+1 (non-binding) [for original process proposal] Greg, the first time I've seen the word "ownership" on this thread is in your message. The first time the word "lead" has appeared in this thread is in your message as well. I don't think that was the intent. The PMC and Committers have a responsibility to the community to make sure that their patches are being reviewed and committed. I don't see in Apache's recommended bylaws anywhere that says establishing responsibility on paper for specific areas cannot be taken on by different members of the PMC. What's been proposed looks, to me, to be an empirical process and it looks like it has pretty much a consensus from the side able to give binding votes. I don't at all this model establishes any form of ownership over anything. I also don't see in the process proposal where it mentions that nobody other than the persons responsible for a module can review or commit code.
In fact, I'll go as far as to say that since Apache is a meritocracy, the people who have been aligned to the responsibilities probably were aligned based on some sort of meric, correct? Perhaps we could dig in and find out for sure... I'm still getting familiar with the Spark community myself. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: > In fact, if you look at the subversion commiter list, the majority of > people here have commit access only for particular areas of the > project: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/COMMITTERS > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey Greg, > > > > Regarding subversion - I think the reference is to partial vs full > > committers here: > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html > > > > - Patrick > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> -1 (non-binding) > >> > >> This is an idea that runs COMPLETELY counter to the Apache Way, and is > >> to be severely frowned up. This creates *unequal* ownership of the > >> codebase. > >> > >> Each Member of the PMC should have *equal* rights to all areas of the > >> codebase until their purview. It should not be subjected to others' > >> "ownership" except throught the standard mechanisms of reviews and > >> if/when absolutely necessary, to vetos. > >> > >> Apache does not want "leads", "benevolent dictators" or "assigned > >> maintainers", no matter how you may dress it up with multiple > >> maintainers per component. The fact is that this creates an unequal > >> level of ownership and responsibility. The Board has shut down > >> projects that attempted or allowed for "Leads". Just a few months ago, > >> there was a problem with somebody calling themself a "Lead". > >> > >> I don't know why you suggest that Apache Subversion does this. We > >> absolutely do not. Never have. Never will. The Subversion codebase is > >> owned by all of us, and we all care for every line of it. Some people > >> know more than others, of course. But any one of us, can change any > >> part, without being subjected to a "maintainer". Of course, we ask > >> people with more knowledge of the component when we feel > >> uncomfortable, but we also know when it is safe or not to make a > >> specific change. And *always*, our fellow committers can review our > >> work and let us know when we've done something wrong. > >> > >> Equal ownership reduces fiefdoms, enhances a feeling of community and > >> project ownership, and creates a more open and inviting project. > >> > >> So again: -1 on this entire concept. Not good, to be polite. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg Stein > >> Director, Vice Chairman > >> Apache Software Foundation > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:31:58PM -0800, Matei Zaharia wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I wanted to share a discussion we've been having on the PMC list, as > well as call for an official vote on it on a public list. Basically, as the > Spark project scales up, we need to define a model to make sure there is > still great oversight of key components (in particular internal > architecture and public APIs), and to this end I've proposed implementing a > maintainer model for some of these components, similar to other large > projects. > >>> > >>> As background on this, Spark has grown a lot since joining Apache. > We've had over 80 contributors/month for the past 3 months, which I believe > makes us the most active project in contributors/month at Apache, as well > as over 500 patches/month. The codebase has also grown significantly, with > new libraries for SQL, ML, graphs and more. > >>> > >>> In this kind of large project, one common way to scale development is > to assign "maintainers" to oversee key components, where each patch to that > component needs to get sign-off from at least one of its maintainers. Most > existing large projects do this -- at Apache, some large ones with this > model are CloudStack (the second-most active project overall), Subversion, > and Kafka, and other examples include Linux and Python. This is also > by-and-large how Spark operates today -- most components have a de-facto > maintainer. > >>> > >>> IMO, adopting this model would have two benefits: > >>> > >>> 1) Consistent oversight of design for that component, especially > regarding architecture and API. This process would ensure that the > component's maintainers see all proposed changes and consider them to fit > together in a good way. > >>> > >>> 2) More structure for new contributors and committers -- in > particular, it would be easy to look up who's responsible for each module > and ask them for reviews, etc, rather than having patches slip between the > cracks. > >>> > >>> We'd like to start with in a light-weight manner, where the model only > applies to certain key components (e.g. scheduler, shuffle) and user-facing > APIs (MLlib, GraphX, etc). Over time, as the project grows, we can expand > it if we deem it useful. The specific mechanics would be as follows: > >>> > >>> - Some components in Spark will have maintainers assigned to them, > where one of the maintainers needs to sign off on each patch to the > component. > >>> - Each component with maintainers will have at least 2 maintainers. > >>> - Maintainers will be assigned from the most active and knowledgeable > committers on that component by the PMC. The PMC can vote to add / remove > maintainers, and maintained components, through consensus. > >>> - Maintainers are expected to be active in responding to patches for > their components, though they do not need to be the main reviewers for them > (e.g. they might just sign off on architecture / API). To prevent inactive > maintainers from blocking the project, if a maintainer isn't responding in > a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), other committers can merge the > patch, and the PMC will want to discuss adding another maintainer. > >>> > >>> If you'd like to see examples for this model, check out the following > projects: > >>> - CloudStack: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > > >>> - Subversion: > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html < > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html> > >>> > >>> Finally, I wanted to list our current proposal for initial components > and maintainers. It would be good to get feedback on other components we > might add, but please note that personnel discussions (e.g. "I don't think > Matei should maintain *that* component) should only happen on the private > list. The initial components were chosen to include all public APIs and the > main core components, and the maintainers were chosen from the most active > contributors to those modules. > >>> > >>> - Spark core public API: Matei, Patrick, Reynold > >>> - Job scheduler: Matei, Kay, Patrick > >>> - Shuffle and network: Reynold, Aaron, Matei > >>> - Block manager: Reynold, Aaron > >>> - YARN: Tom, Andrew Or > >>> - Python: Josh, Matei > >>> - MLlib: Xiangrui, Matei > >>> - SQL: Michael, Reynold > >>> - Streaming: TD, Matei > >>> - GraphX: Ankur, Joey, Reynold > >>> > >>> I'd like to formally call a [VOTE] on this model, to last 72 hours. > The [VOTE] will end on Nov 8, 2014 at 6 PM PST. > >>> > >>> Matei > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
