---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [proposal/discuss] Add a committer tier To: priv...@nifi.apache.org
What language goes into project 'bylaws' for nifi. I pasted some samples, I prefer httpd's. sample from hadoop [1]: Committers The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical management. Committers have access to all subproject subversion repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding any subproject. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by consensus approval of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the project for over six months. An emeritus committer may request reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus approval of active PMC members. Significant, pervasive features are often developed in a speculative branch of the repository. The PMC may grant commit rights on the branch to its consistent contributors, while the initiative is active. Branch committers are responsible for shepherding their feature into an active release and do not cast binding votes or vetoes in the project. All Apache committers are required to have a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on the requirements for Committers A committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc. sample from httpd [2]: Apache HTTP Server CommittersThe group of volunteers who are responsible for the technical aspects of the Apache HTTP Server Project. This group has write access to the appropriate source repositories and these volunteers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion. Membership as a Committer is by invitation only and must be approved by consensus of the active Apache PMC members. A Committer is considered inactive by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the project for over six months. An inactive member can become active again by reversing whichever condition made them inactive ( i.e. , by reversing their earlier declaration or by once again contributing toward the project's work). Membership can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all the active PMC members (except the member in question if they are a PMC member). sample from Wink [3] Committers Contributors who give frequent and valuable contributions to a subproject of the Project can have their status promoted to that of a "Committer" for that subproject. A Committer has write access to the source code repository and gains voting rights allowing them to affect the future of the subproject. In order for a Contributor to become a Committer, another Committer can nominate that Contributor or the Contributor can ask for it. Once a Contributor is nominated, all of the Committers will vote. If there are at least 3 positive votes and no negative votes, the Contributor is converted into a Committer and given write access to the source code repository for the project. [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html [2] http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WINK/Roles+and+Responsibilities On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Should we take a vote? > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:57 PM, dan bress <danbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm going to go with +0 here. While I think this would be a good way to >> further engage and grow our community and developer base, I think in a >> volunteer organization such as ours, having more levels of status requires >> more from the organization in terms of defining those levels and voting to >> move people through them. That being said, I'm OK with this if everyone is >> on-board to define what these roles mean and is willing to bring people in >> as Joe has done in other emails. >> >> Dan >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:25 AM Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> Joe, >>> >>> Yes, I think those three roles are a good start. As for code contributions >>> not being the sole measure, I definitely agree. The good news here is the >>> Avro Jira report[1] (that we could steal) isn't just commits, but rather >>> "assignees" on fixed tickets. So, while I don't know how far we want to go >>> in this direction, we could just make a practice of opening tickets for >>> code reviews / documentation / etc... Also, the report can do >>> "reporters"[2] of issues as opposed to just assignees, so we could use >>> both. Mailing list participation would be a little bit harder to get at, >>> but again, this could be a good start. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=filter-12323547&statistictype=assignees&selectedProjectId=12310911&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports:pie-report&Next=Next >>> [2] >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=filter-12323547&statistictype=reporter&selectedProjectId=12310911&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports:pie-report&Next=Next >>> >>> Brandon >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Brandon, Tony, >>>> >>>> So to be clear you are good with the proposal but are suggesting >>>> extending it to acknowledge contributors. So we'd have: >>>> >>>> - Contributors (pulled from code commits but dont have PMC or Commit level) >>>> - Committers (not binding votes but can commit code) >>>> - PMC >>>> >>>> I frankly love this idea. My only concern is if we acknowledge >>>> contributors, and I agree we should, I'd really wish we could not make >>>> 'code commits' have more magic value than other forms of contribution. >>>> People who help on code reviews or respond to user questions or even >>>> just submit bug reports or feature requests are also very important >>>> contributors. I might be overthinking this. We can start with what >>>> was described for sure. