I suggest we discuss on what the revised criteria for committers will be and how do committers move up to become a PMC member before voting on the separation ? I would like to see if that helps grow the community before Voting on this.
@Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> Can you clarify what you mean by bonafide intentions and other intangeables ?, I would assume one can still consider them while you vote if you can justify or support it and not be just based on how someone feels. On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:29 AM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMHO it’s not a great idea to develop a hard criteria for committer and PMC > as if it were some sort of checklist. If that were the case, then people > would tend to be just laser-focused on checking items off the list rather > than a bonafied drive to improve the product and the community. It would > also make it difficult to consider other intangeables in the decision. > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:43 AM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Micheal for making the process clearer to me. It helps quite a > bit. > > > > Also thanks to Chris and Steffen for your clarification and input. > > > > I think there are two issues that are intermingled in considering this. > One > > relates to separating levels of committer and PMC member. The other, as > > Steffen pointed out, relates to the criteria which we use to consider > > people for these levels of membership. I would propose that to make it > > easier to achieve consensus, we consider them each as their own proposal. > > > > The proposal of separating levels of committer and PMC member can be > > considered on the Apache definitions of rights and responsibilities here > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles: Since the PMC > > member has more rights and responsibilities than a committer, I think it > > implies a stricter criteria, (although it would be unspecified in the > > proposal). > > > > The proposal of redefining our project's criteria in respect to how we > > consider nomination to those roles could be a separate discussion and > vote > > since there are other issues that we might want to tackle such as > inclusion > > of non-code contributions and general alignment to the Apache > definitions. > > > > We can of course choose to tackle the proposal of redefining the criteria > > first or do the separation of levels first since the discussion is > already > > in progress. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - Carin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:04 AM Steffen Rochel <steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Haibin's proposed "For active contributors we first invite them to > become > > > our committers. Later on as they make significant contribution, we can > > > invite them to PMC." > > > Several people raised the question what defines "active contributors" > and > > > "make significant contribution". In my view the discussion has not > > answered > > > the questions and it is not clear to me what changes are proposed to > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Becoming+a+Committer > . > > > I'm making the assumption that the proposal is to simplify the path for > > > becoming a committer to grow the committer community. So far I have not > > > heard what changes or simplifications are proposed. Without a change I > > fail > > > to see the benefit of this proposal to increase the number of > committers. > > > I agree that the path from committer to PMC member should be clarified > as > > > well and suggest to align with expectations and responsibilities of PMC > > > members. > > > I'm also under the assumption that the proposal only applies for future > > > committers and PMC members, not for existing PMC members and this > > > assumption should be clarified. > > > > > > Steffen > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:29 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I believe the assumption has always been that current PMC members > will > > > > remain PMC members. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:51 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I too think separating committers from PMC is a good idea for your > > > > project > > > > > given the desire to grow committers and the concerns I have seen > > trying > > > > to > > > > > add new committers. I saw at least one other mentor, Jim on this > > > thread > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > Is the plan to leave all current PMC members in the PMC? If that > is > > > not > > > > > the plan, perhaps more discussion is required before moving on. > > > > > > > > > > Assuming you feel the discussion is done, someone needs to start a > > > vote. > > > > > This would be a procedural change as outlined on > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > > If I were doing it, I would announce on this thread I am starting a > > > vote > > > > on > > > > > this matter tomorrow or some specified time. I might even outline > > what > > > > the > > > > > vote will be. This give people a chance to speak up if they think > > more > > > > > discussion is needed. Assuming no more discussion, start a [VOTE] > > > thread > > > > > on the dev list. > > > > > > > > > > I am used to seeing [VOTE] and [DISCUSS] in the subject line of > such > > > > emails > > > > > but I didn't find any official guidance on that. Maybe it is a > > project > > > > by > > > > > project decision, I did find > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDGENT/Sample+process+emails > > > > . > > > > > I totally parsed right over the [Discussion] in the subject this > > thread > > > > but > > > > > I'll be on the look out for it in the future. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:05 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Let me rephrase the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I'm new to the committer/PMC process, I wondering what the > > next > > > > > step > > > > > > is in a proposed change of process like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we gauge that there is a significant enough interest do we > > > propose a > > > > > > vote? Is there enough interest and information to have a vote in > > this > > > > > case? > > > > > > > > > > > > (Anyone feel free to answer the question - mentor or not :) ) > > > > > > > > > > > > - Carin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:48 PM Carin Meier < > carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been a very interesting discussion and I think it > > > > underlined a > > > > > > > desire to increase the committer pool and community for the > > > project. > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > wondering now what the next steps would look like? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do any mentors have any advice on how to proceed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Carin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:23 PM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In my experience, and in my opinion, it makes sense to > > distinguish > > > > and > > > > > > >> differentiate between a committer and a PMC member. The latter > > > shows > > > > > > just a > > > > > > >> bit more "investment" in the project and has obtained a bit > more > > > > merit > > > > > > due > > > > > > >> to their continued efforts. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Of course, what we also need is some public governance model > > that > > > > > shows > > > > > > >> what these levels are, what they mean and how to obtain them. > > The > > > > > > following > > > > > > >> is the normal setup for Apache projects: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The nice this is that this also allows for a very > > low-bar-to-entry > > > > for > > > > > > >> committer-ship while still maintain a somewhat higher bar for > > the > > > > > PPMC, > > > > > > >> which is great for community building. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Oct 9, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Haibin Lin < > > > haibin.lin....@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Dear MXNet community, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > In the past when we invite a person to become a committer, > > > he/she > > > > is > > > > > > >> > automatically made a PMC member. However, a lot of > communities > > > > keep > > > > > a > > > > > > >> small > > > > > > >> > PMC, and a bigger and more diverse committers to enrich the > > > > > community. > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > has the benefit of having two opportunities to encourage > > > > > contribution. > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > can also help lower the bar for inviting committers, which > > helps > > > > > build > > > > > > >> > consensus in our already large PMC. I'd like to propose the > > > > > following: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > For active contributors we first invite them to become our > > > > > committers. > > > > > > >> > Later on as they make significant contribution, we can > invite > > > them > > > > > to > > > > > > >> PMC. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > =============================================================== > > > > > > >> > Comments from Marco: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > That's a great idea! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The hard question is how to differentiate between a > committer > > > and > > > > a > > > > > > PMC > > > > > > >> > member and where we set the bar for each. If I understand > you > > > > right, > > > > > > you > > > > > > >> > are proposing to honor active contributions by volume (or > > > another > > > > > > >> similar > > > > > > >> > metric). While I think that's a good idea in general, I > have a > > > few > > > > > > >> thoughts: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > We definitely have a lot of active people in the project, > but > > > > let's > > > > > > say > > > > > > >> > that they contribute a substantial amount, but their > > > contributions > > > > > > >> can't go > > > > > > >> > in as-is because they lack quality, consistency, testing or > > they > > > > > don't > > > > > > >> > match with the overall style and best practices. For a > > > > > code-committer, > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > would still be a no-go in my opinion. That person would > still > > > > > require > > > > > > >> some > > > > > > >> > guidance and mentoring until they are aligned with the > project > > > > style > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > guidelines as otherwise they might accept low-quality PRs. I > > > know > > > > we > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > revert that, but let's avoid confrontation as much as > > possible. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > The minimum bar for a code committer would then be: > > > > > > >> > - (almost) unaltered acceptance of their PRs (of course, > some > > > PRs > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > intentionally made for discussions and those would even be a > > > > plus!) > > > > > > >> > - following mxnets community guidelines, rules and styles > > > > > > >> > - giving useful reviews (in order to see how they would be > as > > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > >> > they were a committer) > > > > > > >> > The would be weighted differently on a case by case base, > but > > > this > > > > > > >> could be > > > > > > >> > a starting point to describe what we are looking for. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > From committer to PMC on the other hand, the difference is > > quite > > > > > > small. > > > > > > >> > Something I personally would be looking for are three > things: > > > > > > >> > - judgement > > > > > > >> > - community engagement > > > > > > >> > - Apache way > > > > > > >> > While a committer might be chosen due to their > contributions, > > > they > > > > > > >> wouldn't > > > > > > >> > be evaluated that strictly for the above points. A PMC > member > > > is a > > > > > > >> > representative of the project who steers the long term > > > development > > > > > of > > > > > > >> it. > > > > > > >> > Thus, they should be active on our channels like dev@, make > > > good > > > > > > >> reviews on > > > > > > >> > GitHub (if applicable), express good judgement and reasoning > > > > during > > > > > > >> votes > > > > > > >> > and generally show that they are generally helpful to the > > > project > > > > > on a > > > > > > >> > non-code level. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > These are just some thoughts of mine to help start of this > > > > > > discussions. > > > > > > >> It > > > > > > >> > would be good to hear what other people are looking for > while > > > > > > evaluating > > > > > > >> > candidates and if there's anything they would like to > > highlight. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ============================================================== > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Comments from Carin: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I think it is a good idea. Here is a bit of reasoning behind > > my > > > > > > >> thoughts. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Pros of separating Committer and PMC * > > > > > > >> > - It would allow us to bring on more committers than the > > > previous > > > > > > >> criteria > > > > > > >> > which would help in giving people the tools they need to be > > > > > > productive. > > > > > > >> > - The increased productivity should allow PRs to be reviewed > > and > > > > > > merged > > > > > > >> > more quickly. > > > > > > >> > - Provide a more welcoming experience for people posting new > > PRs > > > > to > > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > them processed faster. > > > > > > >> > - Also provide an additional layer of membership (PMC) > after a > > > > > > committer > > > > > > >> > to help motivate involvement. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Cons of separating* > > > > > > >> > - There is a possibility of having someone as a committer > that > > > > isn't > > > > > > as > > > > > > >> > closely aligned to the standards and quality suffers. > > > > > > >> > *Possible Mitigation* > > > > > > >> > - We do have a robust CI that should ensure that basic > > > > > > functionality > > > > > > >> > doesn't break. > > > > > > >> > - Do additional communication when a new committer is > > > announced > > > > > > what > > > > > > >> > the expectation of the standards of committership is. > > > > > > >> > - Two votes now need to happen for a person since there are > > two > > > > > > levels. > > > > > > >> > *Possible Mitigation* > > > > > > >> > - If we are convinced the person would be a good PMC > member > > > as > > > > > > well, > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > could vote them as both at the same time. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I think it would be a good change to try and see how it > works > > > out > > > > > > over a > > > > > > >> > period of a few months. The nice thing is that if we feel > like > > > it > > > > > > isn't > > > > > > >> > working well, we can always change the process. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ============================================================== > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Best, > > > > > > >> > Haibin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
