Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
In general I don’t think it’s a good idea to add more hierarchy for the project or community. And a relatively easy way to address the issue of lack of reviewers is to bring in more committers, and focus on one’s code review contributions (instead of code contributions) when voting someone to become a committer. Thanks, -Jason On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:30 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > To become a reviewer , he/she would have to have some > > history of code review in MXNet. > > > In contrary, we should to bring reviewers who have contributed to the repo, > but do not have code review history before, there is always a time gap > between someone who contributed something, to someone who would provide > active high-quality review feedbacks. The reviewer could be an useful > mechanism to encourage the contributors to do so > > Tianqi > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:31 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > considered as a committer. > > > > > > On the other hand, it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from > > > contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code > > > reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they > > are > > > super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would > > merge > > > the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of > > > committers). > > > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > > contributing code reviews is a good part. Potential committers don't > > simply > > > show up in the community. We need to find them, encourage them to > > > contribute and provide mentorship. I am proposing to recognize them and > > > list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch > these > > > process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, > > and > > > more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > > considered as a reviewer. > > > > > > > > But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to > > > > solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become > > > > committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the > > > merge > > > > of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, > the > > > > committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can > > learn > > > > from code review of committers). > > > > > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > > > contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize > > > them > > > > and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and > watch > > > > these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each > > > > patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > >> considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are > > > >> important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by > > making > > > >> them committers. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> - Bob > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > > > >> > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this > > designation? > > > >> I > > > >> > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache > rules > > > >> from > > > >> > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically > > been > > > >> > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating > > > >> outside of > > > >> > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are > > > only > > > >> > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. > Splitting > > > >> into > > > >> > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > > > >> precedents. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of > > code > > > >> >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, > > and > > > >> >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much > as > > > so > > > >> >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code > > > >> reviews, the > > > >> >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve > > as > > > >> >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > > >> >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and > they > > > >> >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise > overlooked. > > > >> >> > > > >>
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
> > To become a reviewer , he/she would have to have some > history of code review in MXNet. In contrary, we should to bring reviewers who have contributed to the repo, but do not have code review history before, there is always a time gap between someone who contributed something, to someone who would provide active high-quality review feedbacks. The reviewer could be an useful mechanism to encourage the contributors to do so Tianqi On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:31 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > considered as a committer. > > > > On the other hand, it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from > > contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code > > reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they > are > > super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would > merge > > the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of > > committers). > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > contributing code reviews is a good part. Potential committers don't > simply > > show up in the community. We need to find them, encourage them to > > contribute and provide mentorship. I am proposing to recognize them and > > list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch these > > process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, > and > > more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > Tianqi > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > > considered as a reviewer. > > > > > > But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to > > > solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become > > > committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the > > merge > > > of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the > > > committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can > learn > > > from code review of committers). > > > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > > contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize > > them > > > and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch > > > these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each > > > patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin wrote: > > > > > >> Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be > > >> considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are > > >> important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by > making > > >> them committers. > > >> > > >> > > >> - Bob > > >> > > >> > > >> On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > > >> > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this > designation? > > >> I > > >> > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules > > >> from > > >> > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically > been > > >> > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating > > >> outside of > > >> > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are > > only > > >> > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting > > >> into > > >> > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > > >> precedents. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of > code > > >> >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, > and > > >> >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as > > so > > >> >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code > > >> reviews, the > > >> >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve > as > > >> >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > >> >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > > >> >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > >> >> > > >> >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews > > unless > > >> we > > >> >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code > > >> contributions. The > > >> >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > > >> >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the > > code > > >> >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > > >> >> committer reviews, > > >> >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, > > >> this > > >> >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > >>
