From dev-return-4430-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Thu Oct 11 19:23:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 80F7418067A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:23:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 69367 invoked by uid 500); 11 Oct 2018 17:23:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68986 invoked by uid 99); 11 Oct 2018 17:23:56 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 862171A1852 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.752 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.752 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFbedHDKquuh for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net [96.114.154.165]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1828D5F1EA for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.227]) by resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id AeWMg5pAWVp6yAegkg8TpO; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:54 +0000 Received: from [192.168.199.10] ([69.251.90.98]) by resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id AegjgeeQVZpvAAegjgKbCn; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:23:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Subject: Re: [Discussion] Separating PMC and Committership From: Jim Jagielski In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:52 -0400 Cc: dev@mxnet.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1FFC6EFE-06EF-48E3-A3B8-5344B7C6C08D@jaguNET.com> References: To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfGDGlzVDSlZgYcxfKyr1ofKHXj/zu7Ge7OtBQAHbHvT3atVcHYsCqNJlFxY6Xjnk7XFVynewNu8BcbR1mvSQsQiQMK1Yl38fQf1iNEYS6h7n7Fr5zHBK i5xq/8l9Q7dWTZz5XTbTf3oQAC4sdQcpdU4jpFnAFAkot4djdP7mERJJWwWHo4Afu2QFRUep5Q/77qY/FFzhm9nq5wz1wqujI04= 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 = wrote: >=20 > Dear MXNet community, >=20 > 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: >=20 > For active contributors we first invite them to become our committers. > Later on as they make significant contribution, we can invite them to = PMC. >=20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Comments from Marco: >=20 > That's a great idea! >=20 > 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: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > =46rom 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Comments from Carin: >=20 > I think it is a good idea. Here is a bit of reasoning behind my = thoughts. >=20 > *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. >=20 > *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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 >=20 > Best, > Haibin