Hi Steve: I think you and Jim are talking past each other a bit... I expect partly because Jim is new.
As Steve notes in the community charter, the TSC has/had responsibility for final approval of all new-committer requests, and the PTLs are responsible for documenting a) the new committer's worthiness, and b) that existing committers approve of the promotion. The TSC has never been tasked with executing any of the mechanics of providing committer-rights or documentation of such rights anywhere. So Steve's original question was in regard to the TSC's delegation of that final approval to the Release Engineer, given that it had been given to Gildas, was everyone comfortable with giving that same responsibility to Jim. Note that the delegation is only for committer requests that have clear worthiness and voting documentation complete. If any questions or concerns arise in the Release Manager's review, the request goes to the TSC for a full review. Jim is talking about something different. Namely, that apparently Gildas maintained an INFO.yaml file in each of ONAP's ~150 repos with each committer's name/LFID, and Gildas also took on the responsibility of submitting the request to LF-IT to add the commit-rights for that/those repos to the newly promoted individual. Jim is noting that having one person (him) do that work is a bottleneck in the process and is costing him over 1 hour per day which is not a good use of his time. Instead, there is a new process whereby each P'TL takes on the responsibility of updating the INFO.yaml file for their project and submitting the request to LF-IT to have the commit-right added to the newly promoted individual. Steve's point of TSC delegation does indeed speed up the process for committer promotions. Jim's point of having one person do something that can easily be spread across project PTLs also speeds up the process and properly scales the work, removing a bottleneck. Best, Phil. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:13 PM Stephen Terrill < stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > > > I may have missed something here. > > > > The community charter states: > > > > 3.2.2.1 Adding Committers > > •Initial Committers for a project will be specified at project creation > > •Committer rights for a project are earned via contribution and community > trust. Committers for a project select and vote for new Committers for that > project, subject to TSC approval. > > •New Committers for a project should have a demonstrable established > history of meritocratic contributions. > > > > The TSC delegated vetting the requests to the release manager. The PTLs > cannot just modify these according to our current governance. > > > > BR, > > > > Steve. > > > > > > *From:* Jim Baker <jba...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Sent:* Friday 15 February 2019 01:19 > *To:* Stephen Terrill <stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> > *Cc:* onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* Re: Committer promotion requests for Integration > > > > Delays these days are running in the weeks time frames as the PTLs haven't > embraced the responsibility of modifying their own INFO.yaml files. > > These files are the user readable source of truth for the committers and > rel_eng requests the gerritt merge be completed and the gerritt > > link to be produced to prove the LDAP that they control (the real SoT) is > in alignment with the INFO.yaml. > > > > I'd* LOVE *to see the community take over this task as I really fail to > see how LFN adds value here. > > Thoughts? > > Jim > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Stephen Terrill < > stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that you taking the role. Earlier the > committer approval process was delegate to the release responsible and I > don’t recall a decision to change this, though that can be re-evaluated and > done. My view is that the value added is speed in the case of normal > approval as a voting process takes time. > > > > BR, > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* Jim Baker <jba...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Sent:* Thursday 14 February 2019 22:50 > *To:* Stephen Terrill <stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> > *Cc:* onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* Re: Committer promotion requests for Integration > > > > Hey Steve, > There was a TSC discussion about release manager and infrastructure > manager roles - but apparently no vote on the matter as I found the issue > still open: > > (TSC) Finalize discussions about the Infrastructure Role > > I have been acting as a proxy for the TSC in committer adds/deletes, repo > creation (acting infrastructure manager), and coordinating other > infrastructure topics. > Today @TSCmeeting I announced that myself et.al. would be coming forward > with a roadmap of LF infrastructure plans for the coming few months. > > In terms of the committer approval process did you want to propose a > change? I'd love to hear your thoughts. > I weigh all the tasks the LFN staff does with the simple "do we create > value by performing this action"? > Committer management needs a control point - but it's hard to say we > create value by being that control point... > What do you think? > Jim > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stephen Terrill < > stephen.terr...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just wanted to check the process on this now. Originally for each the > committer promotion and new repository requests, the TSC held a vote. Then > this was streamlined we decided to have the release responsible, and if it > was all OK (voted by PTLs, history of Metacritic contribution, a reasonable > and small number of committers; then release manager OKd and the TSC was > informed, otherwise it was raised to the TSC by the release manager for > further discussion and final decision. We have had a change of guard but > no decision to re-evaluate the process. I assume then that we continue to > follow the same. With this email I wanted to check that we have a common > assumption regarding this. > > > > BR, > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* onap-tsc@lists.onap.org <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> *On Behalf Of *Yang > Xu > *Sent:* Tuesday 12 February 2019 06:48 > *To:* onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; Jim Baker <jba...@linuxfoundation.org>; > 'Kenny Paul' <kp...@linuxfoundation.org> > *Subject:* [onap-tsc] Committer promotion requests for Integration > > > > Dear TSC, > > > > Integration team has voted to promote Brian Freeman (5/5 votes) and > Mariusz Wagner(4/5 votes) to Integration committers. Please see their > promotion requests here: > > > > *https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Integration+Committer+Promotion+Requests+for+Brian+Freemam > <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Integration+Committer+Promotion+Requests+for+Brian+Freemam>* > > *https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Integration+Committer+Promotion+Requests+for+Mariusz+Wagner > <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Integration+Committer+Promotion+Requests+for+Mariusz+Wagner>* > > > > Best regards, > > > > -Yang Xu > > Integration PTL > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jim Baker > > Linux Foundation Networking - Technical Program Manager > > mobile: +1 970 227 6007 > > > > > -- > > Jim Baker > > Linux Foundation Networking - Technical Program Manager > > mobile: +1 970 227 6007 > > > -- Phil Robb VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation (O) 970-229-5949 (M) 970-420-4292 Skype: Phil.Robb -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4644): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/4644 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/29747106/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
