You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hawq.apache.org by Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com> on 2016/01/04 04:31:40 UTC
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Greetings.
I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for any
further comments.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
Cheers
Lei
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
>
> I will add more information around sustained contributions for further
> discussions.
>
> Cheers
> Lei
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lei,
>>
>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already said.
>>
>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better to
>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early adoption of
>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to be
>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before graduation
>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
>> them accordingly?
>>
>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document - what
>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't have
>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
>> some guidance available.
>>
>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
>>
>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
>> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
>>
>> Cheers. -- justin
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not everyone
>> can do
>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that have
>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Lei
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but here
>> a few
>> >> points to consider:
>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in doing
>> the
>> >> whole laundry list below
>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing where
>> there
>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and each
>> one of
>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions will
>> slow the
>> >> community growth to halt
>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven to have
>> a
>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra careful
>> setting
>> >> such a high bar
>> >>
>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant jack-asses
>> should
>> >> be
>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great job in
>> the,
>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to understand
>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same area. If
>> the
>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
>> project -
>> >> he
>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following guidelines, he
>> >> would
>> >> never be welcomed here.
>> >>
>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
>> >> Cos
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized the
>> points
>> >> > from previous discussions.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things that
>> >> typically
>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed
>> >> > by existing committers
>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
>> >> > 7. bug reports
>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a mentor to
>> new
>> >> > contributors
>> >> >
>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers
>> >> > Lei
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a mentor,
>> work
>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
>> continuously
>> >> or a
>> >> > > long time period.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What do you guys think?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers
>> >> > > Lei
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>> roman@shaposhnik.org
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Thanks,
>> >> > >> Roman.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> > add the link:
>> >> > >> >
>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new committer.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Cheers
>> >> > >> >> Lei
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
>> >> > >> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
>> >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something that
>> HAWQ
>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no hard and
>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically would
>> prompt
>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
>> >> committed
>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
>> >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a variety of
>> >> > >> different
>> >> > >> >>> ways
>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable to expect
>> that
>> >> > >> your
>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for commitership.
>> >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
>> >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <xz...@pivotal.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
>> >> > >> >>> >
>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
>> >> > >> >>> >
>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a committer,
>> and
>> >> > >> what's
>> >> > >> >>> the
>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can review the
>> >> request.
>> >> > >> >>> >
>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and any
>> >> guidance is
>> >> > >> >>> greatly
>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
>> >> > >> >>> >
>> >> > >> >>> > --
>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
>> >> > >> >>>
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>.
Nice. Looks quite similar to what we have here.
Cheers
Lei
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com> wrote:
> Following up...
>
> The Committers at Geode ended up choosing a fairly liberal criterion for
> nomination and voting new Committers, as is stated here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Becoming+a+committer
>
> Specifically here:
>
>
> > 1. Committers should nominate fellow contributors when a candidate has
> > shown a consistent history of participating in the development
> process or
> > community, and has demonstrated that they understand and follow the
> development
> > process and community standards of the Apache Geode project.
> >
> >
> > 1. The members on the PPMC will consider both the history and quality
> > of the contributors' participation, and vote whether to grant commit
> > privileges to the candidate, or provide feedback and mentoring to the
> > candidate to help further groom them to become a Committer in the
> future.
> >
> >
> > 1. Contributors who have shown a consistent history of participating
> > in the development process or community, and have demonstrated that
> > they understand and follow the development process and community
> > standards of the Apache Geode, and who show promise for future
> > contributions should generally be accepted by the PPMC as a new
> Committer.
> >
> >
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > This discussion just came up in Apache Geode as well, and I suggested the
> > following:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 1. "The Committers" are currently the same as "The PPMC". So at this
> > > point, voting someone as a committer is voting them as the potential
> > future
> > > PMC of Apache [HAWQ].
