On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > "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.
Given that becoming a committer means that a person can now allow new code to go in (rather than just write code her/himself), I would actually say that having demonstrated good reviewing skills is even more important than the volume of prior code contributions. I think we should make that an explicit criterion. > > 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. I think we can counteract that by encouraging people to take on code reviews, maybe as secondary reviewers at the beginning to get their feet wet. A lot of the developer community's interactions are through code reviews, so those form an important part of the prevailing culture, and showing that you can contribute positively to that is a great stepping stone toward becoming a committer. > > 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? >> >>> >>
