Do you have any thoughts about what specific type or format of feedback would help make it less of a black box? Would it help to have examples of candidates L, M, N, O, and P who focus on testing tools and infrastructure?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Michael Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> >> > >> >> >>