> > >
> >
> >
> > > 2. Becoming a committer should be used to recognize a contributor as
> > having
> > > further potential to contribute even more, and to encourage them to
> > > participate with and collaborate more with the community.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > In my personal opinion, contributors who show themselves as
> > collaborative,
> > > community building, or supportive of users with a likelihood of
> > > contributing even more should be nominated and likely voted by the PPMC
> > to
> > > be a contributor.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > While not the only source, many behaviors related to being
> collaborative,
> > > community building, or supportive of users is captured by our community
> > > dashboard: [http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-hawq/browser/]
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Thus I'd expect high contributors in these areas to rank in top lists
> as
> > > follows:
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Collaborative:
> > > Jiras: open, comment, close
> > > Dev mail list: open threads, reply
> > > Git: commits
> > > Code reviews
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Someone who does not collaborate and only develops would likely only
> show
> > > up in pull requests, but not other collaborative infrastructure.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Community building would include:
> > > Dev & user mail lists
> > > Wiki / confluent editing
> > >
> >
> >
> > > User supporting would include:
> > > User mail list responses
> > > Jiras opened and commented on
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I'm sure these lists can be better refined.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > While I wouldn't quantify this, I would argue that if someone shows up
> in
> > > multiple categories of contribution on top lists for more than one 30
> day
> > > period, they are likely candidates to be nominated as a committer.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I know of at least a couple of companies that pay their employees to be
> > > contributors to Apache [HAWQ]. If their job changes, or they move to a
> > > different company, will they stay as a contributor if we make them a
> > > committer? I'd argue this is much more likely if we see them
> > contributing
> > > in multiple categories rather than just a single way.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > Finally, we need to create a model and standard of how we want our
> > > community to act. By being more specific about asking for broader
> > > contribution to be recognized as a committer, this will help train new
> > > members of this community how to participate fully.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments
> for
> > > clarity and excess redundancy. The last paragraph could still use a
> bit
> > > more work.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> justin@erenkrantz.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the writeup. One minor suggestion:
> > > >
> > > > Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> > > > existing committers.
> > > >
> > > > I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> > > > everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
> > > >
> > > > Cjeers. -- justin
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Greetings.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for
> > any
> > > > > further comments.
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Lei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Justin,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for
> > further
> > > > >> discussions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> Lei
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> > > > justin@erenkrantz.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Lei,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos
> already
> > > > said.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably
> better
> > > to
> > > > >>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early
> adoption
> > of
> > > > >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to
> > be
> > > > >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
> > > > >>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this
> early
> > > > >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
> > > > >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before
> > graduation
> > > > >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and
> recognize
> > > > >>> them accordingly?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document -
> > what
> > > > >>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't
> > have
> > > > >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should
> be
> > > > >>> some guidance available.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Cheers. -- justin
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <
> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not
> > > everyone
> > > > >>> can do
> > > > >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that
> > have
> > > > >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a
> committer.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Cheers
> > > > >>> > Lei
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > > cos@apache.org>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier,
> but
> > > > here
> > > > >>> a few
> > > > >>> >> points to consider:
> > > > >>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested
> in
> > > > doing
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> >> whole laundry list below
> > > > >>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing
> > > where
> > > > >>> there
> > > > >>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and
> > > each
> > > > >>> one of
> > > > >>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions
> > will
> > > > >>> slow the
> > > > >>> >> community growth to halt
> > > > >>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra
> > careful
> > > > >>> setting
> > > > >>> >> such a high bar
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant
> > > jack-asses
> > > > >>> should
> > > > >>> >> be
> > > > >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing
> great
> > > job
> > > > in
> > > > >>> the,
> > > > >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to
> > > > understand
> > > > >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same
> > > area.
> > > > If
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in
> the
> > > > >>> project -
> > > > >>> >> he
> > > > >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following
> > > guidelines,
> > > > he
> > > > >>> >> would
> > > > >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> > > > >>> >> Cos
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized
> > the
> > > > >>> points
> > > > >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things
> > that
> > > > >>> >> typically
> > > > >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a
> committer
> > > > >>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > > > >>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> > > > committed
> > > > >>> >> > by existing committers
> > > > >>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
> > > > >>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > > > >>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > > > >>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
> > > > >>> >> > 7. bug reports
> > > > >>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a
> > > mentor
> > > > to
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>> >> > contributors
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > Lei
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a
> > > > mentor,
> > > > >>> work
> > > > >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
> > > > >>> continuously
> > > > >>> >> or a
> > > > >>> >> > > long time period.
