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 Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:46:35 GMT
If there are no objections, I plan to start a vote on this tomorrow (Monday)

- Carin

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:24 AM Carin Meier <carinmeier@gmail.com> wrote:

> Haibin - Now that the updated document on "Becoming a Committer and PPMC
> Member" has been adopted by the community, would you be interested in
> starting a procedural vote on this?
>
> If not, I'd be happy to facilitate, but since it was your idea to start
> off with, I thought I would ask :)
>
> Best,
> Carin
>
> On Tue, 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