Signed-off-by: Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru> --- .../committer-grant-revocation.rst | 398 +++++++++++++++++++++ .../committer-responsibilities.rst | 96 +++++ Documentation/contributor-guide/index.rst | 34 ++ Documentation/index.rst | 2 + 4 files changed, 530 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-grant-revocation.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-responsibilities.rst create mode 100644 Documentation/contributor-guide/index.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-grant-revocation.rst b/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-grant-revocation.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5d6435b --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-grant-revocation.rst @@ -0,0 +1,398 @@ +.. + Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may + not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain + a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT + WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the + License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. + + Convention for heading levels in Open vSwitch documentation: + + ======= Heading 0 (reserved for the title in a document) + ------- Heading 1 + ~~~~~~~ Heading 2 + +++++++ Heading 3 + ''''''' Heading 4 + + Avoid deeper levels because they do not render well. + +===================================== +OVS Committer Grant/Revocation Policy +===================================== + +An OVS committer is a participant in the project with the ability to commit +code directly to the master repository. Commit access grants a broad ability to +affect the progress of the project as presented by its most important artifact, +the code and related resources that produce working binaries of Open vSwitch. +As such it represents a significant level of trust in an individual's +commitment to working with other committers and the community at large for the +benefit of the project. It can not be granted lightly and, in the worst case, +must be revocable if the trust placed in an individual was inappropriate. + +This document suggests guidelines for granting and revoking commit access. It +is intended to provide a framework for evaluation of such decisions without +specifying deterministic rules that wouldn't be sensitive to the nuance of +specific situations. In the end the decision to grant or revoke committer +privileges is a judgment call made by the existing set of committers. + +Granting Commit Access +---------------------- + +Granting commit access should be considered when a candidate has demonstrated +the following in their interaction with the project: + +- Contribution of significant new features through the patch submission + process where: + + - Submissions are free of obvious critical defects + - Submissions do not typically require many iterations of improvement + to be accepted + +- Consistent participation in code review of other's patches, including + existing committers, with comments consistent with the overall project + standards + +- Assistance to those in the community who are less knowledgeable through + active participation in project forums such as the ovs-discuss mailing list. + +- Plans for sustained contribution to the project compatible with the project's + direction as viewed by current committers. + +- Commitment to meet the expectations described in the "Expectations of + Developer's with Open vSwitch Access" + +The process to grant commit access to a candidate is simple: + +- An existing committer nominates the candidate by sending an email to all + existing committers with information substantiating the contributions of the + candidate in the areas described above. + +- All existing committers discuss the pros and cons of granting commit + access to the candidate in the email thread. + +- When the discussion has converged or a reasonable time has elapsed without + discussion developing (e.g. a few business days) the nominator calls for a + final decision on the candidate with a followup email to the thread. + +- Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the email thread. + A failure to reply is an implicit abstention. + +- After votes from all existing committers have been collected or a reasonable + time has elapsed for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days) the + votes are evaluated. To be granted commit access the candidate must receive + yes votes from a majority of the existing committers and zero no votes. Since + a no vote is effectively a veto of the candidate it should be accompanied by + a reason for the vote. + +- The nominator summarizes the result of the vote in an email to all existing + committers. + +- If the vote to grant commit access passed, the candidate is contacted with an + invitation to become a committer to the project which asks them to agree to + the committer expectations documented on the project web site. + +- If the candidate agrees access is granted by setting up commit access to the + repos on github. + +Revoking Commit Access +---------------------- + +There are two situations in which commit access might be revoked. + +The straightforward situation is a committer who is no longer active in the +project and has no plans to become active in the near future. The process in +this case is: + +- Any time after a committer has been inactive for more than 6 months any other + committer to the project may identify that committer as a candidate for + revocation of commit access due to inactivity. + +- The plans of revocation should be sent in a private email to the candidate. + +- If the candidate for removal states plans to continue participating no action + is taken and this