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > > Lei
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > >>> >> >
> > > > >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
> > > > >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> Roman.
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>>
> > http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new
> > > > committer.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something
> > > that
> > > > >>> HAWQ
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no
> hard
> > > and
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically
> > > would
> > > > >>> prompt
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA
> or
> > > PRs)
> > > > >>> >> committed
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a
> > > > variety of
> > > > >>> >> > >> different
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable
> to
> > > > expect
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>> >> > >> your
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for
> commitership.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <
> > > > xzhang@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a
> > > > committer,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> >> > >> what's
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> the
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can
> review
> > > the
> > > > >>> >> request.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and
> > any
> > > > >>> >> guidance is
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > > >>> >> > >>
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >> > >
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Greg Chase
> >
> > Director of Big Data Communities
> > http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
> >
> > Pivotal Software
> > http://www.pivotal.io/
> >
> > 650-215-0477
> > @GregChase
> > Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
> >
>
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Greg Chase <gr...@gregchase.com>.
Following up...
The Committers at Geode ended up choosing a fairly liberal criterion for
nomination and voting new Committers, as is stated here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Becoming+a+committer
Specifically here:
> 1. Committers should nominate fellow contributors when a candidate has
> shown a consistent history of participating in the development process or
> community, and has demonstrated that they understand and follow the development
> process and community standards of the Apache Geode project.
>
>
> 1. The members on the PPMC will consider both the history and quality
> of the contributors' participation, and vote whether to grant commit
> privileges to the candidate, or provide feedback and mentoring to the
> candidate to help further groom them to become a Committer in the future.
>
>
> 1. Contributors who have shown a consistent history of participating
> in the development process or community, and have demonstrated that
> they understand and follow the development process and community
> standards of the Apache Geode, and who show promise for future
> contributions should generally be accepted by the PPMC as a new Committer.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> This discussion just came up in Apache Geode as well, and I suggested the
> following:
>
> <snip>
>
> 1. "The Committers" are currently the same as "The PPMC". So at this
> > point, voting someone as a committer is voting them as the potential
> future
> > PMC of Apache [HAWQ].
> >
>
>
> > 2. Becoming a committer should be used to recognize a contributor as
> having
> > further potential to contribute even more, and to encourage them to
> > participate with and collaborate more with the community.
> >
>
>
> > In my personal opinion, contributors who show themselves as
> collaborative,
> > community building, or supportive of users with a likelihood of
> > contributing even more should be nominated and likely voted by the PPMC
> to
> > be a contributor.
> >
>
>
> > While not the only source, many behaviors related to being collaborative,
> > community building, or supportive of users is captured by our community
> > dashboard: [http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-hawq/browser/]
> >
>
>
> > Thus I'd expect high contributors in these areas to rank in top lists as
> > follows:
> >
>
>
> > Collaborative:
> > Jiras: open, comment, close
> > Dev mail list: open threads, reply
> > Git: commits
> > Code reviews
> >
>
>
> > Someone who does not collaborate and only develops would likely only show
> > up in pull requests, but not other collaborative infrastructure.
> >
>
>
> > Community building would include:
> > Dev & user mail lists
> > Wiki / confluent editing
> >
>
>
> > User supporting would include:
> > User mail list responses
> > Jiras opened and commented on
> >
>
>
> > I'm sure these lists can be better refined.
> >
>
>
> > While I wouldn't quantify this, I would argue that if someone shows up in
> > multiple categories of contribution on top lists for more than one 30 day
> > period, they are likely candidates to be nominated as a committer.
> >
>
>
> > I know of at least a couple of companies that pay their employees to be
> > contributors to Apache [HAWQ]. If their job changes, or they move to a
> > different company, will they stay as a contributor if we make them a
> > committer? I'd argue this is much more likely if we see them
> contributing
> > in multiple categories rather than just a single way.