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Hi, There is nothing stopping committers from soliciting reviews from contributors. This is a good suggestion and committers should do this much more often. I am assuming that the selection process for reviewers also goes through PPMC. To become a reviewer , he/she would have to have some history of code review in MXNet. Why not propose them for committer at this point? On the one hand, we are trying to reduce bar to entry through PPMC committers seperation while on the other hand we are growing this ladder of hierarchy which somewhat dilutes the purpose of the separation between ppmc and committer. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 8:31 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > considered as a committer. > > On the other hand, it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from > contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code > reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they are > super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would merge > the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of > committers). > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > contributing code reviews is a good part. Potential committers don't simply > show up in the community. We need to find them, encourage them to > contribute and provide mentorship. I am proposing to recognize them and > list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch these > process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, and > more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > Tianqi > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > > considered as a reviewer. > > > > But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to > > solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become > > committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the > merge > > of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the > > committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn > > from code review of committers). > > > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > > contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize > them > > and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch > > these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each > > patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > > > Tianqi > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin wrote: > > > >> Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be > >> considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are > >> important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by making > >> them committers. > >> > >> > >> - Bob > >> > >> > >> On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > >> > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? > >> I > >> > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules > >> from > >> > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > >> > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating > >> outside of > >> > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are > only > >> > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting > >> into > >> > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > >> precedents. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen > wrote: > >> > > >> >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > >> >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > >> >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as > so > >> >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code > >> reviews, the > >> >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > >> >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > >> >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > >> >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > >> >> > >> >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews > unless > >> we > >> >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code > >> contributions. The > >> >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > >> >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the > code > >> >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > >> >> committer reviews, > >> >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, > >> this > >> >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers > >> >> Tianqi > >> >> > >> >> On
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be considered as a committer. On the other hand, it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of committers). There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by contributing code reviews is a good part. Potential committers don't simply show up in the community. We need to find them, encourage them to contribute and provide mentorship. I am proposing to recognize them and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers Tianqi On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be > considered as a reviewer. > > But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to > solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become > committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge > of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the > committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn > from code review of committers). > > There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by > contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize them > and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch > these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each > patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers > > Tianqi > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin wrote: > >> Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be >> considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are >> important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by making >> them committers. >> >> >> - Bob >> >> >> On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: >> > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? >> I >> > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules >> from >> > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been >> > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating >> outside of >> > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only >> > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting >> into >> > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good >> precedents. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: >> > >> >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code >> >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and >> >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so >> >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code >> reviews, the >> >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as >> >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I >> >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they >> >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. >> >> >> >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless >> we >> >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code >> contributions. The >> >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize >> >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code >> >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the >> >> committer reviews, >> >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, >> this >> >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Tianqi >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: >> >> >> >>> -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally >> am >> >> for >> >>> recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them >> >>> committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a >> >>> committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between >> >> PPMC >> >>> and committers). >> >>> >> >>> Anirudh >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: >> >>> >> +1 >> Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as >> >> C++, >> Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In >> the >> future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this >> >> kind >> of documentation. >> >> Thanks, >> Qing >> >> On 10/21/18, 11:44
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
It is true that is a person is trusted to review code they should be considered as a reviewer. But what I am trying to say is that -- it is also super valuable to solicit reviews from contributors who have the potential to become committers. These code reviews may not necessarily directly grant the merge of the code, they are super helpful to the one who sends the patch, the committer who would merge the code, and the reviewer(since they can learn from code review of committers). There is always a process for a contributor to learn, and starting by contributing code reviews is a good part. I am proposing to recognize them and list them as reviewers, so committers can solicit reviews and watch these process. This would in general results in more reviews for each patch, and more evidence to help us to find potential committers Tianqi On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM Bob Paulin wrote: > Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be > considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are > important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by making > them committers. > > > - Bob > > > On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside > of > > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > precedents. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, > the > >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > >> > >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless > we > >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. > The > >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > >> committer reviews, > >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this > >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Tianqi > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > >> > >>> -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am > >> for > >>> recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > >>> committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > >>> committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > >> PPMC > >>> and committers). > >>> > >>> Anirudh > >>> > >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: > >>> > +1 > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > >> C++, > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In > the > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this > >> kind > of documentation. > > Thanks, > Qing > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > +1 > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > >>> wrote: > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > >> to > > list a list of Reviewers. > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > >>> should > highly > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors > >> and > nominate > > them as Reviewer. > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of > reviewers. > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the > reviewers > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > >>> consideration. > > > > - PMCs should actively look
