On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > wrote:
> * I personally don't like the idea that comittership status is decided in a > closed mail list. This is not the transparency level that I would expect in > an open source project. I'm happy to receive feedback from others that > might be opposed to my application for committer to know what things could > be improved to get there. I have been doing a plethora of contributions to > the project over a year including ARM support, Android and CI, obviously > some of this work together with my team at Amazon (@lebeg, > @KellenSunderland, @marcoabreu). I don't have visibility on how much longer > one has to wait, or what needs to be improved to get there. > I agree in principle (which means I'm going to disagree, right? :) ). Ideally discussion about extending community trust would be made in public, however for many of us having that discussion in public is an uncomfortable act. A private channel for feedback is not about hiding information from the subject, but about creating a safe place in which someone can provide that feedback. I think you have a very valid and, slightly to the side, point of it not being clear what steps are needed/remaining to become a committer; which is affected by the podling pmc still seeking consensus on how they view it. > > * My team is on-call for CI / CD which is also sponsored by us. To fix > problems promptly we would need write permissions to the repository. This > would normal in any other project, be open source or corporate. I think > it's not effective to be on-call when you can't submit critical fixes and > wait days for a CR. Basically I think everyone responsible or involved in > CI should have access rights. As you know, testing our project is a > challenging task for reasons discussed before. > Personally I don't care. If the committers aren't handling the CI/CD then it's not important to the project. It's EXCELLENT that you and your team are contributing your time to run CI/CD for the project, but the notion that an open source project requires an on-call CI/CD is, in my opinion, the project having its priorities skewed. However, that said, I agree that if the project is unable to survive without the CI/CD, then it sounds far more important than whatever code is being committed and shows more commitment to the project than the creator of a piece of code. I'm pretty sure my opinion that the CI/CD is not crucial is heretical for this community. I suspect that if I said we should turn it off for a week there would be a wailing and gnashing of teeth from every corner of the mailing list. Given that, I think you earn more 'become committer points' by maintaining that CI/CD than someone does by coding. > Please committers and mentors, provide a solution that allows us to work > more effectively and move the project forward faster, as is vital to make > it easier to contribute so we can attract more users. > +1. The podling pmc needs to find consensus on the become-committer stage. Hen
