"easy to work with && sustained contributions" sounds reasonable to me as long as we have a couple of examples of what would meet this bar (it's a bit vague otherwise)
RE: the code review requirement. My feeling is that a history of code reviews is a strong positive factor, but it shouldn't block someone from committership if they have a history of submitting high-quality patches. I think a lot of contributors won't feel like they have a license to do (thorough) code reviews if they don't have any formal status in the project. Especially if most patches are coming from committers, it takes a great deal of confidence for someone with no formal status in the project to review a patch from a committers and block it from going in until it's good enough. IMO we don't want to restrict committership to this subset of people. On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > >>> >