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
It's not my intent to kill this (I just asked a question). What are mentors' input? On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > To be clear, we are not splitting the committers into reviewers, we are > recognizing an additional set of contributors who could become potential > committers and recognizing them as committers > > Tianqi > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:23 PM Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside > of > > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > > precedents. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > > > reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > > > high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > > > as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, > > the > > > code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > > > the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > > usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > > > help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > > > > > However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless > we > > > solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. > > The > > > Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > > > contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > > > reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > > > committer reviews, > > > which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, > this > > > likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > > > > > > > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally > am > > > for > > > > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > > > > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > > > > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > > > PPMC > > > > and committers). > > > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > > > C++, > > > > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In > > the > > > > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on > this > > > kind > > > > > of documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Qing > > > > > > > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so > that > > > > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > > > to > > > > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > > > > should > > > > > highly > > > > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good > contributors > > > and > > > > > nominate > > > > > > them as Reviewer. > > > > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list > of > > > > > reviewers. > > > > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from > the > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > > > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > > > > Reviewers > > > > > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely > will > > > > > provide a > > > > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > > > > standard of > > > > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the > trait > > > that > > > > > needed > > > > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > > >
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Generally if a person is trusted to review code they should be considered as a committer. Agree that having good reviewers are important but the way most projects recognize those efforts is by making them committers. - Bob On 10/22/2018 5:23 PM, Chris Olivier wrote: > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside of > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good precedents. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > >> The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code >> reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and >> high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so >> as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, the >> code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as >> the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I >> usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they >> help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. >> >> However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we >> solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. The >> Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize >> contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code >> reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the >> committer reviews, >> which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this >> likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. >> >> Cheers >> Tianqi >> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: >> >>> -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am >> for >>> recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them >>> committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a >>> committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between >> PPMC >>> and committers). >>> >>> Anirudh >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: >>> +1 Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as >> C++, Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this >> kind of documentation. Thanks, Qing On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: +1 I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that developers can easily request review from those reviewers. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen >>> wrote: > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > - Add a Reviewers section to > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md >> to > list a list of Reviewers. > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers >>> should highly > value their reviews during the PR process. > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors >> and nominate > them as Reviewer. > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of reviewers. > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the reviewers > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious >>> consideration. > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current Reviewers >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will provide a > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality standard of > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait >> that needed > from committer to merge code) > > Tianqi > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < steffenroc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors >>> incl. code > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release announcements > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to >> highlight most > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. monthly), > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen < >> tqc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Also re
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
I think your last word you meant "reviewers", right? yeah, this was also my understanding. A new "below-committer" level called "reviewer". So 3 levels now... On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > To be clear, we are not splitting the committers into reviewers, we are > recognizing an additional set of contributors who could become potential > committers and recognizing them as committers > > Tianqi > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:23 PM Chris Olivier > wrote: > > > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside > of > > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > > precedents. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > > > reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > > > high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > > > as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, > > the > > > code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > > > the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > > usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > > > help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > > > > > However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless > we > > > solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. > > The > > > Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > > > contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > > > reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > > > committer reviews, > > > which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, > this > > > likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > > > > > > > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally > am > > > for > > > > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > > > > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > > > > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > > > PPMC > > > > and committers). > > > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > > > C++, > > > > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In > > the > > > > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on > this > > > kind > > > > > of documentation. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Qing > > > > > > > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so > that > > > > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > > > to > > > > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > > > > should > > > > > highly > > > > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good > contributors > > > and > > > > > nominate > > > > > > them as Reviewer. > > > > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list > of > > > > > reviewers. > > > > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from > the > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > > > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > > > > Reviewers > > > > > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely > will > > > > > provide a > > > > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > > > > standard of > > > > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the > trait > > > that > > > > > needed > > > > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21,
