The drawback to the laissez faire approach is that it doesn’t necessarily incentivize people to take action either, and you end up getting the same people generally scrambling to manage the PRs.
What about a system that does a basic round robin or random bot assignment of someone from a list to the PR. That person’s job is not to review it (though they can if they want to of course) it’s their responsibility to coordinate with the community to get it across the line or get consensus on what next action needs to happen. This is a big part of what developer advocates do on the Trino side and it works well but it does centralize a lot of the orchestration of these PRs to few people. I had always wanted to set up a system like this eventually to distribute the load and responsibility and offers another low barrier entrance to participate in the community. That list could be an opt-in or opt-out list for anyone (maybe a “reviewer” mailing list). I have other ideas on how the list gets pruned as well, but just gonna put this out there and see of there’s any interest in it. On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:03 AM Ryan Blue <b...@tabular.io> wrote: > Sorry, I'm a strong -1 for having owners or standard reviewers. > > In this community, we've always taken the stance that anyone should be > able to jump in and help. Having assigned owners may seem like a good idea, > but it actually prevents other people from volunteering and getting > involved. This is also why we don't assign issues to individuals -- they > often don't end up submitting a PR and it prevents other people from > contributing. Having an assigned owner gives the impression that the > responsibility is on a particular individual, making other people that are > capable of reviewing not pay attention. I think this will slow down the > community and I don't think it is a good idea. > > Ryan > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:36 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 for having multiple PR review owners per module/label. >> >> Having module owners can accelerate PR processing. For instance, I'm >> awaiting feedback on a Spark action for computing partition stats ( >> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9437). Currently, only Anton is >> reviewing, which may cause delays if he's occupied. In my opinion, having >> multiple module owners would enable developers to seek feedback more >> efficiently. >> >> - Ajantha >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:11 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks >>> >>> Now that we have the proposal process "merged", I will create the PR >>> about reviewers and update stale job. >>> >>> I should have the PR tomorrow for review. >>> >>> Thanks ! >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:55 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Dan >>> > >>> > Yes, I saw you merged it, that's great. >>> > >>> > I will move forward on the "stale bot" stuff. >>> > >>> > Thanks ! >>> > Regards >>> > JB >>> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:48 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Hey JB, apologies for combining these two things in the same thread, >>> but we got enough eyes on the first PR and I went ahead and merged i >>> > > >>> > > If you want to put together the PR for your proposed changes, we can >>> get looking at that. >>> > > >>> > > We'll also need to backfill the existing proposals and update the >>> website to have a link to the label. (Will work with you and Bits on that) >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > -Dan >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Hi Fokko >>> > >> >>> > >> I think combining Dan's proposal about "proposal process" and this >>> > >> proposal about "PR flows" would be helpful for the project (to track >>> > >> the proposals and avoid "stale" PRs/proposals). >>> > >> >>> > >> If PMC members are OK, I'm ready to help to set this up :) >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks >>> > >> Regards >>> > >> JB >>> > >> >>> > >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:27 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Hey everyone, >>> > >> > >>> > >> > This is a gentle bump from my end on this thread since I like the >>> idea. Several people have already approved Dan's PR about formalizing the >>> proposal process. Are there any questions or concerns from the PMC before >>> adopting this? >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Kind regards, >>> > >> > Fokko Driesprong >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Op wo 13 mrt 2024 om 13:17 schreef Renjie Liu < >>> liurenjie2...@gmail.com>: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> Hi, JB: >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> Your proposal looks great to me. We should definitely have a >>> vote for a proposal impacting the spec, and the model is great. >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> Hi >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> I think a vote would be necessary only if we don't have >>> consensus on a >>> > >> >>> proposal. If anyone is OK with the proposal (no clear "concern" >>> in the >>> > >> >>> doc and/or the GitHub issue), a vote is not required. >>> > >> >>> That said, any proposal impacting a spec should be voted (as >>> part of >>> > >> >>> the spec proposal). >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> I think it's fair to identify a proposal vote as a "code >>> modification" vote. >>> > >> >>> It means that it follows this model: a negative vote >>> constitutes a >>> > >> >>> veto , which the voting group (generally the PMC of a project) >>> cannot >>> > >> >>> override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy consensus >>> > >> >>> declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the >>> full-stop >>> > >> >>> nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal >>> (non-lazy >>> > >> >>> consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive >>> votes and >>> > >> >>> no negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the >>> > >> >>> requisite amount of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer >>> either >>> > >> >>> withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and resubmits it, >>> or the >>> > >> >>> proposal simply languishes as an open issue until someone gets >>> around >>> > >> >>> to removing it. