nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] From Contributor to Committer
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:56:49 GMT
Agreed.  Unless there is any objection I plan to assume lazy consensus
and remove the draft marking tomorrow or shortly thereafter.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't read the current draft as requiring that someone
> strictly progress contributor -> committer -> PMC. I do read it as
> stating that the evaluation of project activity should normally be
> over some period of time for committers and a longer period of time
> for PMC status (e.g. maybe we miss someone who's behaving like a
> committer over a normal 3 month period, but we catch it at 6. At that
> point they've been around as long as a PMC so we skip the committer
> step).
>
> Of course, I might be biased by the fact that I skipped directly to
> PMC status. :)
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bryan,
>>
>> That is a good point and I do think we should avoid putting such a
>> rule/requirement in place.  However, practically speaking I would
>> imagine that is how it will play out most often.
>>
>> I've taken the comments of this thread largely based on Tony's
>> excellent start and created a draft wiki page for it here [1].  If
>> discussion remains on track then I'll assume lazy consensus and remove
>> the draft notice.
>>
>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Progression+from+user+to+Project+Management+Committee
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So are we saying as a community that a contributor has to first become a
>>> committer, and then only after continued consistent engagement could then
>>> be considered for PMC?
>>>
>>> I don't have any issue with that approach, although it is not exactly what
>>> I thought when we first created the two tiers.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony,
>>>>
>>>> There appears to be consensus around these thoughts.  Perhaps we
>>>> should document this on a Wiki page?
>>>>
>>>> I think generally for committer status it would be good to see a
>>>> number of these things for a period of time and then for PMC status to
>>>> see those contributions continue and ideally expand for a longer
>>>> duration.  Another few months?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Tony,
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree with the points you raise and the completeness of the
>>>> > perspective you share. I do think we should add to that a focus on
>>>> > licensing and legal aspects.
>>>> >
>>>> > - The individual has shown an effort to aid the community in producing
>>>> > release which are consistent with ASF licensing requirements and the
>>>> > guidance followed in the Apache NiFi community to adhere to those
>>>> > policies.  This understanding could be shown when introducing new
>>>> > dependencies (including transitive) by ensuring that all licensing and
>>>> > notice updates have occurred.  Another good example is flagging
>>>> > potentially copyrighted or insufficiently cited items like Skora found
>>>> > recently in the Kafka tests.  One of our most important jobs as a
>>>> > community is to put out legal releases and that is certainly a team
>>>> > effort!
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> > Joe
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> >> Thanks for starting this Tony!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As a PMC member, I really try to focus on things that help the
>>>> >> community where we tend to have limited bandwidth: reviews weigh
>>>> >> heavily, as does helping out new folks on users@, and doing public
>>>> >> talking/workshops.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I also am inclined to vote in favor of folks who show the kind of
>>>> >> project dedication that we expect from PMC members. While we still
>>>> >> need to do a better job of describing those things, at the moment
I'm
>>>> >> thinking of things like voting on release candidates, watching out
for
>>>> >> our trademarks, and investing the time needed to handle our licensing
>>>> >> responsibilities.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Tony Kurc <tkurc@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> >>> First off, I recommend this reading this page to understand
what the
>>>> Apache
>>>> >>> NiFi PMC draws from when making a decision
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://community.apache.org/contributors/index.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I thought it would be helpful for me to walk through how I interpret
>>>> that
>>>> >>> guidance, and what that means for NiFi. For those that didn't
read,
>>>> there
>>>> >>> are four aspects of contribution that are worth considering
someone for
>>>> >>> committership: community, project, documentation and code. Really,
the
>>>> >>> committer decision comes down to: has this person built up enough
>>>> merit in
>>>> >>> the community that I have a high degree of confidence that I
trust
>>>> him/her
>>>> >>> with write access to the code and website.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Given that merit and trust are subjective measures, how does
the PMC
>>>> make
>>>> >>> those decisions? We, the PMC, have attempted to make this as
>>>> evidence-based
>>>> >>> as possible. When discussing a contributor for being considered
for
>>>> >>> committer access, we attempt to put together a corpus of interaction
>>>> in the
>>>> >>> community, both negative and positive, and use this as a basis
for
>>>> >>> discussion. The interaction with the community can include:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> - Interaction on the mailing lists - is this person helping
others? Is
>>>> this
>>>> >>> person using the community to enhance his/her understanding
of the
>>>> project
>>>> >>> or the apache foundation?
>>>> >>> - Code contributions - is this person contributing code that
advances
>>>> the
>>>> >>> project? How important is the code? Is this a niche capability,
a core
>>>> >>> capability? How challenging was the code? Was the code improving
the
>>>> >>> quality of the project (bug fix, adding  tests, or code that
comes
>>>> along
>>>> >>> with comprehensive unit and/or integration tests). How does
this person
>>>> >>> react to criticism of his/her contribution? Is this person reacting
>>>> >>> positively to patch or pull request feedback? Is the code high
quality?
>>>> >>> - Assisting others with their contributions - is this person
providing
>>>> >>> useful comments on pull requests or patches? Is this person
testing new
>>>> >>> features/functionality and providing feedback on the mailing
list?
>>>> >>> - Participating in project votes and discussions: is this person
>>>> helping to
>>>> >>> verify releases? Providing input to the roadmap? Is this person
using
>>>> the
>>>> >>> lists to get feedback on features he/she plan to implement?
>>>> >>> - Documentation contributions - is this person helping the community
by
>>>> >>> blogging? providing patches to the web page or in-app docs?
>>>> contributing to
>>>> >>> the project wiki?
>>>> >>> - Other community/project activities - has this person organized
or
>>>> talked
>>>> >>> at a meetup? has this person briefed at a conference or workshop?
>>>> >>> - "Going over and beyond" factor - Has this person done something
>>>> >>> exceptional to demonstrate dedication to the project? e.g. did
this
>>>> person
>>>> >>> go to great lengths to fix or diagnose a critical issue?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> An underlying theme of the above: the ASF code of conduct [1]
is taken
>>>> >>> seriously by the PMC - while interacting with the community,
was this
>>>> >>> person adhering to the guidelines? Are we seeing a pattern of
openness,
>>>> >>> empathy, inquisitiveness, and willingness to cooperate? Has
this person
>>>> >>> shown remorse for interaction that may have violated the code
of
>>>> conduct
>>>> >>> and a positive trend since?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It helps for a committer to have evidence supporting all four
aspects
>>>> of
>>>> >>> contribution. It also helps to have demonstrated this over an
extended
>>>> >>> period of time. I personally like to see at least 3 months of
strong
>>>> >>> contribution.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> This is a start of the discussion, I'm hoping others can weigh
in.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1. http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Tony
>>>>

Mime
View raw message