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
To be clear, we are not splitting the committers into reviewers, we are recognizing an additional set of contributors who could become potential committers and recognizing them as committers Tianqi On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:23 PM Chris Olivier wrote: > Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I > am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from > other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been > quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside of > Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only > just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into > three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good > precedents. > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > > reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > > high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > > as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, > the > > code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > > the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > > usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > > help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > > > However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we > > solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. > The > > Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > > contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > > reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > > committer reviews, > > which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this > > likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > > > Cheers > > Tianqi > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > > > > > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am > > for > > > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > > > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > > > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > > PPMC > > > and committers). > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > > C++, > > > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In > the > > > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this > > kind > > > > of documentation. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Qing > > > > > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that > > > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > > to > > > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > > > should > > > > highly > > > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors > > and > > > > nominate > > > > > them as Reviewer. > > > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of > > > > reviewers. > > > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the > > > > reviewers > > > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > > > Reviewers > > > > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will > > > > provide a > > > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > > > standard of > > > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait > > that > > > > needed > > > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors > > > incl. > > > > code > > > > > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release > > > > announcements > > > > > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to > > highlight > > > > most > > > > > > active reviewers in release announcement
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Are there any other major Apache projects which have this designation? I am always continually suspicious of efforts to reinvent Apache rules from other non-Apache projects, when Apache projects have historically been quite successful within the Apache platform. In fact, operating outside of Apache norms is already a major problem as everyone knows. We are only just now splitting Committer/PMC into two separate groups. Splitting into three seems a bit much at this juncture unless there's some good precedents. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:17 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code > reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and > high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so > as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, the > code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as > the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I > usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they > help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. > > However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we > solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. The > Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize > contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code > reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the > committer reviews, > which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this > likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. > > Cheers > Tianqi > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > > > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am > for > > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between > PPMC > > and committers). > > > > Anirudh > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as > C++, > > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the > > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this > kind > > > of documentation. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Qing > > > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that > > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md > to > > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > > should > > > highly > > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors > and > > > nominate > > > > them as Reviewer. > > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of > > > reviewers. > > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the > > > reviewers > > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > > consideration. > > > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > > Reviewers > > > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will > > > provide a > > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > > standard of > > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait > that > > > needed > > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors > > incl. > > > code > > > > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release > > > announcements > > > > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to > highlight > > > most > > > > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. > > > monthly), > > > > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen < > tqc...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my > > > institutional email > > > > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit > duplication > > > of that). > > > > > I > > > > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize > >
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
The situation most projects are facing(including us), is lack of code reviews. Code reviews are the most important part of the project, and high-quality reviews are extremely time-consuming, maybe as much as so as the code itself. Usually, it is only committers do the code reviews, the code reviews from committers are important, as they are the serve as the gate-keeper of the quality of the code. In my experience, I usually find the reviews from non-committer super helpful, and they help the committer to catch problems that are otherwise overlooked. However, it is very hard to get contributors to do code reviews unless we solicit them. It is definitely harder than getting code contributions. The Reviewer mechanism could provide a way to do so. We can recognize contributors, bring them as reviewers and encourage them to do the code reviews by explicitly soliciting. The reviewers can learn from the committer reviews, which serves as a role model for what is being expected. Naturally, this likely helps us find more good reviewers and bought them committer. Cheers Tianqi On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:09 PM Anirudh wrote: > -1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am for > recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them > committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a > committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between PPMC > and committers). > > Anirudh > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: > > > +1 > > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as C++, > > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the > > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this kind > > of documentation. > > > > Thanks, > > Qing > > > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > > > +1 > > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that > > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen > wrote: > > > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md to > > > list a list of Reviewers. > > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers > should > > highly > > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors and > > nominate > > > them as Reviewer. > > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of > > reviewers. > > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the > > reviewers > > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious > consideration. > > > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > > Reviewers > > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will > > provide a > > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > > standard of > > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait that > > needed > > > from committer to merge code) > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors > incl. > > code > > > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release > > announcements > > > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to highlight > > most > > > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. > > monthly), > > > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my > > institutional email > > > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication > > of that). > > > > I > > > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize > > potential > > > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier < > > carinme...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a > good > > idea. > > > > > Also, > > > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR > > is another > > > > > way > > > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen < > tqc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear MXNet
