mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - Revisions to Committer Criteria
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:38:18 GMT
I believe the wording _must_ comes from the fact that the PMC (as a body)
must have a formal vote for a release, otherwise the release will not
happen.  I don't believe it means every PMC member is required to vote on
the release.  I can see where the confusion comes from, but also feel the
wording is correct.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 8:53 AM Yuan Tang <terrytangyuan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:12 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnaveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I added clarifying sections to explicitly call out committers/PMC
> > privileges. Please review.
> >
> > Pasting here for convenience
> > Committer Privileges
> >
> >    - Committers have write access to the code repository.
> >    - Committers have an @apache.org email address.
> >    - Committers can make short-term decisions for the project, approving
> >    and merging pull requests.
> >    - Committer Vote is *NOT* considered *binding* thus the vote you cast
> do
> >    not have *Veto* on issues that require consensus.
> >    - Committer's can request changes on Pull Requests but it does not
> >    constitute Veto, PMC can agree to approve or reject requested changes.
> >
> > PMC Privileges
> >
> >    - PMC makes the long-term decisions with regard to the project.
> >    - PMC members have write access to the code repository.
> >    - PMC members have @apache.org email address.
> >    - PMC has access to private@ email list
> >    - PMC has the right to vote for the community-related decisions, PMC
> >    Votes are *binding*.
> >    - PMC has the right to propose active users for committership.
> >    - PMC must vote on any formal release of the project's software
> product.
> >
> Could you clarify on this (I don't think you meant "PMC *must* vote")? How
> many votes are required by PMCs before the formal release can happen? Is
> this considered community-related decision as well, e.g. PMC vetos are
> binding?
>
>
> >
> >
> > All, I suggest you review the proposal and if there is any concern please
> > voice it here before this goes out for voting.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:04 AM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I plan to start a vote on the adopting
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > to
> > > replace our current document
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > tomorrow
> > > (Monday).
> > >
> > > - Carin
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:32 AM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for publishing the notes and also thanks everyone for
> providing
> > > > valuable feedback and discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I encourage everyone that has ideas for improvement to the document
> to
> > > > feel free to edit and revise. If you need a login to the wiki, please
> > > just
> > > > ask.
> > > >
> > > > Also, while editing, please keep in mind that the intent is to have a
> > > vote
> > > > on adopting the new
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > > to replace our current document
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > > before a vote on separating levels of committer and PPMC as a
> process.
> > > So,
> > > > if possible, adopting wording that would work in either outcome of
> that
> > > > vote.
> > > >
> > > > On the subject of voting, I was thinking of starting a vote on
> Friday,
> > > but
> > > > will delay that until the active discussions and revisions are
> > complete.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Carin
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 6:39 AM Pedro Larroy <
> > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> This is the first hangout that I was able to attend, I liked the
> > format
> > > >> and
> > > >> found them valuable. Thanks for organizing and publishing the notes.
> > > >> Looking forward to the next one.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pedro
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 6:44 AM Steffen Rochel <
> > steffenrochel@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Carin - please see
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Hangout+October+24th+2018+8am+and+5pm+PDT
> > > >> > :
> > > >> > Discussion about committer proposal:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >    - Proposal default should be to have separation between
> committer
> > > and
> > > >> >    PPMC election
> > > >> >    - Criteria are vague, should we add some example persona?
> > > >> >    - Spell out privileges of committer and PPMC member
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Note: I update the project proposal to address first bullet.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Steffen
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:29 AM Carin Meier <
> carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > A request to whoever is taking notes at the MXNet Hangouts
that
> > are
> > > >> > > occurring today. Could you please recap feedback from the
> meeting
> > in
> > > >> > > regards to document revisions here for everyone? I would
like to
> > > >> attend
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > session later today, but may not due to family obligations.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > > Carin
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:24 PM Steffen Rochel <
> > > >> steffenrochel@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Carin - I got feedback on my proposal and made changes.
