I think your last word you meant "reviewers", right? yeah, this was also my understanding. A new "below-committer" level called "reviewer". So 3 levels now...
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > To be clear, we are not splitting the committers into reviewers, we are > recognizing an additional set of contributors who could become potential > committers and recognizing them as committers > > Tianqi > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:23 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside > of > > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > > precedents. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > > > reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > > > high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > > > as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, > > the > > > code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > > > the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > > usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > > > help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > > > > > However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless > we > > > solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. > > The > > > Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > > > contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > > > reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > > > committer reviews, > > > which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, > this > > > likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh <anirudh2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally > am > > > for > > > > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > > > > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > > > > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > > > PPMC > > > > and committers). > > > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > > > C++, > > > > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In > > the > > > > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on > this > > > kind > > > > > of documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Qing > > > > > > > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so > that > > > > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > > > to > > > > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > > > > should > > > > > highly > > > > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good > contributors > > > and > > > > > nominate > > > > > > them as Reviewer. > > > > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list > of > > > > > reviewers. > > > > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from > the > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > > > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > > > > Reviewers > > > > > > - Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely > will > > > > > provide a > > > > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > > > > standard of > > > > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the > trait > > > that > > > > > needed > > > > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all > contributors > > > > incl. > > > > > code > > > > > > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future > release > > > > > announcements > > > > > > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to > > > highlight > > > > > most > > > > > > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. > > > > > monthly), > > > > > > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen < > > > tqc...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my > > > > > institutional email > > > > > > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit > > > duplication > > > > > of that). > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > think it should really be the job of committers to > > recognize > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier < > > > > > carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list > is a > > > > good > > > > > idea. > > > > > > > > Also, > > > > > > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on > the > > > PR > > > > > is another > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen < > > > > tqc...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of > > lowering > > > > > the barrier > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the > project. > > > > One > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > general > > > > > > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of > contributions. > > I > > > > > want to make > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > following proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize > > > Reviewers > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no > such > > > > > official role > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of > > > > recognizing > > > > > active > > > > > > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in > the > > > > > contributor > > > > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more > > code > > > > > reviews. > > > > > > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find > > > > committer > > > > > > > > candidates, > > > > > > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what > is > > > the > > > > > bar of > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence > when > > > > > recruiting new > > > > > > > > > > committers. After all the write access of > committership > > > is > > > > > about to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the > > responsibility > > > > -- > > > > > which is > > > > > > > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Yizhi Liu > > > > > DMLC member > > > > > Amazon Web Services > > > > > Vancouver, Canada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
