Hi, Sorry, it's pretty hard to follow the whole discussion.
Just a note: PMC membership is not a "coding leading" level compared to committership. PMC is about the project management, including voting the release. That's for a TLP. Regarding a podling (incubating project), PPMC doesn't have any special privileges compared to committer (IPMC members have binding vote, not PPMC). I think we can go with committer / non committer. I don't think it's a good idea to have special role for PPMC. I think it's better to have committer review required. So basically a PR should be reviewed and approved by couple of other committers. For incubation, I think it's better. By the way, if you want, I can send to you a presentation deck I have showing organisation and Apache way for reference. Regards JB On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 2:56 PM Jean-Luc Deprez <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well no, I was only picking up on your 2 PR approvals. > > If you add code owners, set to PMC and branch protection set up > accordingly, at least one of those two needs to be PMC. > > Say 2 teams > pekko-pmc > and > pekko-committers > > PMC as subgroup of committers. > > Committers get maintainer role so can do everything, including merging to > main, > but a PR needs at least one PMC approval before merge. > > This not tightly bolted down and from where I stand respects the Apache > way, while still putting in some quality levers. > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022, 14:46 Matthew Benedict de Detrich > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My original understanding on the application CODEOWNERS was what Johannes > > originally stated, i.e. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Emphasis on "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." > > > > Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don’t see what value a global > > CODEOWNERS aliased to a team for a project provides. If we already have a > > team setup in the first place then its just duplicated effort. > > > > -- > > Matthew de Detrich > > Aiven Deutschland GmbH > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > m: +491603708037 > > w: aiven.io e: [email protected] > > On 30. Oct 2022, 14:37 +0100, [email protected], wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