I
> > > >> incorporated
> > > >> > > > Tianqi's suggesiton that we should strive to nominate
> > > committer/PPMC
> > > >> > > > candidates from outside ones own organization. It should
not
> be
> > > >> > > considered
> > > >> > > > as a hard rule, but recommendation.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Steffen
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:18 PM Carin Meier <
> > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks Steffen helping draft up the proposal for
Committer
> and
> > > >> PPMC
> > > >> > > > > guidelines.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Please everyone review and provide feedback
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+an+Apache+MXNet+(incubating)+Committer+and+PPMC+Member+Proposal
> > > >> > > > > .
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I plan to start a vote on this Friday if the
> > > discussions/revisions
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > complete.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > - Carin
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:03 PM Carin Meier <
> > > >> carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Great!
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I started a rough draft for collaboration
at
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Become+a+Committer+Proposal
> > > >> > > > > > .
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Everyone feel free to enhance and provide
feedback.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - Carin
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:55 AM Steffen
Rochel <
> > > >> > > > steffenrochel@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >> +1, great suggestion, thanks Carin!
> > > >> > > > > >> I'm willing to collaborate to create
a draft proposal.
> > > >> > > > > >> Steffen
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:35 AM Carin
Meier <
> > > >> carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >> > Background:
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > There is a desire to increase the
committer pool and
> grow
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > community.
> > > >> > > > > >> > This thread is to discuss the possibility
of revision
> the
> > > >> > current
> > > >> > > > > >> committer
> > > >> > > > > >> > criteria in light of the following
goals:
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > - Make it easier to newcomers to
be committers
> > > >> > > > > >> > - Recognize non-code contributions
as paths to
> > > committership
> > > >> > > > > >> > - Open the door to separating levels
of committer and
> PMC
> > > >> > > (discussed
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > >> > another thread)
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > Current State:
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > The current committer criteria is
here
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer
> > > >> > > > > >> as
> > > >> > > > > >> > is modeled after the Hadoop committer
criteria
> > > >> > > > > >> > https://hadoop.apache.org/committer_criteria.html
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > Proposal:
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > Model the MXNet path to committership
and PMC after the
> > > >> Apache
> > > >> > > Beam
> > > >> > > > > >> project
> > > >> > > > > >> > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > Short quote from page:
> > > >> > > > > >> >       =================
> > > >> > > > > >> > An Apache Beam committer…
> > > >> > > > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#an-apache-beam-committer
> > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> >    - Takes many forms
> > > >> > > > > >> >    <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#takes-many-forms
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> >    - Knows, upholds, and reinforces
the Apache Software
> > > >> > Foundation
> > > >> > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > >> >    conduct
> > > >> > > > > >> >    <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#knows-upholds-and-reinforces-the-apache-software-foundation-code-of-conduct
> > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> >    - Knows, upholds, and reinforces
the
> responsibilities
> > of
> > > >> an
> > > >> > > > Apache
> > > >> > > > > >> >    Software Foundation committer
> > > >> > > > > >> >    <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#knows-upholds-and-reinforces-the-responsibilities-of-an-apache-software-foundation-committer
> > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> >    - Knows, upholds, and reinforces
the Beam
> community’s
> > > >> > practices
> > > >> > > > > >> >    <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#knows-upholds-and-reinforces-the-beam-communitys-practices
> > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> >    - =================
> > > >> > > > > >> >    <
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://beam.apache.org/contribute/become-a-committer/#knows-upholds-and-reinforces-the-beam-communitys-practices
> > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > I believe if we merge our current
committer criteria
> with
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > model
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > >> > will open  the path to committership
to a wider pool,
> > > >> > acknowledge
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > >> > there are multiple paths, and reinforce
the ASF values
> > and
> > > >> > > > > >> > responsibilities.
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > The Beam model does not explicitly
address a PMC level
> > but
> > > we
> > > >> > > could
> > > >> > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > >> it
> > > >> > > > > >> > in in the same spirit of reinforcing
the ASF
> > > responsibilities
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > >> values of
> > > >> > > > > >> > this level.
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > Looking forward to feedback about
this possible
> > direction.
> > > If
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > >> community
> > > >> > > > > >> > is interested looking more into
this direction I would
> be
> > > >> happy
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > >> create
> > > >> > > > > >> > of first draft of something more
concrete to look at -
> > (or
> > > if
> > > >> > > > someone
> > > >> > > > > >> else
> > > >> > > > > >> > wants to take a crack at it too
that would be great)
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >> > - Carin
> > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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