On 9/20/17 10:54 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
The original impetus for me to ask the community about this came when a
junior coworker asked me nearly the same question: "Hey, you're a
committer, I'm interested in becoming a committer too, what should I do?"
Telling him to act like a committer was helpful but not definitively so,
because it begs the next question of how does a committer act. I realized
that I had vague anecdotal answers - submit patches, do reviews,
participate on the mailing lists, etc. - but I had could provide no
assurances that my list would be complete or ordered correctly.
These are all on my "list". I think the beauty of the ASF is that the
ordering doesn't have to be fixed -- we all have differing priorities
and that helps us build software that works (e.g. some are good are
architecting new features, some are good at testing/failure-proofing,
and others are good at documentation/user-communication).
If I could add to/expand on your list:
* Meaningful participation in DISCUSS'ions
* Meaningful testing/vetting of release candidates
* Voluntarily taking up work that people ask for help on (not just doing
things they found on their own)
* A generally pleasant demeanor and steady interactions with the community
Currently (this changes for me over time), I consider the bar quite low
with respect to technical necessity for committership. As long as
someone isn't repeatedly causing more work for existing committers, I
think there are many avenues to show worth/value to the community that
would lead to being trusted with extra responsibilities.
