Following up on this, this revision cycle is meant to be more clear about owners + peers, and less focused on the Red Hat shorthand for levels of responsibility.
As far as further goals, I think we can outline Architects and Leads responsibility in a further cycle. I'll let Vijay respond to a further governance document. -amye On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Niels de Vos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:40:35AM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote: > > Le jeudi 13 avril 2017 à 18:01 -0700, Amye Scavarda a écrit : > > > In light of community conversations, I've put some revisions on the > > > Maintainers changes, outlined in the hackmd pad: > > > https://hackmd.io/s/SkwiZd4qe > > > > > > Feedback welcomed! > > > > > > Note that the goals of this are to expand out our reach as a project > > > (Gluster.org) and make it easy to define who's a maintainer for what > > > feature. > > > I'll highlight the goals in the document here: > > > > > > * Refine how we declare component owners in Gluster > > > * Create a deeper sense of ownership throughout the open source project > > > * Welcome more contibutors at a project impacting level > > > > > > We've clarified what the levels of 'owners' and 'peers' are in terms of > > > responsibility, and we'll look to implement this in the 3.12 cycle. > > > Thanks! > > > > So, I realize that the concept of component is not defined in the > > document. I assume everybody have a shared understanding about what it > > is, but maybe not, so wouldn't it make sense to define it more clearly ? > > > > Is this planned to be done later as part of "We will be working on > > carving out new components for things that make logical sense." ? > > > > As for example, with regard to my previous comment, would > > "infrastructure" be a component, would "documentation" be a component ? > > Indeed, that is one of the things that I mentioned in a similar way on > the previous version of the document. Because the document is aimed at > the Gluster Community, it should address not only the main GlusterFS > project, but also other "components maintained by the community". There > are many different projects in the Gluster Community, of which the > GlusterFS project is one, infrastructure, documentation and probably all > repositories under https://github.com/gluster are others. Modules for > Samba, NFS-Ganesha and other "external" projects probably do not count > towards "Gluster proper" and are not included in the "Maintainers 2.0" > approach (mentioning the excluded kinds of projects would be a good > thing too). > > Also, the other relevant "roles" like "Project Lead", "Community Lead" > and "Project Architect" need to be explained with their > responsibilities. A paragraph of their description should probably be > added to the MAINTAINERS [0] file when that gets updated too. A single > naming for the roles would be best (no more "maintainers" anywhere?). > Where would it be listed who has which role in the Gluster Community? > > When I click through the previous conversation, much of the feedback > that was given on an earlier version [1] has not been included or > addressed it seems. In one of the emails Vijay mentioned a "project > governance document" is being written, and that should probably give > more clarity when reading the Maintainers 2.0 proposal. A link to that > document would be helpful. > > Thanks, > Niels > > > 0. https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS > 1. http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2017-March/002368.html > -- Amye Scavarda | [email protected] | Gluster Community Lead
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