> >
>
>
> > Finally, we need to create a model and standard of how we want our
> > community to act. By being more specific about asking for broader
> > contribution to be recognized as a committer, this will help train new
> > members of this community how to participate fully.
> >
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Greg
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments for
> > clarity and excess redundancy. The last paragraph could still use a bit
> > more work.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the writeup. One minor suggestion:
> > >
> > > Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> > > existing committers.
> > >
> > > I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> > > everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
> > >
> > > Cjeers. -- justin
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Greetings.
> > > >
> > > > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for
> any
> > > > further comments.
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Lei
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Justin,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> > > >>
> > > >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for
> further
> > > >> discussions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Lei
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> > > justin@erenkrantz.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Lei,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already
> > > said.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better
> > to
> > > >>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early adoption
> of
> > > >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to
> be
> > > >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
> > > >>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
> > > >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
> > > >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before
> graduation
> > > >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
> > > >>> them accordingly?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document -
> what
> > > >>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't
> have
> > > >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
> > > >>> some guidance available.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> > > >>>
> > >
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers. -- justin
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not
> > everyone
> > > >>> can do
> > > >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that
> have
> > > >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Cheers
> > > >>> > Lei
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > cos@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but
> > > here
> > > >>> a few
> > > >>> >> points to consider:
> > > >>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in
> > > doing
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> >> whole laundry list below
> > > >>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing
> > where
> > > >>> there
> > > >>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and
> > each
> > > >>> one of
> > > >>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions
> will
> > > >>> slow the
> > > >>> >> community growth to halt
> > > >>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven
> to
> > > have
> > > >>> a
> > > >>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra
> careful
> > > >>> setting
> > > >>> >> such a high bar
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant
> > jack-asses
> > > >>> should
> > > >>> >> be
> > > >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great
> > job
> > > in
> > > >>> the,
> > > >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to
> > > understand
> > > >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same
> > area.
> > > If
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
> > > >>> project -
> > > >>> >> he
> > > >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following
> > guidelines,
> > > he
> > > >>> >> would
> > > >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> > > >>> >> Cos
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> > > >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized
> the
> > > >>> points
> > > >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things
> that
> > > >>> >> typically
> > > >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
> > > >>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > > >>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> > > committed
> > > >>> >> > by existing committers
> > > >>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
> > > >>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > > >>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > > >>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
> > > >>> >> > 7. bug reports
> > > >>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a
> > mentor
> > > to
> > > >>> new
> > > >>> >> > contributors
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > Cheers
> > > >>> >> > Lei
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <
> > chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a
> > > mentor,
> > > >>> work
> > > >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
> > > >>> continuously
> > > >>> >> or a
> > > >>> >> > > long time period.
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > > Cheers
> > > >>> >> > > Lei
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > >>> >> >
> > > >>> >> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
> > > >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> > > >>> >> > >>
> > > >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> > > >>> >> > >> Roman.
> > > >>> >> > >>
> > > >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > >>>
> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > > >>> >> > >> >
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new
> > > committer.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> > > >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something
> > that
> > > >>> HAWQ
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no hard
> > and
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically
> > would
> > > >>> prompt
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or
> > PRs)
> > > >>> >> committed
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
> > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a
> > > variety of
> > > >>> >> > >> different
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable to
> > > expect
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> >> > >> your
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for commitership.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <
> > > xzhang@pivotal.io>
> > > >>> >> wrote:
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a
> > > committer,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> >> > >> what's
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> the
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can review
> > the
> > > >>> >> request.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and
> any
> > > >>> >> guidance is
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> > > >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> > > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >> >>
> > > >>> >> > >>
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >> > >
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Chase
>
> Director of Big Data Communities
> http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
>
> Pivotal Software
> http://www.pivotal.io/
>
> 650-215-0477
> @GregChase
> Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
>
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Gregory Chase <gc...@pivotal.io>.
