Does anyone have thoughts about how, exactly, to evaluate non-code contributions?
What criteria should Apache Impala use to evaluate contributors for committership if they have not committed any code? "easy to work with && sustained contributions"? On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Marcel Kornacker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree that we shouldn't be too concerned about the risk of rogue commits >> - between version control and code review it's unlikely to happen (without >> violating other rules and norms of the project) and is easily reverted. >> >> I think the general criteria is that someone has made a significant >> contribution to the project and has demonstrated an ability to work well >> with the community, within the rules and norms of the project. It might be >> easiest to give specific examples of some specific roles. >> >> E.g.someone could become a committer based on code contributions if they >> have a solid history of code contribution (a few large patches, more >> smaller patches) and can effectively shepherd their patches through code >> review (i.e. post a good-quality initial patch and work well with the >> reviewers to address concerns). > > Regarding the code contributions criterion: I would like to add to > that a requirement for a history of solid code reviews, ie, the person > can effectively shepherd other people's patches through code review > and maintain the integrity of the codebase. Writing code and reviewing > code go hand-in-hand. > >> >> With docs contributors, it would similarly be based on a solid history of >> docs contributions and ability to work with the review process. >> >> Outside of that, we could also look at history of contributing to project >> discussions and giving constructive feedback on JIRAs, code reviews, and >> other project decision-making. >> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'd like to make a wiki page on what the criteria are for becoming an >>> official Impala committer. Before doing so, I thought we could talk >>> about what should go in that page. >>> >>> I went to a talk by some experienced ASF people on other projects >>> (Spark, Hadoop, etc.) who said: >>> >>> 1. Every committer should be "an easy person to work with". >>> >>> 2. One mitigating factor to the risk of adding a new committer is that >>> committers rarely go overboard and start committing code that is >>> beyond their expertise. >>> >>> 3. Some projects want committers to be an expert in one area of the code. >>> >>> 4. Other people have the view that someone should be voted into a >>> committer once it saves time to make them a committer. Making someone >>> a committer can save time in a few ways: for instance, they can take >>> on more responsibility, taking some work off the shoulders of the >>> other committers. >>> >>> 5. Many projects will make someone a committer, or even a PMC member, >>> if they are not committing new features but instead are contributing >>> by filing bugs, triaging bugs, reviewing code, writing documentation, >>> and so on. >>> >>> My plan for this [DISCUSS] thread is that we can chat for a while if >>> anyone disagrees with any of these or wants to add something else. >>> Once the thread quiets down, I'll write the wiki page and send the >>> link to ts thread. After that, anyone with a wiki account will be able >>> edit the page. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>>