process terminates. + +- If the candidate replies they no longer require commit access then commit + access is removed and a notification is sent to the candidate and all + existing committers. + +- If the candidate can not be reached within 1 week of the first attempting to + contact this process continues. + +- A message proposing removal of commit access is sent to the candidate and all + other committers. + + - If the candidate for removal states plans to continue participating no + action is taken. + + - If the candidate replies they no longer require commit access then their + access is removed. + + - If the candidate can not be reached within 2 months of the second + attempting to contact them, access is removed. + +- In any case, where access is removed, this fact is published through an email + to all existing committers (including the candidate for removal). + +The more difficult situation is a committer who is behaving in a manner that is +viewed as detrimental to the future of the project by other committers. This is +a delicate situation with the potential for the creation of division within the +greater community and should be handled with care. The process in this case is: + +- Discuss the behavior of concern with the individual privately and explain why + you believe it is detrimental to the project. Stick to the facts and keep the + email professional. Avoid personal attacks and the temptation to hypothesize + about unknowable information such as the other's motivations. Make it clear + that you would prefer not to discuss the behavior more widely but will have + to raise it with other contributors if it does not change. Ideally the + behavior is eliminated and no further action is required. If not, + +- Start an email thread with all committers, including the source of the + behavior, describing the behavior and the reason it is detrimental to the + project. The message should have the same tone as the private discussion and + should generally repeat the same points covered in that discussion. The + person whose behavior is being questioned should not be surprised by anything + presented in this discussion. Ideally the wider discussion provides more + perspective to all participants and the issue is resolved. If not, + +- Start an email thread with all committers except the source of the + detrimental behavior requesting a vote on revocation of commit + rights. Cite the discussion among all committers and describe all the + reasons why it was not resolved satisfactorily. This email should be + carefully written with the knowledge that the reasoning it contains + may be published to the larger community to justify the decision. + +- Each committer may vote yes, no, or abstain by replying to the email + thread. A failure to reply is an implicit abstention. + +- After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has elapsed + for them to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days) the votes + are evaluated. For the request to revoke commit access for the + candidate to pass it must receive yes votes from two thirds of the + existing committers. + +- anyone that votes no must provide their reasoning, and + +- if the proposal passes then counter-arguments for the reasoning in no + votes should also be documented along with the initial reasons the + revocation was proposed. Ideally there should be no new + counter-arguments supplied in a no vote as all concerns should have + surfaced in the discussion before the vote. + +- The original person to propose revocation summarizes the result of + the vote in an email to all existing committers excepting the + candidate for removal. + +- If the vote to revoke commit access passes, access is removed and the + candidate for revocation is informed of that fact and the reasons for + it as documented in the email requesting the revocation vote. + +- Ideally the revoked committer peacefully leaves the community and no + further action is required. However, there is a distinct possibility + that he/she will try to generate support for his/her point of view + within the larger community. In this case the reasoning for removing + commit access as described in the request for a vote will be + published to the community. + +Changing the Policy +------------------- + +The process for changing the policy is: + +- Propose the changes to the policy in an email to all current committers and + request discussion. + +- After an appropriate period of discussion (a few days) update the proposal + based on feedback if required and resend it to all current committers with a + request for a formal vote. + +- After all votes have been collected or a reasonable time has elapsed for them + to be provided (e.g. a couple of business days) the votes are evaluated. For + the request to modify the policy to pass it must receive yes votes from two + thirds of the existing committers. + +Template Emails +=============== + +Nomination to Grant Commit Access +--------------------------------- + +:: + + I would like to nominate *[candidate]* for commit access. I believe + *[he/she]* has met the conditions for commit access described in the + committer grant policy on the project web site in the following ways: + + *[list of requirements & evidence]* + + Please reply to all in this message thread with your comments and + questions. If that discussion concludes favorably I will request a formal + vote on the nomination in a few days. + +Vote to Grant Commit Access +--------------------------- + +:: + + I nominated *[candidate]* for commit access on *[date]*. Having allowed + sufficient time for discussion it's now time to formally vote on the + proposal. + + Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. + A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If you vote NO, by our + policy you must include the reasons for that vote in your reply. The + deadline for votes is *[date and time]*. + + If a majority of committers vote YES and there are zero NO votes commit + access will be granted. + +Vote Results for Grant of Commit Access +--------------------------------------- + +:: + + The voting period for granting to commit access to *[candidate]* initiated + at *[date and time]* is now closed with the following results: + + YES: *[count of yes votes]* (*[% of voters]*) + + NO: *[count of no votes]* (*[% of voters]*) + + ABSTAIN: *[count of abstentions]* (*[% of voters]*) + + Based on these results commit access *[is/is NOT]* granted. + +Invitation to Accepted Committer +-------------------------------- + +:: + + Due to your sustained contributions to the Open vSwitch (OVS) project we + would like to provide you with commit access to the project repository. + Developers with commit access must agree to fulfill specific + responsibilities described in the source repository: + + /Documentation/committer-responsibilities.rst + + Please let us know if you would like to accept commit access and if so that + you agree to fulfill these responsibilities. Once we receive your response + we'll set up access. We're looking forward continuing to work together to + advance the Open vSwitch project. + +Proposal to Remove Commit Access for Inactivity +----------------------------------------------- + +:: + + Committer *[candidate]* has been inactive for *[duration]*. I have + attempted to privately contacted *[him/her]* and *[he/she]* could not be + reached. + + Based on this I would like to formally propose removal of commit access. + If a response to this message documenting the reasons to retain commit + access is not received by *[date]* access will be removed. + +Notification of Commit Removal for Inactivity +--------------------------------------------- + +:: + + Committer *[candidate]* has been inactive for *[duration]*. *[He/she]* + *[stated no commit access is required/failed to respond]* to the formal + proposal to remove access on *[date]*. Commit access has now been removed. + +Proposal to Revoke Commit Access for Detrimental Behavior +--------------------------------------------------------- + +:: + + I regret that I feel compelled to propose revocation of commit access for + *[candidate]*. I have privately discussed with *[him/her]* the following + reasons I believe *[his/her]* actions are detrimental to the project and we + have failed to come to a mutual understanding: + + *[List of reasons and supporting evidence]* + + Please reply to all in this thread with your thoughts on this proposal. I + plan to formally propose a vote on the proposal on or after *[date and + time]*. + + It is important to get all discussion points both for and against the + proposal on the table during the discussion period prior to the vote. + Please make it a high priority to respond to this proposal with your + thoughts. + +Vote to Revoke Commit Access +---------------------------- + +:: + + I nominated *[candidate]* for revocation of commit access on *[date]*. + Having allowed sufficient time for discussion it's now time to formally + vote on the proposal. + + Please reply to all in this thread with your vote of: YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. + A failure to reply will be counted as an abstention. If you vote NO, by our + policy you must include the reasons for that vote in your reply. The + deadline for votes is *[date and time]*. + + If 2/3rds of committers vote YES commit access will be revoked. + + The following reasons for revocation have been given in the original + proposal or during discussion: + + *[list of reasons to remove access]* + + The following reasons for retaining access were discussed: + + *[list of reasons to retain access]* + + The counter-argument for each reason for retaining access is: + + *[list of counter-arguments for retaining access]* + +Vote Results for Revocation of Commit Access +-------------------------------------------- + +:: + + The voting period for revoking the commit access of *[candidate]* initiated + at *[date and time]* is now closed with the following results: + + - YES: *[count of yes votes]* (*[% of voters]*) + + - NO: *[count of no votes]* (*[% of voters]*) + + - ABSTAIN: *[count of abstentions]* (*[% of voters]*) + + Based on these results commit access *[is/is NOT]* revoked. The following + reasons for retaining commit access were proposed in NO votes: + + *[list of reasons]* + + The counter-arguments for each of these reasons are: + + *[list of counter-arguments]* + +Notification of Commit Revocation for Detrimental Behavior +---------------------------------------------------------- + +:: + + After private discussion with you and careful consideration of the + situation, the other committers to the Open vSwitch (OVS) project have + concluded that it is in the best interest of the project that your commit + access to the project repositories be revoked and this has now occurred. + + The reasons for this decision are: + + *[list of reasons for removing access]* + + While your goals and those of the project no longer appear to be aligned we + greatly appreciate all the work you have done for the project and wish you + continued success in your future work. diff --git a/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-responsibilities.rst b/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-responsibilities.