Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Danny McCormick via dev]

I think we have consensus here, so I put up
https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/27896

Thanks,
Danny

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 6:31 PM Robert Bradshaw  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:50 AM Robert Burke  wrote:
> >
> > Either we keep OWNERS and have the review bot use them, or we remove
> them and use the reviews bot config as the single source of truth.
>
> +1. And I don't see any reason we're going to be any better at keeping
> them up to date than we have in the past, so let's just remove them.
>
> > The bot is less likely to go out of date since it's at least active in
> how it behaves. I agree it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of things
> getting out of date, but other than inactive folks officially, actively
> bowing out of the project, I don't know there's anything we can do.
> >
> > IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review
> requests should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at
> least active members.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention
> imho) but what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign
> reviewers that are no longer active on the project.
> >>
> >> —
> >> Alexey
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the
> Beam repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
> >>
> >> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer
> actively involved in the project (examples: 1, 2, 3, there are many more)
> >> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
> >> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
> >> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean (
> https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other
> resources)
> >> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on
> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
> >>
> >> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS
> files. Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no
> objections I'll assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Danny
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Robert Bradshaw via dev]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:50 AM Robert Burke  wrote:
>
> Either we keep OWNERS and have the review bot use them, or we remove them and 
> use the reviews bot config as the single source of truth.

+1. And I don't see any reason we're going to be any better at keeping
them up to date than we have in the past, so let's just remove them.

> The bot is less likely to go out of date since it's at least active in how it 
> behaves. I agree it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of things getting 
> out of date, but other than inactive folks officially, actively bowing out of 
> the project, I don't know there's anything we can do.
>
> IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review requests 
> should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at least active 
> members.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko  
> wrote:
>>
>> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho) but 
>> what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign reviewers 
>> that are no longer active on the project.
>>
>> —
>> Alexey
>>
>>
>> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev  wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the Beam 
>> repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
>>
>> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer 
>> actively involved in the project (examples: 1, 2, 3, there are many more)
>> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
>> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
>> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean 
>> (https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other 
>> resources)
>> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on 
>> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
>>
>> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files. 
>> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll 
>> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danny
>>
>>

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Danny McCormick via dev]

> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho)
but what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign
reviewers that are no longer active on the project.

I propose that the reviewer bot be the full replacement, and I agree with
Robert's comments about it being better at staying up to date. I don't
think it is perfect, but I do think it's an upgrade over OWNERS.

> IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review
requests should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at
least active members.

+1 - annecdotally I've seen this happen several times
, but
I've never seen it happen with an OWNERS file.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:50 PM Robert Burke  wrote:

> Either we keep OWNERS and have the review bot use them, or we remove them
> and use the reviews bot config as the single source of truth.
>
> The bot is less likely to go out of date since it's at least active in how
> it behaves. I agree it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of things
> getting out of date, but other than inactive folks officially, actively
> bowing out of the project, I don't know there's anything we can do.
>
> IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review
> requests should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at
> least active members.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko 
> wrote:
>
>> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho)
>> but what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign
>> reviewers that are no longer active on the project.
>>
>> —
>> Alexey
>>
>>
>> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the
>> Beam repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
>>
>> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer
>> actively involved in the project (examples: 1
>> , 2
>> , 3
>> ,
>> there are many more)
>> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
>> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
>> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean (
>> https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find
>> other resources)
>> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on
>> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
>>
>> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files.
>> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll
>> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danny
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Robert Burke]

Either we keep OWNERS and have the review bot use them, or we remove them
and use the reviews bot config as the single source of truth.

The bot is less likely to go out of date since it's at least active in how
it behaves. I agree it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of things
getting out of date, but other than inactive folks officially, actively
bowing out of the project, I don't know there's anything we can do.

IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review
requests should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at
least active members.


On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko 
wrote:

> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho)
> but what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign
> reviewers that are no longer active on the project.
>
> —
> Alexey
>
>
> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev 
> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the
> Beam repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
>
> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer
> actively involved in the project (examples: 1
> , 2
> , 3
> ,
> there are many more)
> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean (
> https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other
> resources)
> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on
> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
>
> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files.
> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll
> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Danny
>
>
>

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Alexey Romanenko]

I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho) but 
what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign reviewers 
that are no longer active on the project.

—
Alexey


> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev  wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the Beam 
> repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
> 
> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer 
> actively involved in the project (examples: 1 
> , 2 
> , 3 
> , 
> there are many more)
> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean 
> (https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other 
> resources) 
> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on areas 
> of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
> 
> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files. 
> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll 
> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Danny

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[Kerry Donny-Clark via dev]

Thanks Danny!
I agree. OWNERS causes unnecessary friction, and doesn't provide value.
Kerry

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 10:55 AM Danny McCormick via dev 
wrote:

> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the
> Beam repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
>
> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer
> actively involved in the project (examples: 1
> , 2
> , 3
> ,
> there are many more)
> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean (
> https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other
> resources)
> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on
> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
>
> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files.
> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll
> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Danny
>

Re: [Discuss] Get rid of OWNERS files

[XQ Hu via dev]

+1.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 10:55 AM Danny McCormick via dev 
wrote:

> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the
> Beam repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose:
>
> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer
> actively involved in the project (examples: 1
> , 2
> , 3
> ,
> there are many more)
> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned
> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files
> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean (
> https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other
> resources)
> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on
> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date.
>
> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files.
> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll
> assume silent consensus and remove them next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Danny
>