Which kind of things do you think we should use for examples of the contributions of Larry, Mathilda, Nicholas, Omie, and Patrick? I was thinking things in tests/benchmark, tests/comparison, the rest of tests/, testdata/, bin/, and bug reports. Would that help clarify?
In the first one, I wrote the examples and then I said how I would feel about them. Would it be more helpful if you wrote them and I (and, perhaps, other PPMC members) gave feedback? On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>>
