Hi all,
This came up in a Slack conversation with Jarek and Elad after I noticed
that some provider test directories have no code owners and thus no
reviewers are auto-assigned on PRs touching them. We agreed that a broader
discussion is warranted here.
---
**The core problem**
Right now, CODEOWNERS means different things to different contributors:
- For some, it's a notification mechanism for areas they care about.
- For others, it implies a review expectation or commitment.
- For others still, it's mostly noise -- especially for cross-cutting PRs
that touch many providers at once.
This ambiguity creates confusion both for contributors ("why wasn't anyone
assigned?") and for maintainers ("why am I being pinged for this?").
---
**Proposed discussion points**
1. **Agree on what CODEOWNERS means in this project.** Should it signal "I
want to be notified" vs. "I commit to reviewing"? Should we support both
use cases, perhaps with different mechanisms?
2. **Coverage gaps.** Many provider directories -- including tests -- have
no owners at all. One idea: compute git blame/contribution stats across PMC
members, publish the results to this list, and *invite* (not assign) top
contributors to voluntarily claim uncovered areas.
3. **Connection to provider stewardship.** The [PROVIDER_GOVERNANCE
stewardship model](
https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/providers/PROVIDER_GOVERNANCE.rst#stewardship-model)
already defines a concept of stewards. CODEOWNERS could be the natural
mechanism for stewards to receive PR notifications in their providers --
but only if we align on its meaning first.
---
**Non-goals**
To be explicit: this is not a proposal to force anyone into CODEOWNERS or
to auto-assign review obligations. The Apache principle of volunteering and
consent is the baseline here.
---
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I'm happy to follow up with a
concrete proposal once we've aligned on the direction.
Best,
Dev-iL
