I just wanted to follow up on this discussion so that non-PPMC members know that this hasn't just stalled out. The PPMC has been actively working on identifying and voting on committers. I think we converged more towards Todd Lipcon and Jim Apple's view of things where we take a more inclusive view of committership.
So watch this space. - Tim On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jim Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > >>>> >
