mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu>
Subject Re: Formalize Committer Proposal and Application Procedure
Date Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:45:42 GMT
My experience from the existing open-source project we have is that the
developers are willing to contribute back as long as the software they use
are hold up to a standard.

I do not meant to say that the contributions of the language,
documentations and others do not count as contributions to the project, but
substantial contributions of these (e.g. maintaining the documentation and
tutorials for half a year and contributed materials) are needed to become
comitter.

Have a clear public standard will actually encourage people to hold up to
that standard, and makes the comittership more valuable, thus providing
incentives for developers who are interested to put good effort into it.

Tianqi

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:04 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm <isabel@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:27:16PM +0100, Chiyuan Zhang wrote:
> > Suppose we lower the standard or completely remove the formal standard
> for
> > committers, then we could probably be able to get more committers from
> the
> > first type. But that might not necessarily be good to us
>
> Can you elaborate your reasoning here? (I'm not implying that I agree or
> disagree with you, I just want to understand where this fear is coming
> from.)
>
>
> > having people that could either contribute relatively important
> components
> > or provide longer term commitment to the project. But on the other hand,
> > having a standard for committers do not (I hope) discourage the first
> type
> > of contributors to contribute PRs.
>
> Let me tell you a little campfire story: Back in the old days of Mahout we
> implicitly had a relatively high bar for becoming a committer. People
> thought
> that in order to become committer they would have to contribute substantial
> patches, often full new algorithm implementations.
>
> What the project really needed were a lot of work polishing, optimising,
> cleaning, making easier to use, documenting etc.
>
> Due to the perception of requiring substantial contributions to get the
> reward of becoming committer however we never received much of the latter.
>
>
> Lesson learnt for me: The way you setup your reward systems greatly
> influences which kind of help your project will receive.
>
>
> Isabel
>
> --
> Sorry for any typos: Mail was typed in vim, written in mutt, via ssh (most
> likely involving some kind of mobile connection only.)
>

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