mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Separating PMC and Committership
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2018 22:05:01 GMT
Let me rephrase the question.

Since I'm new to the committer/PMC process, I wondering what the next step
is in a proposed change of process like this.

If we gauge that there is a significant enough interest do we propose a
vote? Is there enough interest and information to have a vote in this case?

(Anyone feel free to answer the question - mentor or not :) )

- Carin

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:48 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com> wrote:

> This has been a very interesting discussion and I think it underlined a
> desire to increase the committer pool and community for the project. I'm
> wondering now what the next steps would look like?
>
> Do any mentors have any advice on how to proceed?
>
> - Carin
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> In my experience, and in my opinion, it makes sense to distinguish and
>> differentiate between a committer and a PMC member. The latter shows just a
>> bit more "investment" in the project and has obtained a bit more merit due
>> to their continued efforts.
>>
>> Of course, what we also need is some public governance model that shows
>> what these levels are, what they mean and how to obtain them. The following
>> is the normal setup for Apache projects:
>>
>>     https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
>>
>> The nice this is that this also allows for a very low-bar-to-entry for
>> committer-ship while still maintain a somewhat higher bar for the PPMC,
>> which is great for community building.
>>
>> > On Oct 9, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear MXNet community,
>> >
>> > In the past when we invite a person to become a committer, he/she is
>> > automatically made a PMC member. However, a lot of communities keep a
>> small
>> > PMC, and a bigger and more diverse committers to enrich the community.
>> This
>> > has the benefit of having two opportunities to encourage contribution.
>> This
>> > can also help lower the bar for inviting committers, which helps build
>> > consensus in our already large PMC. I'd like to propose the following:
>> >
>> > For active contributors we first invite them to become our committers.
>> > Later on as they make significant contribution, we can invite them to
>> PMC.
>> >
>> >
>> > ===============================================================
>> > Comments from Marco:
>> >
>> > That's a great idea!
>> >
>> > The hard question is how to differentiate between a committer and a PMC
>> > member and where we set the bar for each. If I understand you right, you
>> > are proposing to honor active contributions by volume (or another
>> similar
>> > metric). While I think that's a good idea in general, I have a few
>> thoughts:
>> >
>> > We definitely have a lot of active people in the project, but let's say
>> > that they contribute a substantial amount, but their contributions
>> can't go
>> > in as-is because they lack quality, consistency, testing or they don't
>> > match with the overall style and best practices. For a code-committer,
>> this
>> > would still be a no-go in my opinion. That person would still require
>> some
>> > guidance and mentoring until they are aligned with the project style and
>> > guidelines as otherwise they might accept low-quality PRs. I know we can
>> > revert that, but let's avoid confrontation as much as possible.
>> >
>> > The minimum bar for a code committer would then be:
>> > - (almost) unaltered acceptance of their PRs (of course, some PRs are
>> > intentionally made for discussions and those would even be a plus!)
>> > - following mxnets community guidelines, rules and styles
>> > - giving useful reviews (in order to see how they would be as reviewers
>> if
>> > they were a committer)
>> > The would be weighted differently on a case by case base, but this
>> could be
>> > a starting point to describe what we are looking for.
>> >
>> > From committer to PMC on the other hand, the difference is quite small.
>> > Something I personally would be looking for are three things:
>> > - judgement
>> > - community engagement
>> > - Apache way
>> > While a committer might be chosen due to their contributions, they
>> wouldn't
>> > be evaluated that strictly for the above points. A PMC member is a
>> > representative of the project who steers the long term development of
>> it.
>> > Thus, they should be active on our channels like dev@, make good
>> reviews on
>> > GitHub (if applicable), express good judgement and reasoning during
>> votes
>> > and generally show that they are generally helpful to the project on a
>> > non-code level.
>> >
>> > These are just some thoughts of mine to help start of this discussions.
>> It
>> > would be good to hear what other people are looking for while evaluating
>> > candidates and if there's anything they would like to highlight.
>> >
>> > ==============================================================
>> >
>> > Comments from Carin:
>> >
>> > I think it is a good idea. Here is a bit of reasoning behind my
>> thoughts.
>> >
>> > *Pros of separating Committer and PMC *
>> > - It would allow us to bring on more committers than the previous
>> criteria
>> > which would help in giving people the tools they need to be productive.
>> > - The increased productivity should allow PRs to be reviewed and merged
>> > more quickly.
>> > - Provide a more welcoming experience for people posting new PRs to have
>> > them processed faster.
>> > - Also provide an additional layer of membership (PMC) after a committer
>> > to help motivate involvement.
>> >
>> > *Cons of separating*
>> > - There is a possibility of having someone as a committer that isn't as
>> > closely aligned to the standards and quality suffers.
>> >    *Possible Mitigation*
>> >    - We do have a robust CI that should ensure that basic functionality
>> > doesn't break.
>> >    - Do additional communication when a new committer is announced what
>> > the expectation of the standards of committership is.
>> > - Two votes now need to happen for a person since there are two levels.
>> >   *Possible Mitigation*
>> >    - If we are convinced the person would be a good PMC member as well,
>> we
>> > could vote them as both at the same time.
>> >
>> > I think it would be a good change to try and see how it works out over a
>> > period of a few months. The nice thing is that if we feel like it isn't
>> > working well, we can always change the process.
>> >
>> > ==============================================================
>> >
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Haibin
>>
>>

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