All the better, I guess 🤷♂️ On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 2:40 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Pekko PMC has basically the same role and importance when Pekko is > a podling as it will have when Pekko graduates to be a Top Level > Project. > > There is an oversight role from the Incubator PMC but that does not > lessen the importance of the Pekko PMC. > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 12:54, Jean-Luc Deprez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > What is set in CODEOWNERS is somewhat "set in stone". So I'd argue to > keep > > that broad, like PMC(ish). People will naturally partition themselves in > > feeling they can rule on a certain section of the code. Without > inhibiting > > progress, waiting for a very small set of people to revive. > > > > I think the PMC ends up being a large group anyway, especially for a > > project of this size. The fact that you need 3+ PMC votes + majority, > sure > > seems to indicate that. > > > > (btw, I'm well aware that the whole PMC thing only formally activates > when > > graduating from the incubator, but I'd argue that the current start list > of > > committers is indicative for what could be PMC?) > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:31 AM Johannes Rudolph < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks to all that input. > > > > > > One thing to keep in mind is that Akka/Pekko codebase is already a > > > mature project with all its consequences: > > > > > > * There are parts of the code base that are very stable and will > > > likely not change a lot. If we hope to carry part of the user base, we > > > will also inherit part of the stability expectations towards these > > > parts (especially APIs in akka-actor, akka-stream, akka-http, etc) > > > * Some parts like akka-stream are stable and have a big API that > > > gives the impression that you could easily add more but which needs > > > careful vetting in many small detailed cases to keep maintenance > > > tractable. > > > * Some parts like alpakka connectors have been contributed by a big, > > > diverse community (often one-time engagements) and are in different > > > states of code quality. Many one of those did not have any active > > > maintainer. Here it is important to set expectations and have low > > > hurdles for contributions. > > > * Some parts like the clustering and persistence parts are relatively > > > complex and have complex test suites making contribution non-trivial. > > > > > > It will be a main task to figure out how to evolve such a complex > > > project and how to solve the friction between keeping stability but > > > also figuring out ways and places to evolve. The only way to get that > > > done is to find enough shoulders to spread the load. Some mechanism > > > like CODEOWNERS will be needed to figure out who is responsible (even > > > if overall ownership is shared, of course) for which part of the code. > > > Saying that everyone is responsible for everything as a whole is not > > > realistic. It's also not a realistic expectation for anyone to be able > > > to keep track of everything that might go on in all parts of the code. > > > > > > I would propose to identify parts of the whole project that are > > > sufficiently standalone, define expectations for each part, and let > > > the committers divide themselves between those subprojects. Then after > > > a release (or periodically) review if there are enough people > > > available for every part of the project and see how to improve. That > > > said, I think we should keep the amount of policies small and leave > > > room for flexibility where needed. > > > > > > I would not move away from review then commit which seems to be the > > > accepted standard in the existing community but maybe a single > > > reviewer will suffice. (Not sure what that means about PMC's vs > > > regular committer's votes. Will we need/have lots of PMCs to make that > > > work?) > > > > > > Johannes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:57 PM Justin Mclean < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Please pardon my ignorance of the details of common Apache > processes, > > > > > I guess this proposal is modeled after existing Apache projects. > > > > > > > > There is no ASF requirements for this process, and each project can > > > decide what it should be. That being said, most projects select CTR > (commit > > > then review). Having an RTC (review then commit) style process, > especially > > > requiring two approvals, seems unnecessary to me. I would try and keep > it > > > as simple as possible and reduce the number of rules. The more complex > you > > > make this , the less likely the project will attract new committers or > will > > > exclude groups of committers. > > > > > > > > > Are there existing Apache Projects that we could take as an > example? > > > > > (E.g. Kafka? > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Contributing+Code+Changes > > > ) > > > > > > > > I would avoid emulating projects like Kafka, that encourage a high > > > committer bar. They are the exception in how ASF projects operate > rather > > > than what is typical of an Apache project. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Justin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
