It looks like the difference between the proposed Spark model and the CloudStack / SVN model is: * In the former, maintainers / partial committers are a way of centralizing oversight over particular components among committers * In the latter, maintainers / partial committers are a way of giving non-committers some power to make changes
-Sandy On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: > PMC [1] is responsible for oversight and does not designate partial or full > committer. There are projects where all committers become PMC and others > where PMC is reserved for committers with the most merit (and willingness > to take on the responsibility of project oversight, releases, etc...). > Community maintains the codebase through committers. Committers to mentor, > roll in patches, and spread the project throughout other communities. > > Adding someone's name to a list as a "maintainer" is not a barrier. With a > community as large as Spark's, and myself not being a committer on this > project, I see it as a welcome opportunity to find a mentor in the areas in > which I'm interested in contributing. We'd expect the list of names to grow > as more volunteers gain more interest, correct? To me, that seems quite > contrary to a "barrier". > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Matei Zaharia <matei.zaha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > So I don't understand, Greg, are the partial committers committers, or > are > > they not? Spark also has a PMC, but our PMC currently consists of all > > committers (we decided not to have a differentiation when we left the > > incubator). I see the Subversion partial committers listed as > "committers" > > on https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#subversion, so I > > assume they are committers. As far as I can see, CloudStack is similar. > > > > Matei > > > > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:43 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Partial committers are people invited to work on a particular area, and > > they do not require sign-off to work on that area. They can get a > sign-off > > and commit outside that area. That approach doesn't compare to this > > proposal. > > > > > > Full committers are PMC members. As each PMC member is responsible for > > *every* line of code, then every PMC member should have complete rights > to > > every line of code. Creating disparity flies in the face of a PMC > member's > > responsibility. If I am a Spark PMC member, then I have responsibility > for > > GraphX code, whether my name is Ankur, Joey, Reynold, or Greg. And > > interposing a barrier inhibits my responsibility to ensure GraphX is > > designed, maintained, and delivered to the Public. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -g > > > > > > (and yes, I'm aware of COMMITTERS; I've been changing that file for the > > past 12 years :-) ) > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com > > <mailto:pwend...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > In fact, if you look at the subversion commiter list, the majority of > > > people here have commit access only for particular areas of the > > > project: > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/COMMITTERS < > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/COMMITTERS> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com > > <mailto:pwend...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hey Greg, > > > > > > > > Regarding subversion - I think the reference is to partial vs full > > > > committers here: > > > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html < > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html> > > > > > > > > - Patrick > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com > <mailto: > > gst...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> -1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > > >> This is an idea that runs COMPLETELY counter to the Apache Way, and > is > > > >> to be severely frowned up. This creates *unequal* ownership of the > > > >> codebase. > > > >> > > > >> Each Member of the PMC should have *equal* rights to all areas of > the > > > >> codebase until their purview. It should not be subjected to others' > > > >> "ownership" except throught the standard mechanisms of reviews and > > > >> if/when absolutely necessary, to vetos. > > > >> > > > >> Apache does not want "leads", "benevolent dictators" or "assigned > > > >> maintainers", no matter how you may dress it up with multiple > > > >> maintainers per component. The fact is that this creates an unequal > > > >> level of ownership and responsibility. The Board has shut down > > > >> projects that attempted or allowed for "Leads". Just a few months > ago, > > > >> there was a problem with somebody calling themself a "Lead". > > > >> > > > >> I don't know why you suggest that Apache Subversion does this. We > > > >> absolutely do not. Never have. Never will. The Subversion codebase > is > > > >> owned by all of us, and we all care for every line of it. Some > people > > > >> know more than others, of course. But any one of us, can change any > > > >> part, without being subjected to a "maintainer". Of course, we ask > > > >> people with more knowledge of the component when we feel > > > >> uncomfortable, but we also know when it is safe or not to make a > > > >> specific change. And *always*, our fellow committers can review our > > > >> work and let us know when we've done something wrong. > > > >> > > > >> Equal ownership reduces fiefdoms, enhances a feeling of community > and > > > >> project ownership, and creates a more open and inviting project. > > > >> > > > >> So again: -1 on this entire concept. Not good, to be polite. