> What do you think, Michael? Thanks to you, Tim, and Todd for your thoughts. It still feels like a black box, especially for those of us who tend to concentrate on testing tools and infrastructure for Impala. Any feedback is appreciated.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > My feeling is similar to Tim's: > > It's the PPMC's responsibility, but a contributor is welcome to plead > their case, ask for a mentor, and so on. I think we shouldn't consider > it rude or pushy or aggressive to request committership. It is a > compliment to Impala and the Impala community that the contributor > want to be more involved. > > What do you think, Michael? > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > My two cents is that the PMC should be proactive about identifying > > potential committers and working with them to address any gaps. We > haven't > > done a good job of that so far but we've started up some discussions on > the > > private list to get better at that. > > > > You should feel free to ask anyone on the PMC about any of the above > > questions. Ideally that wouldn't be necessary, but in practice it may > help > > move things along, particularly if you have someone who will advocate for > > you and wrangle the PMC to come to a consensus. It's definitely on us to > > communicate to you what gaps (if any) there are - it shouldn't really be > a > > black box. > > > > - Tim > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Brown <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> You've done a great job highlighting some example scenarios. Here are > some > >> questions that aren't addressed in your writeup. > >> > >> What are contributors' responsibilities to move toward committership? In > >> particular, I'm talking about process, not the nuts and bolts of > >> contributions (including patches, bugs, reviews). For example: > >> > >> Should a contributor who wants to be a committer find a "mentor"? > >> > >> Should a contributor who wants to be a committer be lobbying for > >> committership to someone who has reviewed his patches, or dealt with > bugs > >> he's filed, or otherwise interacted with? > >> > >> Should a contributor nominate himself on this list? Must he cite > examples > >> of his contributions? > >> > >> How can a contributor who wants to be a committer receive good feedback > for > >> areas of improvement if his committership is rejected? > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > I think it would be helpful to non-committer contributors (and non-PMC > >> > committers (just me right now)) if PPMC members would muse a bit about > >> > what they believe the bar is for committership or PPMC membership. > >> > > >> > I am not suggesting that the PPMC write a document with so much detail > >> > that you are hamstrung when looking at contributors in the future and > >> > decising if they did 6 hard code reviews and 5 medium or 7 hard code > >> > reviews and 4 medium ones. > >> > > >> > However, multiple people have pinged me asking how to become a > >> > committer, asking what work products are sufficient. > >> > > >> > I don't have a foolproof way of describing the possible bars, so let > >> > me give a few examples for feedback from the PPMC. > >> > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > Potential committers: > >> > > >> > Alice started contributing 4 months ago. She fixes at least one style > >> > issue or typo every weekend. > >> > > >> > Bob started contributing a year ago. We uses Impala to organize his > >> > VHS collection, and he regularly reports scaling bugs as his > >> > collection grows to more and more impalad nodes. His reports are often > >> > out of date, since he runs an old Impala, but some are still bugs in > >> > the latest version. His bug reports are of very high quality. > >> > > >> > Carol started contributing six months ago. She helped design one > >> > tricky feature. It took her six months and 27 revisions to get the > >> > patch in. She also helps other users a lot with their issues. > >> > > >> > Dave has been contributing for 18 months. He helped design a tricky > >> > feature, too, but his code was not high quality enough to check in. He > >> > did document the feature while a PPMC member wrote the code. Since > >> > then, he's been helping users on the mailing lists and filing UI bugs, > >> > especially with the REPL. > >> > > >> > Eve used to contribute before Impala was with Apache, and she was not > >> > listed as a committer/PPMC member when incubation started. Since then, > >> > she does code reviews, only commenting on style issues. She does 3 or > >> > 4 a month. > >> > > >> > Frank has been contributing for three months. He writes 3-4 patches > >> > every weekend. They are all tests, query generation, or > >> > impala-shell.sh work, and they are almost uniformly high-quality. > >> > > >> > My personal feelings: Yes on Bob, Carol, Eve, and Frank. Alice is not > >> > on track. Dave is on track but should do more design work and doc > >> > writing. > >> > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > Potential PPMC members, all of which are already committers. > >> > > >> > Gertrude has been a contributor for 18 months. She spends most of her > >> > efforts on backend performance in-the-small - a few microops saved per > >> > row per patch. She helps review patches in this area. She doesn't > >> > participate much on governance. > >> > > >> > Harold has been a contributor for a 30 months. He works exclusively on > >> > performance, but he writes very little code. All of his effort is > >> > devoted to understanding Impala performance issues, which he writes > >> > and and files as high quality bug reports. He does not review code and > >> > he does not write code or documentation. He participates in discussion > >> > and consensus-building on design. > >> > > >> > Imelda has been a contributor for 12 months. She also does not write > >> > code. She is focused only on community outreach, writing blog posts > >> > and doing the simplest code reviews for her recruits to the project. > >> > She posts or gets a new contributor once a month. > >> > > >> > Jules has been a contributor for 40 months. He only reviews code, but > >> > he gives outstanding reviews of both design and style. He managed two > >> > releases last year. > >> > > >> > Kim has been a contributor for 55 months. She used to write a lot of > >> > code but now she is focused on keeping infrastructure ship-shape, > >> > mainly flaky test fixing and Jenkins wrangling. She rarely votes. > >> > > >> > My personal feelings: No on Gertrude and Kim, yes on Harold, Imelda, > >> > and Jules. G+K may be outstanding committers and members, but are not > >> > on track for PPMC membership. However, they could get on track very > >> > easily by focusing some small part of their effort on governance work. > >> > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > > >> > BTW, if you don't know if you already are a PPMC member, here is the > >> list: > >> > > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/impala.html > >> > > >> > If you are a PPMC member, please subscribe to private@, where votes > on > >> > committership and PPMC membership will be held. > >> > > >> > This general discussion should happen in public; private is for > >> > discussion of real people, not these fake names. > >> > > >> >
