mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Separating PMC and Committership
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2018 06:04:19 GMT
Haibin's proposed "For active contributors we first invite them to become
our committers. Later on as they make significant contribution, we can
invite them to PMC."
Several people raised the question what defines "active contributors" and
"make significant contribution". In my view the discussion has not answered
the questions and it is not clear to me what changes are proposed to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer .
I'm making the assumption that the proposal is to simplify the path for
becoming a committer to grow the committer community. So far I have not
heard what changes or simplifications are proposed. Without a change I fail
to see the benefit of this proposal to increase the number of committers.
I agree that the path from committer to PMC member should be clarified as
well and suggest to align with expectations and responsibilities of PMC
members.
I'm also under the assumption that the proposal only applies for future
committers and PMC members, not for existing PMC members and this
assumption should be clarified.

Steffen

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:29 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the assumption has always been that current PMC members will
> remain PMC members.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:51 PM Michael Wall <mjwall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I too think separating committers from PMC is a good idea for your
> project
> > given the desire to grow committers and the concerns I have seen trying
> to
> > add new committers.  I saw at least one other mentor, Jim on this thread
> > too.
> >
> > Is the plan to leave all current PMC members in the PMC?  If that is not
> > the plan, perhaps more discussion is required before moving on.
> >
> > Assuming you feel the discussion is done, someone needs to start a vote.
> > This would be a procedural change as outlined on
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > If I were doing it, I would announce on this thread I am starting a vote
> on
> > this matter tomorrow or some specified time.  I might even outline what
> the
> > vote will be.  This give people a chance to speak up if they think more
> > discussion is needed.  Assuming no more discussion, start a [VOTE] thread
> > on the dev list.
> >
> > I am used to seeing [VOTE] and [DISCUSS] in the subject line of such
> emails
> > but I didn't find any official guidance on that.  Maybe it is a project
> by
> > project decision, I did find
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDGENT/Sample+process+emails
> .
> > I totally parsed right over the [Discussion] in the subject this thread
> but
> > I'll be on the look out for it in the future.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:05 PM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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