This discussion just came up in Apache Geode as well, and I suggested the
following:
<snip>
1. "The Committers" are currently the same as "The PPMC". So at this
> point, voting someone as a committer is voting them as the potential future
> PMC of Apache [HAWQ].
>
> 2. Becoming a committer should be used to recognize a contributor as having
> further potential to contribute even more, and to encourage them to
> participate with and collaborate more with the community.
>
> In my personal opinion, contributors who show themselves as collaborative,
> community building, or supportive of users with a likelihood of
> contributing even more should be nominated and likely voted by the PPMC to
> be a contributor.
>
> While not the only source, many behaviors related to being collaborative,
> community building, or supportive of users is captured by our community
> dashboard: [http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-hawq/browser/]
>
> Thus I'd expect high contributors in these areas to rank in top lists as
> follows:
>
> Collaborative:
> Jiras: open, comment, close
> Dev mail list: open threads, reply
> Git: commits
> Code reviews
>
> Someone who does not collaborate and only develops would likely only show
> up in pull requests, but not other collaborative infrastructure.
>
> Community building would include:
> Dev & user mail lists
> Wiki / confluent editing
>
> User supporting would include:
> User mail list responses
> Jiras opened and commented on
>
> I'm sure these lists can be better refined.
>
> While I wouldn't quantify this, I would argue that if someone shows up in
> multiple categories of contribution on top lists for more than one 30 day
> period, they are likely candidates to be nominated as a committer.
>
> I know of at least a couple of companies that pay their employees to be
> contributors to Apache [HAWQ]. If their job changes, or they move to a
> different company, will they stay as a contributor if we make them a
> committer? I'd argue this is much more likely if we see them contributing
> in multiple categories rather than just a single way.
>
> Finally, we need to create a model and standard of how we want our
> community to act. By being more specific about asking for broader
> contribution to be recognized as a committer, this will help train new
> members of this community how to participate fully.
>
Regards,
-Greg
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments for
> clarity and excess redundancy. The last paragraph could still use a bit
> more work.
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the writeup. One minor suggestion:
> >
> > Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> > existing committers.
> >
> > I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> > everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
> >
> > Cjeers. -- justin
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for any
> > > further comments.
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Lei
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi Justin,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> > >>
> > >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for further
> > >> discussions.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Lei
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> > justin@erenkrantz.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Lei,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already
> > said.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better
> to
> > >>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early adoption of
> > >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to be
> > >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
> > >>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
> > >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
> > >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before graduation
> > >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
> > >>> them accordingly?
> > >>>
> > >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document - what
> > >>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't have
> > >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
> > >>> some guidance available.
> > >>>
> > >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> > >>>
> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers. -- justin
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not
> everyone
> > >>> can do
> > >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that have
> > >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Cheers
> > >>> > Lei
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but
> > here
> > >>> a few
> > >>> >> points to consider:
> > >>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in
> > doing
> > >>> the
> > >>> >> whole laundry list below
> > >>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing
> where
> > >>> there
> > >>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and
> each
> > >>> one of
> > >>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions will
> > >>> slow the
> > >>> >> community growth to halt
> > >>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven to
> > have
> > >>> a
> > >>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra careful
> > >>> setting
> > >>> >> such a high bar
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant
> jack-asses
> > >>> should
> > >>> >> be
> > >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great
> job
> > in
> > >>> the,
> > >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to
> > understand
> > >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same
> area.
> > If
> > >>> the
> > >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
> > >>> project -
> > >>> >> he
> > >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following
> guidelines,
> > he
> > >>> >> would
> > >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> > >>> >> Cos
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> > >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized the
> > >>> points
> > >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things that
> > >>> >> typically
> > >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
> > >>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > >>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> > committed
> > >>> >> > by existing committers
> > >>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
> > >>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > >>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > >>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
> > >>> >> > 7. bug reports
> > >>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a
> mentor
> > to
> > >>> new
> > >>> >> > contributors
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > Cheers
> > >>> >> > Lei
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <
> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>> >> wrote:
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a
> > mentor,
> > >>> work
> > >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
> > >>> continuously
> > >>> >> or a
> > >>> >> > > long time period.
