I moved the State Backend to the Checkpointing and added the three of you as shepherds.
We still need somebody for the client. On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > I agree. I could be the third backup if you need help with the component. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Should probably, yes. > > > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 10:53 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Should state bakends and checkpointing go together? > > > > > > The two of us could be shepherds for that. Till would be another person > > > (but he has a lot of components already). > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think it would make sense to also move "State Backends" out from > > > > "Runtime". This is also quite complex on it's own. I would of course > > > > volunteer for this and I think Stephan, who is the current proposal > for > > > > "Runtime" would also be good. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 19:22 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am adding a dedicated component for "Checkpointing". It would > > include > > > > the > > > > > checkpoint coordinator, barriers, threads, state handles and > > recovery. > > > > > > > > > > I think that part is big and complex enough to warrant its own > > > shepherd. > > > > I > > > > > would volunteer for that and be happy to also have a second > shepherd. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Robert Metzger < > rmetz...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, it seems that we agree on the Shepherd name. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it seems that everyone agrees to the proposed shepherds so > > far. > > > > > > > > > > > > The "Client" component still needs a shepherd. Are there any > > > > volunteers? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Chiwan Park < > > chiwanp...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for shepherd > > > > > > > I would like to add me to shepherd for FlinkML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Chiwan Park > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Henry Saputra < > > > henry.sapu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for shepherd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer using that term rather than maintainer. It is > > > being > > > > > used > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > Incubator PMC to help them keeping healthy development in > > > podlings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The term "maintainer" kind of being scrutinized in ASF > > > communities, > > > > > in > > > > > > > > recent episodes happening in Spark community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Stephan Ewen < > > se...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I like the name "shepherd". It implies a non-authorative > role, > > > and > > > > > > > implies > > > > > > > >> guidance, which is very fitting. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I also thing there is no problem with having a "component > > > > shepherd" > > > > > > and > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >> "pull request shepherd". > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Stephan > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Fabian Hueske < > > > fhue...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
