ignorance, which I
hope is forgivable. Nor do I have any negative experiences to point to, and
agree with you that I do not believe there is a "problem to correct" (using
'problem' at all originally was perhaps a lazy choice my part) - the goal
here is to educate potential contributors and not at all to admonish or
direct the PMC.

The original impetus for me to ask the community about this came when a
junior coworker asked me nearly the same question: "Hey, you're a
committer, I'm interested in becoming a committer too, what should I do?"
Telling him to act like a committer was helpful but not definitively so,
because it begs the next question of how does a committer act. I realized
that I had vague anecdotal answers - submit patches, do reviews,
participate on the mailing lists, etc. - but I had could provide no
assurances that my list would be complete or ordered correctly.

Do you think that providing a list of desirable qualities for committers
would be beneficial to the community, or poisonous? I can already see merit
to both sides' arguments, and in my opinion it would come down to how the
community implemented and used such a list. Would a prominent disclaimer
that this is not a binding, exhaustive, or required list mitigate concerns
you may have?

I absolutely understand the desire for flexibility - if somebody comes in
with a new category of contribution that the community previously hadn't
considered then it would be a shame to block recognition solely because the
person doesn't check some arbitrary boxes. But I also want to do right by
new contributors - HBase is hard to use, and I think that makes it more
difficult to contribute to, and very different from traditional libraries
like commons-math, for instance (without disparaging their project and
community in any way, of course).

Maybe the better answer for my coworker's original question already exists
in the docs, or on the mailing list archives, or somewhere on a blog post.
There have been plenty of ApacheCon presentations about how to work with
Apache communities. I admit that I could be approaching this from the wrong
direction, and would be thrilled to have the information pointed out if
it's been sitting right in front of me all along.


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> By the way I think "act like a committer and you'll become a committer" is
> pretty good advice for anyone looking to enter into participation in an
> open source community, and a reasonable yardstick to judge candidates who
> have been nominated. I also have no objection to documenting a list of
> favorable attributes. I would hope every PMCer voting on candidates will be
> fair and remember how they judged previous candidates, and be objective. I
> give everyone the presumption of acting in good faith and that's enough
> (for me). What makes me allergic to this discussion is words like
> "prerequisite" and the implication that our current process has been unfair
> or is not aligned with the Apache Way. I think that case should be made if
> we need to make it.
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > will lead to folks motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume
> > driven development?"
> >
> > I find the need to have this discussion mildly offensive. Have we been
> > unfair in offering committership? Do you have a specific example of
> > something that looked improper? Can you name a committer whom you think
> was
> > offered committership without sufficient merit? Can you name any action
> we
> > have taken that smacks of "resume driven development"?
> >
> > I take the opposite view. I think the presumption of good faith in some
> > communities has been ground down by inter-vendor conflicts and as a
> result
> > they are very litigious and everything must be super specified and "by
> the
> > book" according to some formal process that drains the spirit of the
> Apache
> > Way and is corrosive to everything that holds open source communities
> > together. I don't think importing these ways to the HBase community is
> > either necessary or wise at this time.
> >
> > I'd like nominations for committership and PMC to be addressed on a case
> > by case basis. Perhaps we should have greater transparency in the welcome
> > announcement.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I've been chatting with folks off and on about this for a while, and was
> >> told that this made sense as a discussion on the dev@ list.
> >>
> >> How does the PMC select folks for committership? The most common answer
> is
> >> that folks should 'act like a committer' but that's painfully nebulous
> and
> >> easy to get sidetracked onto other topics. The problem is compounded
> >> because what may be great on one project is inconsistently applied on
> >> other
> >> projects in the ASF, and yet we are all very tightly coupled as
> >> communities
> >> and as project dependencies.
> >>
> >> Ideally, this is something that we can document in the book. Misty
> gently
> >> pointed out http://hbase.apache.org/book.h
> tml#_guide_for_hbase_committers
> >> but
> >> also noted that it's for what happens after somebody becomes a
> committer.
> >> Still, if the standard is "act like one until you become one" then it's
> >> useful reading for people. Also, there doesn't seem to be any guidelines
> >> like this for PMC.
> >>
> >> Is the list of prerequisites possible to articulate, or will it always
> >> boil
> >> down to "intangibles?" Is there a concern that providing a checklist
> >> (perhaps a list of items necessary, but not sufficient) will lead to
> folks
> >> motivated wrongly, similar to oft maligned "resume driven development?"
> >>
> >> I'll kick off the discussion by saying that my personal yardstick of
> "Can
> >> I
> >> trust this person's judgement regarding code/reviews" is probably too
> >> vague
> >> to be useful, and even worse is impossible for others to apply.
> >>
> >> Curiously,
> >> Mike
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew
> >
> > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> > decrepit hands
> >    - A23, Crosstalk
> >
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
> decrepit hands
>    - A23, Crosstalk

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