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..930e891 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/contributor-guide/committer-responsibilities.rst @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +.. + Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may + not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain + a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT + WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the + License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. + + Convention for heading levels in Open vSwitch documentation: + + ======= Heading 0 (reserved for the title in a document) + ------- Heading 1 + ~~~~~~~ Heading 2 + +++++++ Heading 3 + ''''''' Heading 4 + + Avoid deeper levels because they do not render well. + +========================================================= +Expectations for Developers with Open vSwitch Repo Access +========================================================= + +Pre-requisites +-------------- + +Be familiar with the `coding style <../../CodingStyle.md>`__ and `contributing +<../../CONTRIBUTING.md>`__ guides. + +Review +------ + +Code (yours or others') must be reviewed publicly (by you or others) before you +push it to the repository. With one exception (see below), every change needs +at least one review. + +If one or more people know an area of code particularly well, code that affects +that area should ordinarily get a review from one of them. + +The riskier, more subtle, or more complicated the change, the more careful the +review required. When a change needs careful review, use good judgment +regarding the quality of reviews. If a change adds 1000 lines of new code, and +a review posted 5 minutes later says just "Looks good," then this is probably +not a quality review. + +(The size of a change is correlated with the amount of care needed in review, +but it is not strictly tied to it. A search and replace across many files may +not need much review, but one-line optimization changes can have widespread +implications.) + +Your own small changes to fix a recently broken build ("make") or tests ("make +check"), that you believe to be visible to a large number of developers, may be +checked in without review. If you are not sure, ask for review. If you do push +a build fix without review, send the patch to ovs-dev afterward as usual, +indicating in the email that you have already pushed it. + +Regularly review submitted code in areas where you have expertise. Consider +reviewing other code as well. + +Git conventions +--------------- + +Do not push merge commits to the Git repository without prior discussion on +ovs-dev. + +If you apply a change (yours or another's) then it is your responsibility to +handle any resulting problems, especially broken builds and other regressions. +If it is someone else's change, then you can ask the original submitter to +address it. Regardless, you need to ensure that the problem is fixed in a +timely way. The definition of "timely" depends on the severity of the problem. + +If a bug is present on master and other branches, fix it on master first, then +backport the fix to other branches. Straightforward backports do not require +additional review (beyond that for the fix on master). + +Feature development should be done only on master. Occasionally it makes sense +to add a feature to the most recent release branch, before the first actual +release of that branch. These should be handled in the same way as bug fixes, +that is, first implemented on master and then backported. + +Keep the authorship of a commit clear by maintaining a correct list of +"Signed-off-by:"s. If a confusing situation comes up, as it occasionally does, +bring it up on the mailing list. If you explain the use of "Signed-off-by:" to +a new developer, explain not just how but why, since the intended meaning of +"Signed-off-by:" is more important than the syntax. As part of your +explanation, quote or provide a URL to the Developer's Certificate of Origin in +the `contributing guide <../../CONTRIBUTING.md>`__. + +Use Reported-by: and Tested-by: tags in commit messages to indicate the +source of a bug report. + +Keep the `AUTHORS <../../AUTHORS>`__ file up to date. diff --git a/Documentation/contributor-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/contributor-guide/index.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..73c663a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/contributor-guide/index.rst @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +.. + Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may + not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain + a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT + WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the + License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. + + Convention for heading levels in Open vSwitch documentation: + + ======= Heading 0 (reserved for the title in a document) + ------- Heading 1 + ~~~~~~~ Heading 2 + +++++++ Heading 3 + ''''''' Heading 4 + + Avoid deeper levels because they do not render well. + +Installation Guides +------------------- + +If you are looking to contribute to Open vSwitch or have queries around how +the project is governed, the below guides should provide some answers. + +.. toctree:: + :maxdepth: 1 + + /contributor-guide/committer-grant-revocation + /contributor-guide/committer-responsibilities diff --git a/Documentation/index.rst b/Documentation/index.rst index 7eb262a..3d7228f 100644 --- a/Documentation/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/index.rst @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ Welcome to Open vSwitch's documentation .. include:: test-guide/index.rst +.. include:: contributor-guide/index.rst + Bugs ---- -- 2.7.4 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
