I apologize for dropping the ball on this. > Would it help to have examples of candidates L, M, N, O, and P who focus on > testing tools and infrastructure?
Yes. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >> > >>> >> >>>