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> We can link to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> Regards >>> > >> >>> JB >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:21 AM Renjie Liu < >>> liurenjie2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > Hi, Daniel: >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > Thanks for this summary. >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > I think one thing missing is that do we need a vote for the >>> proposal to be accepted or rejected? If required, what should the voting >>> process be? >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:04 AM Daniel Weeks < >>> dwe...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> Hey everyone, I synced up with JB about the proposal process >>> and wanted to see if we could make some initial progress. >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> Based on some of the earlier discussions, we want to >>> leverage as much of the informal process as possible, but improve >>> discoverability and a little structure. This probably means using github >>> for tracking, google docs where possible for the early proposal >>> implementation comments, and the dev list for discussion threads, awareness >>> and voting. >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> That said, I propose we adopt the following: >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> 1. A simple issue template for initiating a proposal and >>> applying a 'proposal' label to the issue >>> > >> >>> >> 2. Use a github search link to document current proposals >>> (based on the 'proposal' label) >>> > >> >>> >> 3. Continue using google docs for proposals >>> documentation/comments (referenced from the github issue) >>> > >> >>> >> 4. Continue to create DISCUSS threads on the dev list for >>> communication >>> > >> >>> >> 4. Backfill current proposals by creating issues for them >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> I've created this PR to capture the initial template and >>> docs. >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> I think we want to introduce this with as little overhead as >>> possible. Please follow up with questions/comments so we can close this >>> out. >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> > >> >>> >> Dan >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Hi Manu >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Yup, it's on my TODO. Thanks for the reminder, I will be >>> back on this >>> > >> >>> >>> one this week :) >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> Regards >>> > >> >>> >>> JB >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Manu Zhang < >>> owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> > Hi JB, >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> > Are you still working on this nice proposal? >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> > Regards, >>> > >> >>> >>> > Manu >>> > >> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:35 PM Fokko Driesprong < >>> fo...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> Nice! I fully agree with the abovementioned. I >>> originally set up the stalebot for the issues because I noticed that there >>> were many issues around old Spark versions that weren't even maintained >>> anymore. I feel it is better to either close or take action on an issue. >>> For me, it makes sense to extend this to PRs as well. >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> Same as Amogh said, always feel free to ping me when >>> either a PR or issue lingering and you need some eyes on it. >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> Kind regards, >>> > >> >>> >>> >> Fokko >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >> Op do 4 jan 2024 om 07:42 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> j...@nanthrax.net>: >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> Hi >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> That's also the purpose of the reviewers file: having >>> multiple >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> reviewers per tag. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks guys for your feedback, I will move forward with >>> the PR :) >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> JB >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Ajantha Bhat < >>> ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > +1, >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > Some of my PRs have been open for a long time and >>> sometimes it doesn't get the attention it requires. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > Notifying both the reviewer and the author can help >>> expedite the review process and facilitate quicker handling of new >>> contributions. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > I think having more than one committer assigned for >>> PR can also definitely help in speeding up the process if one of the >>> committer is busy or on holiday. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > But we also need to think on the next steps. What if >>> we still don't receive the necessary response even after sending >>> notifications? >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > Should we have a slack channel for those PRs to >>> conclude by discussing (or some guidelines on how to take it further). >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > We can have a trial run for some days and see how it >>> goes. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > Thanks, >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > Ajantha >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:19 AM Amogh Jahagirdar < >>> am...@tabular.io> wrote: >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >> +1, I think this is a step in the right direction. >>> One other consideration I wanted to bring up was dependabot and if there's >>> any unique handling we want to do there because I've noticed that PRs from >>> dependabot tend to pile up. I think with the proposal we won't really need >>> to do anything unique and just treat it as a normal PR (it would be a build >>> label with its own set of reviewers) and we'll get notified the same way. >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> >> I'll also say for reviews (speaking for myself, but >>> I think many others probably feel this way as well), always feel free to >>> ping on Slack and follow up :) But overall I do like having more of a >>> mechanism. >>> >> > > -- > Ryan Blue > Tabular >
