+1 for the idea of automatic monitoring -- Yujun On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 4:15 AM Heather Kirksey < [email protected]> wrote:
> I like Morgan's suggestion -- the expectation of committers is that > they're active and actively working the project; if they're not > participating and not responding to emails, it's reasonable to remove them > from the committer file. As folks say, this isn't a "punishment for bad > faith" but a recognition that people move on from companies, roles, or > projects. Having an automated way to handle this sounds reasonable….. > > From my perspective, our TSC isn't focusing on what it needs to focus on > if they're voting on the removal of every nonactive committer on every > project. That's also not entirely a scalable solution as we continue to > grow as a community. Empowering PTLs to manage their committers with the > help of automated tools seems like the right thing to do. > > This also relates to our community metrics discussion; if some projects > experience much higher than average turnover in committers, it might be a > reason to see what's going on and if the project needs help in some way. > Focusing on how to enable and help projects be successful and removing > obstacles if they're having issues is a good use of time; micro-managing > committer lists is not. > > My $.02. > > Heather > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 11:46 AM, Raymond Paik [email protected] > wrote: > > Please see an example from May of this year: > https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-May17,2016 when the > VSPERF PTL had several inactive committers who were non-responsive/not > reachable. > > If this is still too taxing for the PTLs, we can have a discussion in the > TSC call.... > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 1:33 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > in line with Yujun > no need to attend TSC to remove non active committers > usually we can do it through a patch of INFO file > > the only case I can see a need to attend TSC is in case of conflict but I > never saw that so far > > during OpenStack Barcelona, we mentioned that it would be also nice to > implement something to automatically remove 6 months non active > contributors. > the idea is not to blame but to clean the repo and reflect the reality of > the project activity > I agree that there are no commitments, people can move from one project to > another > however it is better to have a good idea of the project activity and then > keeping long list of non active contributors is misleading > > So I would suggest to implement a job that will automatically remove a > contributor Y of a project X if no activitiy has been reported since more > than 6 months > If the project has no commitor anymore or only the PTL or empty repo since > x months => raise an alarm to TSC to clean also the project > > /Morgan > > > > Le 14/12/2016 à 08:31, joehuang a écrit : > > +1000 for this "I never think it is a shame to leave a project, since it > is normal that people move on to a new target and didn't have time to say > goodbye" > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ------------------------------ > *From:* Yujun Zhang [[email protected]] > *Sent:* 14 December 2016 15:10 > *To:* joehuang; Raymond Paik > *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance > > I think there is no mandatory rule for PTL to attend TSC meeting in order > to complete the removal process. At least, I never did that before. > > On my side, I have tried to contact several inactive committers to ask for > their willingness and most of them replies politely to explain why. And we > have a happy ending by putting them in retired list[1]. > > I did encounter the situation that losing contact to some committer. And > we just ask TSC to approve the removal and that's it. > > After all, I never think it is a shame to leave a project, since it is > normal that people move on to a new target and didn't have time to say > goodbye. > > [1]: > https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Platform+Performance+Benchmarking#PlatformPerformanceBenchmarking-RetiredCommitters > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:17 PM joehuang <[email protected]> wrote: > > In OPNFV we "assume bad faith"? This is not a good assumption. > > The less meeting, the better, and usually a TSC meeting will be in the > night or early morning for me to join. If even need to go to TSC meeting > for 5 minutes for approval, I would prefer to retain the inactive committer > there, just let it be. > > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ------------------------------ > *From:* Raymond Paik [[email protected]] > *Sent:* 14 December 2016 13:33 > > *To:* joehuang > *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance > Joe, > > On the first point, I'm not sure why you are saying you need to be > committer to submit a patch in OPNFV. There are plenty of regular > contributors who submit code/patches to OPNFV. Let me know if I'm not > understanding your point. > > On your second point, I can recall a few committers who voluntarily > stepped down in the past few of months. One of them was your Board member > Wenjing who stepped down as a committer for QTIP. One of the reasons why > TSC approval is desired for revoking committer status is to prevent PTLs > from potentially acting in bad faith. I don't know if there are any PTLs > in OPNFV who would act in bad faith, but it's good to have checks & > balances. Is it really that difficult to send an email to the TSC mailing > list and then come to the TSC meeting for 5 minutes to get an approval? > > Others in the community are welcome to weigh in on this... > > Thanks, > > Ray > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, joehuang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, Raymond, > > My suggestion is to update the TSC Charter. Compared to OpenStack core > reviewer/contributor maintenance, often feel that OPNFV governance brings > lots of inconvenience: > > For example, if one wants to submit a patch, he/she usually has to be a > committer in OPNFV before he submit a patch. But in OpenStack, anyone is > able to submit a patch, and core reviewers will make sure this patch should > be approved or not. If one is nominated as committer to be a core reviewer, > and pass the voting, then any other core reviewer can add the new one to > core reviewer list, but in OPNFV, you have to submit a patch or ask help > from help-desk. > > And another example, I seldom find that there is a stepping down > notification in OPNFV mail-list from committer(yes, I saw some PTL stepping > down notification), it seems not the fashion in OPNFV. But in OpenStack, a > core reviewer is quite important role in code review, if he is not able to > do the core reviewer responsibility, he will send a notification to the > OpenStack mail-list. > > I really don't know the reason why when we find some committer is inactive > in the past 6 months, we need the approve from TSC? > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ------------------------------ > *From:* Raymond Paik [ <[email protected]> > [email protected]] > *Sent:* 14 December 2016 12:43 > *To:* joehuang > *Cc:* opnfv-tech-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance > > Joe, > > If there's an inactive committer (for more than 6 months) and the PTL is > not able to reach that committer for whatever reason, the PTL needs to make > a request to the TSC to revoke the committer status. The PTL should not do > this unilaterally. > > Please see the 8th paragraph in the Section 8 of the TSC Charter ( > <https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/tsc-charter%29.> > https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/tsc-charter > )... > > Thanks, > > Ray > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, joehuang < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > In each project's wiki page, we often list committers and contributors, as > OPNFV's ongoing development, some new committers come, some committers grow > other interesting and put less focus on the old project. > > I have one suggestion for the maintenance on committer list: for those who > have shifted interest, for example, not shown in the weekly meeting and > mail-list discussion ( all these could be found in the log) in the past 6 > months, but they forget to send a stepping down notification in the > mail-list, PTL should be able to move the committer to the contributor list > by default, and update the list in the git repository too. > > It's not good idea ( not polite too :-) ) to send mail to ask "hey, would > you continue to contribute in the project, if not, I'll remove you from the > committer list". > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > <[email protected]>[email protected] > <https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing > [email protected]https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > -- > Morgan Richomme > Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA > > Network architect for innovative services > Future of the Network community member > Open source Orange community manager > > > tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106 > mob. +33 (0) 637 753 [email protected] > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > > *Heather Kirksey* > Director, OPNFV > Mobile: +1.512.917.7938 <(512)%20917-7938> > Email/Google Talk: [email protected] > Skype: HeatherReneeKirksey > IRC: HKirksey > > [image: OPNFV_RGB.png] > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
