What value do we get out of a vote versus using the existing features of GitHub PR reviews? If a project member identifies risk in a PR, they can just request changes on the PR. That essentially works the same as a veto in the code modifications voting process, except that veto can be withdrawn later after changes are made.
I guess one advantage of a vote is that it's on the mailing list, and maybe some people are paying more attention to the mailing list than GitHub? On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:25 AM Jean-Luc Deprez <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure feels like there was some consensus on voting for each PR is overdoing > it. > > Perhaps generalize the compatibility to "risk". E.g. I can perfectly > imagine that doing a "performance optimization" to a dispatching algorithm > would be expected to not introduce any compatibility issues, but it seems > like a vote could still be justified. > > Though I guess most of these would be matter of negotiation/consensus, e.g. > phasing in settings. > > So something like, "If a project member detects risk as part of the review > (e.g. compatibility or performance), these should be addressed or > mitigated. The required actions can be discussed in the PR, but a > concluding vote should be made before merge." > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022, 16:16 Josep Prat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I think point 2.3.c shouldn't be required for *all code changes*, but > > rather only for changes that break backwards compatibility (and probably > > binary backwards compatibility). > > Akka had a really strict rule (which IMO we should carry with us) about > > binary compatibility. > > I propose to make point 2.3.c conditional to the change being backwards > > incompatible. > > > > Best, > > Josep > > > > > On 2022/11/01 14:40 CET Claude Warren, Jr <[email protected] > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems to me the whole CODEOWNERS discussion is really about the > > > distinction between the cathedral and the bazaar [1] forms of project > > > management. Akka, from my perspective, seems to have been a cathedral > > > project (few people controlling the development direction) whereas > pekko, > > > being an Apache project, will be more of a bazaar style project. > > > > > > There are things about Apache projects to keep in mind: > > > > > > - Anyone can contribute (patches, documentation, etc.) > > > - Generally any committer can commit code/documentation to the main > > > branch. > > > - Anyone can become a committer based on merit. They produce clean > > > contributions, with tests (if appropriate), in the form that the > > project > > > wants. (Specific policy here needs to be documented). > > > - The project management committee (PMC -- PPMC for podlings like > > Pekko) > > > are comitters that have volunteered to give more time to the > > functioning of > > > the project. They are the ones responsible for reporting the > project > > > status to the Apache board (Incubator PMC for podlings). They are > > the ones > > > that get notified when new security issues are identified. They > don't > > have > > > more power, they have more responsibility. They have agreed to > > volunteer > > > more time. See PMC guide [2] and PMC Governance Overview [3] for > more > > > details. > > > - Any comitter can be added to the PMC. It is up to the project to > > > determine how this is done. But once a committer is selected to be > a > > PMC > > > member there is a process to follow [4] > > > - There is a PMC chair; again not more power, more responsibility. > > How > > > the chair is selected is up to the project, though they do have to > be > > a > > > member of the PMC. > > > > > > So yes there is a hierarchy, but it is not a hierarchy of power, it is > a > > > hierarchy of responsibility. Those at the top do the most paperwork. > > > Those at the bottom have the most fun. > > > > > > So when it comes to merging pull requests the project has many options: > > > > > > - Any committer can review and accept any pull request. > > > - Any PCM member can review and accept any pull request. > > > - A pull request can be accepted after review and acceptance of 2 or > > > more committers. > > > - A pull request can be accepted after review and acceptance by a > PCM > > > member and a committer > > > - Any combination of the above > > > - none of the above but something different. > > > - ... > > > > > > The trick is to balance the need for > > > > > > - the contribution not to break things > > > - the contribution to be understandable > > > - the result of the contribution to be understood (multiple people > > > understand how it changes current operation, why, and what the side > > effects > > > are) > > > - speed of response / welcoming community -- pull requests should > not > > > sit idly by and have no activity. Prospective contributors should > > > be welcomed. > > > - time to review/think about complex contributions. > > > > > > So it falls to this group to come up with a process that works for the > > > group within the Apache framework. > > > > > > The current proposed process [5] states that "all pull requests for > code > > > changes" > > > 2.3.b must be reviewed and approved by at least two committers who are > > not > > > the developer(s). > > > 2.3.c must be voted on in the development list using the *code > > > modifications* process documented in the Apache voting process > > > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>document > > > > > > This is a high bar to pass. Not the highest I have seen, but not a low > > bar > > > either. There has been lots of discussion here about how to approve > the > > > code, so propose a change to the text if you think this is not the > right > > > bar. > > > > > > Claude > > > > > > [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ > > > [2] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html > > > [3] https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs > > > [4] https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#newpmc > > > [5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PEKKO/Processes > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 12:54 PM 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] > > > > >