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
-1. I dont see the need for additional level of hierarchy. I totally am for recognizing good code reviewers. We can recognize this by making them committers. Being a good reviewer should be sufficient to become a committer in my opinion. (Assuming that there is a seperation between PPMC and committers). Anirudh On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:28 AM Qing Lan wrote: > +1 > Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as C++, > Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the > future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this kind > of documentation. > > Thanks, > Qing > > On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: > > +1 > I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that > developers can easily request review from those reviewers. > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > > > - Add a Reviewers section to > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md to > > list a list of Reviewers. > > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers should > highly > > value their reviews during the PR process. > > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors and > nominate > > them as Reviewer. > > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of > reviewers. > > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the > reviewers > > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious consideration. > > > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current > Reviewers > >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will > provide a > > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality > standard of > > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait that > needed > > from committer to merge code) > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel < > steffenroc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors incl. > code > > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release > announcements > > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to highlight > most > > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. > monthly), > > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen > wrote: > > > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my > institutional email > > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication > of that). > > > I > > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize > potential > > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier < > carinme...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good > idea. > > > > Also, > > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR > is another > > > > way > > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering > the barrier > > > > of > > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One > of the > > > > > general > > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I > want to make > > > > the > > > > > > following proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers > in the > > > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such > official role > > > > in > > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing > active > > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the > contributor > > > > list. > > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code > reviews. > > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer > > > > candidates, > > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the > bar of > > > code > > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when > recruiting new > > > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership is > about to > > > the > > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
+1 Let's have a reviewer list somewhere with a certain format: such as C++, Gluon, Scala/Java based on language or some other category. etc. In the future, label bot would automatically assign reviewers based on this kind of documentation. Thanks, Qing On 10/21/18, 11:44 PM, "YiZhi Liu" wrote: +1 I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that developers can easily request review from those reviewers. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > - Add a Reviewers section to > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md to > list a list of Reviewers. > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers should highly > value their reviews during the PR process. > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors and nominate > them as Reviewer. > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of reviewers. > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the reviewers > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious consideration. > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current Reviewers >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will provide a > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality standard of > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait that needed > from committer to merge code) > > Tianqi > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel > wrote: > > > +1 > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors incl. code > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release announcements > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to highlight most > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. monthly), > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my institutional email > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication of that). > > I > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize potential > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good idea. > > > Also, > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR is another > > > way > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > > > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier > > > of > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the > > > > general > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make > > > the > > > > > following proposal: > > > > > > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role > > > in > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor > > > list. > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer > > > candidates, > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of > > code > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > > > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to > > the > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Yizhi Liu DMLC member Amazon Web Services Vancouver, Canada
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
+1 I also suggest add reviewer list link to the PR template, so that developers can easily request review from those reviewers. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > I was suggesting something more concrete: > > - Add a Reviewers section to > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md to > list a list of Reviewers. > - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers should highly > value their reviews during the PR process. > - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors and nominate > them as Reviewer. > - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of reviewers. > - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the reviewers > when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious consideration. > > - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current Reviewers >- Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will provide a > good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality standard of > the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait that needed > from committer to merge code) > > Tianqi > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel > wrote: > > > +1 > > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors incl. code > > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release announcements > > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to highlight most > > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. monthly), > > specifically from non-committers? > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my institutional email > > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication of that). > > I > > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize potential > > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good idea. > > > Also, > > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR is another > > > way > > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > > > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier > > > of > > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the > > > > general > > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make > > > the > > > > > following proposal: > > > > > > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role > > > in > > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor > > > list. > > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer > > > candidates, > > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of > > code > > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > > > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to > > the > > > > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Yizhi Liu DMLC member Amazon Web Services Vancouver, Canada
