impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Brown <mi...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Standards for committers and PPMC members
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:14:33 GMT
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message