Hi all, just want to share my bits. I like the idea of formalizing the committer proposal mechanism. The actual standard for what count as good enough for a committer could be discussed.
I think the worrying of not being able to recruit new committers might not be a serious problem. I am thinking about two types of people here 1. There are some people who contribute to MXNet due to something else (e.g. he used MXNet in his project and would like to contribute back examples, or bug fix, or new operators, etc.) 2. There are some people who is interested in MXNet development and would like to work on it for a relatively long term (maintaining or developing) or would like to work on a relatively major component. My point is that for the first type of contributors, we might not need to propose everyone of them as Apache committers (if I understand correctly, everyone can submit a PR, even without committer permission, right?). On the other hand, the second type of contributors are our main target for committers, and I think for those people, having a more clear standard (again the actual standard could be debatable) for committer would not be a huge barrier. Suppose we lower the standard or completely remove the formal standard for committers, then we could probably be able to get more committers from the first type. But that might not necessarily be good to us --- in terms of having people that could either contribute relatively important components or provide longer term commitment to the project. But on the other hand, having a standard for committers do not (I hope) discourage the first type of contributors to contribute PRs. Best, Chiyuan On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Henri Yandell <[email protected]> wrote: > I worry that it creates a high barrier to entry. > > It's a far more common pattern for a project to do poorly at recruiting new > committers, than it is for one to recruit too many. > > Could you provide an example that provides a likely (imaginary if you'd > like) candidate? Mu's a pretty bad example for a new committer :) From the > attached doc I walk away thinking that I need to contribute for 2 years > before I can become a committer. > > Hen > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Ziheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Forward my comment in private mail list: > > > > I agree that it would be nice to have some quantitative standards to > > evaluate the candidates. Let's encourage the future candidates do this. > > > > - Ziheng > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 09:44 Mu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It seems that this thread didn't show in the dev list. > > > > > > Totally agree that we should make the committer nomination more formal. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Tianqi Chen <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:20 PM > > > Subject: Formalize Committer Proposal and Application Procedure > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > Hi Guys: > > > As I mentioned in another thread, I personally think the current > > > committer proposal and application process is too informal. > > > As MXNet grows larger and the community involves, I think it would > > be > > > very helpful to formalize the process and provide a clear standard for > > what > > > are we looking for in the comitter proposal process, and allow us to > > > evaluate based on the concrete evidence listed in the application to > > > promote the comitters. > > > This will setup a good standard for the contributors, as well as > > > provide solid material to back our decisions. After did some search, I > > > created this application template based on the committer application > from > > > Apache Mesos. I wrote it from the perspective of myself. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vKTgX1_EkAT7NSmaiBKBmbq > > > DuhF9kQd53BB4iUxGn4M/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > I would recommend this to become the mandatory thing for the > future > > > committer nomination and voting, as well as the re-evaluation standard > of > > > current comitters when we graduate from the incubator project. > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > -- > > Ziheng Jiang > > Fudan University | Computer Science > > >