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Greg Stein > > > >> Director, Vice Chairman > > > >> Apache Software Foundation > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:31:58PM -0800, Matei Zaharia wrote: > > > >>> Hi all, > > > >>> > > > >>> I wanted to share a discussion we've been having on the PMC list, > as > > well as call for an official vote on it on a public list. Basically, as > the > > Spark project scales up, we need to define a model to make sure there is > > still great oversight of key components (in particular internal > > architecture and public APIs), and to this end I've proposed > implementing a > > maintainer model for some of these components, similar to other large > > projects. > > > >>> > > > >>> As background on this, Spark has grown a lot since joining Apache. > > We've had over 80 contributors/month for the past 3 months, which I > believe > > makes us the most active project in contributors/month at Apache, as well > > as over 500 patches/month. The codebase has also grown significantly, > with > > new libraries for SQL, ML, graphs and more. > > > >>> > > > >>> In this kind of large project, one common way to scale development > > is to assign "maintainers" to oversee key components, where each patch to > > that component needs to get sign-off from at least one of its > maintainers. > > Most existing large projects do this -- at Apache, some large ones with > > this model are CloudStack (the second-most active project overall), > > Subversion, and Kafka, and other examples include Linux and Python. This > is > > also by-and-large how Spark operates today -- most components have a > > de-facto maintainer. > > > >>> > > > >>> IMO, adopting this model would have two benefits: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1) Consistent oversight of design for that component, especially > > regarding architecture and API. This process would ensure that the > > component's maintainers see all proposed changes and consider them to fit > > together in a good way. > > > >>> > > > >>> 2) More structure for new contributors and committers -- in > > particular, it would be easy to look up who's responsible for each module > > and ask them for reviews, etc, rather than having patches slip between > the > > cracks. > > > >>> > > > >>> We'd like to start with in a light-weight manner, where the model > > only applies to certain key components (e.g. scheduler, shuffle) and > > user-facing APIs (MLlib, GraphX, etc). Over time, as the project grows, > we > > can expand it if we deem it useful. The specific mechanics would be as > > follows: > > > >>> > > > >>> - Some components in Spark will have maintainers assigned to them, > > where one of the maintainers needs to sign off on each patch to the > > component. > > > >>> - Each component with maintainers will have at least 2 maintainers. > > > >>> - Maintainers will be assigned from the most active and > > knowledgeable committers on that component by the PMC. The PMC can vote > to > > add / remove maintainers, and maintained components, through consensus. > > > >>> - Maintainers are expected to be active in responding to patches > for > > their components, though they do not need to be the main reviewers for > them > > (e.g. they might just sign off on architecture / API). To prevent > inactive > > maintainers from blocking the project, if a maintainer isn't responding > in > > a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), other committers can merge the > > patch, and the PMC will want to discuss adding another maintainer. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you'd like to see examples for this model, check out the > > following projects: > > > >>> - CloudStack: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Maintainers+Guide > > >> > > > >>> - Subversion: > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html < > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html> < > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html < > > https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Finally, I wanted to list our current proposal for initial > > components and maintainers. It would be good to get feedback on other > > components we might add, but please note that personnel discussions (e.g. > > "I don't think Matei should maintain *that* component) should only happen > > on the private list. The initial components were chosen to include all > > public APIs and the main core components, and the maintainers were chosen > > from the most active contributors to those modules. > > > >>> > > > >>> - Spark core public API: Matei, Patrick, Reynold > > > >>> - Job scheduler: Matei, Kay, Patrick > > > >>> - Shuffle and network: Reynold, Aaron, Matei > > > >>> - Block manager: Reynold, Aaron > > > >>> - YARN: Tom, Andrew Or > > > >>> - Python: Josh, Matei > > > >>> - MLlib: Xiangrui, Matei > > > >>> - SQL: Michael, Reynold > > > >>> - Streaming: TD, Matei > > > >>> - GraphX: Ankur, Joey, Reynold > > > >>> > > > >>> I'd like to formally call a [VOTE] on this model, to last 72 hours. > > The [VOTE] will end on Nov 8, 2014 at 6 PM PST. > > > >>> > > > >>> Matei > > > >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org <mailto: > > dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org <mailto: > > dev-h...@spark.apache.org> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
