In general I don’t think it’s a good idea to add more hierarchy for the project or community. And a relatively easy way to address the issue of lack of reviewers is to bring in more committers, and focus on one’s code review contributions (instead of code contributions) when voting someone to become a committer.
Thanks, -Jason On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:30 AM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > To become a reviewer , he/she would have to have some > > history of code review in MXNet. > > > In contrary, we should to bring reviewers who have contributed to the repo, > but do not have code review history before, there is always a time gap > between someone who contributed something, to someone who would provide > active high-quality review feedbacks. The reviewer could be an useful > mechanism to encourage the contributors to do so > > Tianqi > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:31 AM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > considered as a committer. > > > > > > On the other hand, it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from > > > contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code > > > reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they > > are > > > super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would > > merge > > > the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of > > > committers). > > > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > > contributing code reviews is a good part. Potential committers don't > > simply > > > show up in the community. We need to find them, encourage them to > > > contribute and provide mentorship. I am proposing to recognize them and > > > list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch > these > > > process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, > > and > > > more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM Tianqi Chen <tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > > considered as a reviewer. > > > > > > > > But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to > > > > solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become > > > > committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the > > > merge > > > > of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, > the > > > > committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can > > learn > > > > from code review of committers). > > > > > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > > > contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize > > > them > > > > and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and > watch > > > > these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each > > > > patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin <b...@bobpaulin.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > >> considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are > > > >> important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by > > making > > > >> them committers. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> - Bob > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier 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 > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