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > Cheers
> > >>> >> > > Lei
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > >>> >> >
> > >>> >> > > wrote:
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
> > >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> > >>> >> > >> Roman.
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> > >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> > >>> >> > >> wrote:
> > >>> >> > >> >
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new
> > committer.
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> > >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something
> that
> > >>> HAWQ
> > >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no hard
> and
> > >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically
> would
> > >>> prompt
> > >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or
> PRs)
> > >>> >> committed
> > >>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
> > >>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a
> > variety of
> > >>> >> > >> different
> > >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> > >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable to
> > expect
> > >>> that
> > >>> >> > >> your
> > >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for commitership.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <
> > xzhang@pivotal.io>
> > >>> >> wrote:
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
> > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a
> > committer,
> > >>> and
> > >>> >> > >> what's
> > >>> >> > >> >>> the
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can review
> the
> > >>> >> request.
> > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and any
> > >>> >> guidance is
> > >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> > >>> >> > >> >>> >
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> > >>> >> > >> >>>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >> >>
> > >>> >> > >>
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >> > >
> > >>> >>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
--
Greg Chase
Director of Big Data Communities
http://www.pivotal.io/big-data
Pivotal Software
http://www.pivotal.io/
650-215-0477
@GregChase
Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io>.
Good suggestion, updated along with a couple other little adjustments for
clarity and excess redundancy. The last paragraph could still use a bit
more work.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for the writeup. One minor suggestion:
>
> Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
> existing committers.
>
> I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
> everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
>
> Cjeers. -- justin
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for any
> > further comments.
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lei
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Justin,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
> >>
> >> I will add more information around sustained contributions for further
> >> discussions.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Lei
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> justin@erenkrantz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Lei,
> >>>
> >>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already
> said.
> >>>
> >>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better to
> >>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early adoption of
> >>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to be
> >>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
> >>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
> >>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
> >>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before graduation
> >>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
> >>> them accordingly?
> >>>
> >>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document - what
> >>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't have
> >>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
> >>> some guidance available.
> >>>
> >>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
> >>>
> >>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
> >>>
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
> >>>
> >>> Cheers. -- justin
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not everyone
> >>> can do
> >>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that have
> >>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers
> >>> > Lei
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but
> here
> >>> a few
> >>> >> points to consider:
> >>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in
> doing
> >>> the
> >>> >> whole laundry list below
> >>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing where
> >>> there
> >>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and each
> >>> one of
> >>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions will
> >>> slow the
> >>> >> community growth to halt
> >>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven to
> have
> >>> a
> >>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra careful
> >>> setting
> >>> >> such a high bar
> >>> >>
> >>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant jack-asses
> >>> should
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great job
> in
> >>> the,
> >>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to
> understand
> >>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same area.
> If
> >>> the
> >>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
> >>> project -
> >>> >> he
> >>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following guidelines,
> he
> >>> >> would
> >>> >> never be welcomed here.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
> >>> >> Cos
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
> >>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized the
> >>> points
> >>> >> > from previous discussions.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things that
> >>> >> typically
> >>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
> >>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> >>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> committed
> >>> >> > by existing committers
> >>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
> >>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
> >>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
> >>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
> >>> >> > 7. bug reports
> >>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a mentor
> to
> >>> new
> >>> >> > contributors
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Cheers
> >>> >> > Lei
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <chang.lei.cn@gmail.com
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a
> mentor,
> >>> work
> >>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
> >>> continuously
> >>> >> or a
> >>> >> > > long time period.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > What do you guys think?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Cheers
> >>> >> > > Lei
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> >>> roman@shaposhnik.org
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
> >>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> Roman.
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> > add the link:
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
> >>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new
> committer.
