impala-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Armstrong <tarmstr...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Standards for committers and PPMC members
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:51:02 GMT
I just wanted to follow up on this discussion so that non-PPMC members know
that this hasn't just stalled out. The PPMC has been actively working on
identifying and voting on committers. I think we converged more towards
Todd Lipcon and Jim Apple's view of things where we take a more inclusive
view of committership.

So watch this space.

- Tim

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jim Apple <jbapple@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Which kind of things do you think we should use for examples of the
> contributions of Larry, Mathilda, Nicholas, Omie, and Patrick? I was
> thinking things in tests/benchmark, tests/comparison, the rest of
> tests/, testdata/, bin/, and bug reports. Would that help clarify?
>
> In the first one, I wrote the examples and then I said how I would
> feel about them. Would it be more helpful if you wrote them and I
> (and, perhaps, other PPMC members) gave feedback?
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Brown <mikeb@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > I apologize for dropping the ball on this.
> >
> >> Would it help to have examples of candidates L, M, N, O, and P who
> focus on testing tools and infrastructure?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jim Apple <jbapple@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message