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >>>> > ...yeah, i realized those filters where private after i sent the >>>> > email(s). >>>> > I decided I'd wait to see if anyone actually tried to click the link >>>> > before >>>> > I continued spamming the list. To make this actually work if we were >>>> > going >>>> > to do it, we'd just need a Jira admin to make the filter public. For >>>> > now, >>>> > If you just want to see what the report looks like you can make your own >>>> > filter with the following criteria: >>>> > >>>> > project = NIFI AND resolution = Fixed AND assignee is not EMPTY AND >>>> > assignee >>>> > not in (bbende, bende, joewitt, markap14, mcgilman, danbress, aldrin, >>>> > devriesb, jbarnabee, jcarey, taftster, tkurc, bmargulies) >>>> > >>>> > Or if you want the one that includes everyone, it would just be: >>>> > >>>> > project = NIFI AND resolution = Fixed AND assignee is not EMPTY >>>> > >>>> > After you create the filter for yourself, you'll see a >>>> > "filter=<YOUR-FILTER-ID>" param in the URL. you can then copy that >>>> > filter >>>> > id in to the URL as the "projectOrFilterId" parameter, with a prefix of >>>> > "filter-". That would make the URL something like: >>>> > >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=filter-<YOUR-FILTER-ID>&statistictype=assignees&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports:pie-report&Next=Next >>>> > >>>> > Brandon >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:54 AM Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Brandon, >>>> >> It doesn't look like I have access to your filter ( The filter you >>>> >> requested does not exist or you do not have permission to view it. ). >>>> >> >>>> >> Tony >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I like the way Avro handles contributors[1] as a a Jira report[2]. >>>> >>> That >>>> >>> way we wouldn't have to keep the website up to date, but could still >>>> >>> give >>>> >>> credit to active contributors (and have another method of seeing who >>>> >>> could >>>> >>> be considered for committer status). I've put together that report for >>>> >>> NiFi[3] if anyone's interested. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [1] http://avro.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors >>>> >>> [2] >>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=filter-12323547&statistictype=assignees&selectedProjectId=12310911&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports:pie-report&Next=Next >>>> >>> [3] >>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=filter-12333523&statistictype=assignees&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports:pie-report&Next=Next >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Brandon >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:25 PM Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm in favor. But I'm also in favor of a tier below committer, >>>> >>>> "contributor", with no commit access, but noted on the web page [1], >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/people.html >>>> >>>> [2] http://avro.apache.org/credits.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> +1 as well. It hasn't come up yet, but I could definitely image a >>>> >>>>> scenario in which I was comfortable including someone as a >>>> >>>>> committer, but >>>> >>>>> not necessarily as a PMC member. Having two tiers would allow us to >>>> >>>>> grow >>>> >>>>> the community without having to worry about diluting (or something >>>> >>>>> like >>>> >>>>> that...) the PMC. At the very least, I don't see any issue with >>>> >>>>> making it >>>> >>>>> an option. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Brandon >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:18 PM Jennifer Barnabee >>>> >>>>> <jennifer.barna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> > On Sep 26, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > Team, >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > I'd like to propose that we add a committer tier. Thus far we've >>>> >>>>>> > brought people into the PMC directly and have not had a concept >>>> >>>>>> > of a >>>> >>>>>> > committer. I think there are at least a couple people that come >>>> >>>>>> > to >>>> >>>>>> > mind as great candidates for committer status due to their >>>> >>>>>> > consistent >>>> >>>>>> > and broad contributions to the project but who aren't really at >>>> >>>>>> > the >>>> >>>>>> > PMC stage. It made sense how we did it before because we were >>>> >>>>>> > onboarding folks who were already extremely experienced with NiFi >>>> >>>>>> > and >>>> >>>>>> > understood and contributed to that vision. But now we need to >>>> >>>>>> > both >>>> >>>>>> > grow the community and grow depth in the community. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > So, in short, I'd like to propose we add the concept of a >>>> >>>>>> > recognized >>>> >>>>>> > 'committer' status for Apache NiFi in addition to the existing >>>> >>>>>> > level >>>> >>>>>> > of influence that exists which is to be a binding member of the >>>> >>>>>> > PMC. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > This isn't meant as a vote thread but should folks decide to vote >>>> >>>>>> > we >>>> >>>>>> > can carry those forward into a vote should we get to that point. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > Thanks >>>> >>>>>> > Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
