On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:50 AM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote: > So... events coordinators? I'd still make them committers. I guess I'm > still struggling to understand what problem making people VIP's without > giving them committership is trying to solve.
We may just agree to disagree, which is fine, but I think the argument is clear enough: such a person has zero need for the commit bit. Turning it around, what are we trying to accomplish by giving said person a commit bit? I know people say there's no harm, but I think there is at least _some_ downside. We're widening access to change software artifacts, the main thing that we put ASF process and checks around for liability reasons. I know the point is trust, and said person is likely to understand to never use the commit bit, but it brings us back to the same place. I don't wish to convince anyone else of my stance, though I do find it more logical, just that it's reasonable within The Apache Way. > It also just occurred to me this morning: There are actually other privileges > which go along with the "commit-bit" other than the ability to commit at will > to the project's repos: people who are committers get an Apache e-mail > address, and they get discounted entry to ApacheCon. People who are > committers also get added to our committers mailing list, and are thus a > little easier to integrate into our foundation-wide efforts. > > To apply this to the example above, the Apache e-mail address can make it a > tad easier for an event coordinator to conduct official business for a > project. Great points. Again if I'm making it up? a "VIP" should get an Apache email address and discounts. Sure, why not put them on a committers@ list too for visibility. > But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you can safely give commit > access to anyone for whom you're reasonably certain they will do no harm. > And your certainty of that can actually be much higher with non-coding > committers. So if someone suggests a non-coding contributor for committer, > it should be fairly easy to say "yes". Especially if you're on a project > like Spark where PMC ⊂ committers. (Just to again be clear, we aren't talking only about 'non-coding' committers. If it's shorthand for 'not contributing to docs/code in the repo', we're on the same page.) The case that started this is a corner case. The more interesting case is, in fact, a docs-only contributor. That hasn't quite come up -- we had a case of build- and config-only committer though. It's worth keeping these arguments in mind for this more ambiguous hypothetical. No objections in theory to making said person a committer, but in practice it may be a harder case, possibly unnecessarily hard. > For solving the early and easy recognition problem, I've heard about people > just saying "thank you" or making a "contributor of the month" honor. That > kind of recognition doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of a status. Sure, we do some of that on PRs, but probably need to do more. There are some regular contributors doing good work, and I hope they feel recognized by the fact they get more attention because of their track record, but being explicit goes a long way. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
