sounds like "Observer" would fit.
On 01.06.2016 19:11, Fabian Hueske wrote:
I think calling the role maintainer is not a good idea.
The Spark community had a maintainer process which they just voted to
remove. From my understanding, a maintainer in Spark had a more active role
than the role we are currently discussing.
I would prefer to not call the role "maintainer" to make clear that the
responsibilities are different (less active) and mainly observing.
2016-06-01 13:14 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org>:
Thanks! I like the idea of renaming it. I'm fine with shepherd and I
also like Vasia's suggestion "champion".
I would like to add "Distributed checkpoints" as a separate component
to track development for check- and savepoints.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
Btw, in Jira, if we clean up our components we can also set a component
Lead that would get notified of issues for that component.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 10:43 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
I'd also go with maintainer.
On 01.06.2016 10:32, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
Hi,
I think maintainer is also fine if we clearly specify that they are
not
meant as dictators or gatekeepers of the component that they are
responsible for.
-Aljoscha
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:48 Vasiliki Kalavri <
vasilikikala...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
we could go for something like "sponsor" or "champion" :)
I'm fine with the proposal. Good to see more than 1 person for both
Gelly
and Table API.
cheers,
-V.
On 1 June 2016 at 05:46, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors component (already
edited
Wiki) :)
Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in programming :P Some
comments:
I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will be somewhat
misleading
regarding the authoritative difference with committers / PMCs,
especially
for future newcomers to the community who don't come across the
original
discussion on this thread.
Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name naturally
matches
its
role -
- A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an eye on related
mail
threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open PRs, requested
features,
and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the component
(original
maintainer role).
- A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the overseers of
the
component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor.
Overseers
typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or the leading
overseer
allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't been picked up
yet
after
a certain period of time.
Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and
"Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html
Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list
archive
at
Nabble.com.
