impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Standards for committers and PPMC members
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2017 20:29:14 GMT
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.
>
>
Agreed that it's first and foremost the PPMC (later PMC)'s responsibility
to identify and proactively encourage committer candidates. If a
contributor is having to "plead their case" or "request committership" that
to me is an unhealthy sign. Perhaps a contributor might email the mailing
list (or privately email committers they've worked with) and ask for
feedback on how to improve their contributions, but I think that's a bit
different than trying to argue/request for committership.

Perhaps it's just a semantic distinction or I'm being picky about wording,
but to me "plead" signifies some kind of disagreement and negativity on
what should be more like a mentorship relationship.

My experience on other PMCs (Hadoop and HBase in particular) is that people
often start threads on the private@ list regarding new contributors fairly
early on (say after 5-10 patches). Those threads are not VOTE threads, but
rather a discussion to try to identify one or two PMC members who will
agree to mentor and encourage the new contributor towards committership.
Usually the expectation is that those mentors will later be the ones to
propose the person for committership and make a case, and will often take
it upon themselves to ensure rapid reviews of patches the person is
contributing, etc.

When I've acted as a mentor in this respect, I typically email the person
to let them know that the PMC has identified them as someone doing good
work and contributing positively to the project. If the discussion thread
has identified any constructive feedback, I let them know, and also offer
myself as a resource as someone to ping about code reviews that need
attention, questions about the project, etc. I've found that the positive
feedback of being recognized by the PMC often encourages continued
contributions, and that the constructive feedback/criticism usually has a
good effect.

In practice, the "mentors" will often be colleagues of the new contributor
or have some other "in-real-life" relationship to make it easier to give
constant feedback, but of course that's in no way a requirement.

-Todd


> 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.
> >> >
> >>
>



-- 
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera

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