nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] From Contributor to Committer
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:53:01 GMT
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