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
I was suggesting something more concrete: - Add a Reviewers section to https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTORS.md to list a list of Reviewers. - This is a "pesudo role", but holds weight as committers should highly value their reviews during the PR process. - The committers/PMC could actively look for good contributors and nominate them as Reviewer. - Contributors are encouraged to seek reviews from the list of reviewers. - The committers should actively solicit code reviews from the reviewers when reviewing PRs and take their reviews into serious consideration. - PMCs should actively look for new committers in the current Reviewers - Notably, the history reviews plus contribution likely will provide a good indication on whether the person can uphold the quality standard of the codebase, and provide helpful feedbacks(which is the trait that needed from committer to merge code) Tianqi On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:13 PM Steffen Rochel wrote: > +1 > With the release announcement for MXNet 1.3 all contributors incl. code > reviewers have been recognized. I suggest all future release announcements > should include such recognition. Are you suggesting to highlight most > active reviewers in release announcement or regularly (e.g. monthly), > specifically from non-committers? > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my institutional email > > which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication of that). > I > > think it should really be the job of committers to recognize potential > > reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong > > > > Tianqi > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier > wrote: > > > > > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good idea. > > Also, > > > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR is another > > way > > > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > > > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier > > of > > > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the > > > general > > > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make > > the > > > > following proposal: > > > > > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > > > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role > > in > > > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > > > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor > > list. > > > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > > > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer > > candidates, > > > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of > code > > > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > > > > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to > the > > > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > > > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > Tianqi > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Also re another email-thread(I sent out one with my institutional email which get blocked initially, so this one was a bit duplication of that). I think it should really be the job of committers to recognize potential reviewers, github also makes it easier to do so, e.g. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=reviewed-by%3Apiiswrong Tianqi On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:05 PM Carin Meier wrote: > +1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good idea. Also, > I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR is another way > to express gratitude for their time and effort. > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > > > Dear MXNet Community: > > > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of > > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the > general > > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the > > following proposal: > > > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in > > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. > > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer candidates, > > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of code > > quality that is required to merge the code. > > > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to the > > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > Tianqi > > >
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
+1 sounds like a great idea. We also need a mechanism to identify “good reviewers”. Maybe we can count the number of :thumsup: in each review. Or any other better way? On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:22 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Dear MXNet Community: > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the general > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the > following proposal: > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognising active > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > Recognising good reviewers early enables us to find candidate for > committers, and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar > of code quality that is required to merge the code. > > This can provide the community more evidence when recruiting new > committers. After all committers is about write access to the code and > understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is usually can be > found in high quality reviews. > > Please let me know what you think. > Tianqi >
[Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Dear MXNet Community: There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the general goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the following proposal: Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognising active reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. Recognising good reviewers early enables us to find candidate for committers, and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of code quality that is required to merge the code. This can provide the community more evidence when recruiting new committers. After all committers is about write access to the code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is usually can be found in high quality reviews. Please let me know what you think. Tianqi
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
+1 Great idea. Adding a name to the contributor list is a good idea. Also, I've found that thanking the person for the review on the PR is another way to express gratitude for their time and effort. On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:51 PM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Dear MXNet Community: > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the general > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the > following proposal: > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer candidates, > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of code > quality that is required to merge the code. > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to the > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > Please let me know what you think. > > Tianqi >
Re: [Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
+1 reviews are great contributions given that it takes good understanding and investment of time to provide insightful feedback. On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:51 AM Tianqi Chen wrote: > Dear MXNet Community: > > There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of > entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the general > goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the > following proposal: > > Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the > community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in > Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active > reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. > In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. > Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer candidates, > and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of code > quality that is required to merge the code. > > This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new > committers. After all the write access of committership is about to the > code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is > usually can be found in high-quality review history. > > Please let me know what you think. > > Tianqi >
[Discussion] Recognise Reviewers, Besides Committers and PMC
Dear MXNet Community: There is a great discussion going on in terms of lowering the barrier of entries and encourage more contribution to the project. One of the general goals is to encourage a broader pool of contributions. I want to make the following proposal: Besides Committers and PMC, let us also recognize Reviewers in the community. This is a "pseudo role" as there is no such official role in Apache. But I want to explore the possibility of recognizing active reviewers for example, by adding a list of names in the contributor list. In general, I find it is really helpful to have more code reviews. Recognizing good reviewers early enables us to find committer candidates, and encourage them to contribute and understand what is the bar of code quality that is required to merge the code. This can provide the community with more evidence when recruiting new committers. After all the write access of committership is about to the code and understand the consequence of the responsibility -- which is usually can be found in high-quality review history. Please let me know what you think. Tianqi
