impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Standards for committers and PPMC members
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:50:29 GMT
Do you have any thoughts about what specific type or format of
feedback would help make it less of a black box? Would it help to have
examples of candidates L, M, N, O, and P who focus on testing tools
and infrastructure?

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Michael Brown <mikeb@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> What do you think, Michael?
>
> Thanks to you, Tim, and Todd for your thoughts. It still feels like a black
> box, especially for those of us who tend to concentrate on testing tools
> and infrastructure for Impala. Any feedback is appreciated.
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Jim Apple <jbapple@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> My feeling is similar to Tim's:
>>
>> It's the PPMC's responsibility, but a contributor is welcome to plead
>> their case, ask for a mentor, and so on. I think we shouldn't consider
>> it rude or pushy or aggressive to request committership. It is a
>> compliment to Impala and the Impala community that the contributor
>> want to be more involved.
>>
>> What do you think, Michael?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Tim Armstrong <tarmstrong@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Michael,
>> >   My two cents is that the PMC should be proactive about identifying
>> > potential committers and working with them to address any gaps. We
>> haven't
>> > done a good job of that so far but we've started up some discussions on
>> the
>> > private list to get better at that.
>> >
>> > You should feel free to ask anyone on the PMC about any of the above
>> > questions. Ideally that wouldn't be necessary, but in practice it may
>> help
>> > move things along, particularly if you have someone who will advocate for
>> > you and wrangle the PMC to come to a consensus. It's definitely on us to
>> > communicate to you what gaps (if any) there are - it shouldn't really be
>> a
>> > black box.
>> >
>> > - Tim
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Brown <mikeb@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You've done a great job highlighting some example scenarios. Here are
>> some
>> >> questions that aren't addressed in your writeup.
>> >>
>> >> What are contributors' responsibilities to move toward committership? In
>> >> particular, I'm talking about process, not the nuts and bolts of
>> >> contributions (including patches, bugs, reviews).  For example:
>> >>
>> >> Should a contributor who wants to be a committer find a "mentor"?
>> >>
>> >> Should a contributor who wants to be a committer be lobbying for
>> >> committership to someone who has reviewed his patches, or dealt with
>> bugs
>> >> he's filed, or otherwise interacted with?
>> >>
>> >> Should a contributor nominate himself on this list? Must he cite
>> examples
>> >> of his contributions?
>> >>
>> >> How can a contributor who wants to be a committer receive good feedback
>> for
>> >> areas of improvement if his committership is rejected?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jim Apple <jbapple@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think it would be helpful to non-committer contributors (and non-PMC
>> >> > committers (just me right now)) if PPMC members would muse a bit about
>> >> > what they believe the bar is for committership or PPMC membership.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not suggesting that the PPMC write a document with so much detail
>> >> > that you are hamstrung when looking at contributors in the future and
>> >> > decising if they did 6 hard code reviews and 5 medium or 7 hard code
>> >> > reviews and 4 medium ones.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, multiple people have pinged me asking how to become a
>> >> > committer, asking what work products are sufficient.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't have a foolproof way of describing the possible bars, so let
>> >> > me give a few examples for feedback from the PPMC.
>> >> >
>> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> > Potential committers:
>> >> >
>> >> > Alice started contributing 4 months ago. She fixes at least one style
>> >> > issue or typo every weekend.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bob started contributing a year ago. We uses Impala to organize his
>> >> > VHS collection, and he regularly reports scaling bugs as his
>> >> > collection grows to more and more impalad nodes. His reports are often
>> >> > out of date, since he runs an old Impala, but some are still bugs in
>> >> > the latest version. His bug reports are of very high quality.
>> >> >
>> >> > Carol started contributing six months ago. She helped design one
>> >> > tricky feature. It took her six months and 27 revisions to get the
>> >> > patch in. She also helps other users a lot with their issues.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dave has been contributing for 18 months. He helped design a tricky
>> >> > feature, too, but his code was not high quality enough to check in.
He
>> >> > did document the feature while a PPMC member wrote the code. Since
>> >> > then, he's been helping users on the mailing lists and filing UI bugs,
>> >> > especially with the REPL.
>> >> >
>> >> > Eve used to contribute before Impala was with Apache, and she was not
>> >> > listed as a committer/PPMC member when incubation started. Since then,
>> >> > she does code reviews, only commenting on style issues. She does 3
or
>> >> > 4 a month.
>> >> >
>> >> > Frank has been contributing for three months. He writes 3-4 patches
>> >> > every weekend. They are all tests, query generation, or
>> >> > impala-shell.sh work, and they are almost uniformly high-quality.
>> >> >
>> >> > My personal feelings: Yes on Bob, Carol, Eve, and Frank. Alice is not
>> >> > on track. Dave is on track but should do more design work and doc
>> >> > writing.
>> >> >
>> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> > Potential PPMC members, all of which are already committers.
>> >> >
>> >> > Gertrude has been a contributor for 18 months. She spends most of her
>> >> > efforts on backend performance in-the-small - a few microops saved
per
>> >> > row per patch. She helps review patches in this area. She doesn't
>> >> > participate much on governance.
>> >> >
>> >> > Harold has been a contributor for a 30 months. He works exclusively
on
>> >> > performance, but he writes very little code. All of his effort is
>> >> > devoted to understanding Impala performance issues, which he writes
>> >> > and and files as high quality bug reports. He does not review code
and
>> >> > he does not write code or documentation. He participates in discussion
>> >> > and consensus-building on design.
>> >> >
>> >> > Imelda has been a contributor for 12 months. She also does not write
>> >> > code. She is focused only on community outreach, writing blog posts
>> >> > and doing the simplest code reviews for her recruits to the project.
>> >> > She posts or gets a new contributor once a month.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jules has been a contributor for 40 months. He only reviews code, but
>> >> > he gives outstanding reviews of both design and style. He managed two
>> >> > releases last year.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kim has been a contributor for 55 months. She used to write a lot of
>> >> > code but now she is focused on keeping infrastructure ship-shape,
>> >> > mainly flaky test fixing and Jenkins wrangling. She rarely votes.
>> >> >
>> >> > My personal feelings: No on Gertrude and Kim, yes on Harold, Imelda,
>> >> > and Jules. G+K may be outstanding committers and members, but are not
>> >> > on track for PPMC membership. However, they could get on track very
>> >> > easily by focusing some small part of their effort on governance work.
>> >> >
>> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, if you don't know if you already are a PPMC member, here is the
>> >> list:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/impala.html
>> >> >
>> >> > If you are a PPMC member, please subscribe to private@, where votes
>> on
>> >> > committership and PPMC membership will be held.
>> >> >
>> >> > This general discussion should happen in public; private is for
>> >> > discussion of real people, not these fake names.
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Mime
View raw message