Hi all: I agree, we can make the procedure more effective.
Before, the PTL can initial the changes, make vote, get the TSC approval, and update the of INFO file at last. When PTL wants to update the INFO, it needs the TSC approval. It takes a little time. Here is my suggestion for PTL: 1) Initial the changes, make vote and update the INFo file. 2) After the vote, the PTL need to summit the results to the TSC. We can do the update of INFO file and get the TSC approval in parallel. Two things we need to consider. 1) Make things simple and effective 2) Make the TSC know and govern the process Best regards hongbo From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kunzmann, Gerald Sent: 2016年12月16日 16:27 To: Tapio Tallgren; [email protected] Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance Hi, I agree, some metric to help the PTL to find out inactive committers and maybe some rules that, based on a certain inactivity, the PTL may on his own remove such committers. However, I would be very careful with any fully automatic removal of committers: - The team/PTL should have the right to decide about removal of committers (e.g. there could be a good reason for a certain period of inactivity of one committer) - Such decisions/actions should be transparent and as such IMHO the TSC should be involved -at least be notified- about such actions/decisions Best regards, Gerald From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tapio Tallgren Sent: Freitag, 16. Dezember 2016 09:11 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance Hi, I think we have to update the Project Governance to be able to remove inactive committers. I can take a look at that. The initial idea really was that committers had an important role in the project governance, so the PTL could not just remove committers. In theory, you could have a very contentious project with members fighting with each others and all decisions happening by voting among committers. Then the PTL could start removing committers involuntarily to make sure that the votes go his/her way. This is not likely and it is not happening, so I think we can try to change the rules. We have to take this to the TSC vote. -Tapio On 12/16/2016 04:39 AM, Yujun Zhang wrote: +1 for the idea of automatic monitoring -- Yujun On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 4:15 AM Heather Kirksey <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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)... Thanks, Ray On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, joehuang <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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) 637 753 326 [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss Heather Kirksey Director, OPNFV Mobile: +1.512.917.7938<tel:%28512%29%20917-7938> Email/Google Talk: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Skype: HeatherReneeKirksey IRC: HKirksey _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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