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> Cheers
> >>> >> > >> >> Lei
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> >>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> >>> >> > >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something that
> >>> HAWQ
> >>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no hard and
> >>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically would
> >>> prompt
> >>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
> >>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
> >>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
> >>> >> committed
> >>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
> >>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
> >>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
> >>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
> >>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
> >>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a
> variety of
> >>> >> > >> different
> >>> >> > >> >>> ways
> >>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable to
> expect
> >>> that
> >>> >> > >> your
> >>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for commitership.
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <
> xzhang@pivotal.io>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a
> committer,
> >>> and
> >>> >> > >> what's
> >>> >> > >> >>> the
> >>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can review the
> >>> >> request.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and any
> >>> >> guidance is
> >>> >> > >> >>> greatly
> >>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
> >>> >> > >> >>> >
> >>> >> > >> >>> > --
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
> >>> >> > >> >>>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
Thanks for the writeup. One minor suggestion:
Code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed by
existing committers.
I would probably rephrase as "merged by" - the use of commit
everywhere gets a bit confusing if you don't understand the process.
Cjeers. -- justin
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I have added a page that summarizes all the discussions so far for any
> further comments.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Becoming+a+committer
>
> Cheers
> Lei
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Thanks for the great suggestions and references.
>>
>> I will add more information around sustained contributions for further
>> discussions.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lei
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lei,
>>>
>>> I have two additional comments to add to what Roman and Cos already said.
>>>
>>> In the early stages of the Incubation process, it's probably better to
>>> err on the side of inclusion. Especially given the early adoption of
>>> RTC, code contributions will be vetted. Not everyone is going to be
>>> able work on HAWQ full-time - nor should that be a gatekeeper for
>>> commit access. Chances are that folks who contribute at this early
>>> stage could be nurtured into being fantastic contributors. As a
>>> mentor, this is one of the criteria I'd like to see before graduation
>>> - are projects accepting of contributors who show up and recognize
>>> them accordingly?
>>>
>>> I would also think it'd be a good idea to think - and document - what
>>> the definition of sustained contributions are. While it doesn't have
>>> to be concrete (e.g. number of patches or months), there should be
>>> some guidance available.
>>>
>>> Subversion has some useful docs that may be worth perusing at:
>>>
>>> http://subversion.apache.org/contributing.html
>>> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#committers
>>>
>>> Cheers. -- justin
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > @konstantin, concur with you on the contribution scope, not everyone
>>> can do
>>> > all of the things or want to do everything, contributors that have
>>> > contributed a lot to one area should be welcomed as a committer.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> > Lei
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It's up to the community to decide what's the entry barrier, but here
>>> a few
>>> >> points to consider:
>>> >> - not everybody worthy a committer-ship might be interested in doing
>>> the
>>> >> whole laundry list below
>>> >> - Apache projects are collectives of volunteers, contributing where
>>> there
>>> >> want to and when they have time for it. Expecting every and each
>>> one of
>>> >> them to cover 27 different areas of possible contributions will
>>> slow the
>>> >> community growth to halt
>>> >> - IIRC, this project decided to stick to RTC, which is proven to have
>>> a
>>> >> slow-down effect on the participation rate, so be extra careful
>>> setting
>>> >> such a high bar
>>> >>
>>> >> None of what I said means that sloppy coders or arrogant jack-asses
>>> should
>>> >> be
>>> >> welcomed with open arms. Say, there's someone who's doing great job in
>>> the,
>>> >> say, query optimization part of the project, helps others to understand
>>> >> his work and gives feedback to other contribution in the same area. If
>>> the
>>> >> same time the guy doesn't give a hoot about anything else in the
>>> project -
>>> >> he
>>> >> should be invited as a committer. But per the following guidelines, he
>>> >> would
>>> >> never be welcomed here.
>>> >>
>>> >> Something to think about, perhaps.
>>> >> Cos
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:50PM, Lei Chang wrote:
>>> >> > We do not have a finalized answer for this yet. I summarized the
>>> points
>>> >> > from previous discussions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There are no hard and fast rules, but here are a few things that
>>> >> typically
>>> >> > would prompt considering somebody a candidate for a committer
>>> >> > 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
>>> >> > 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs) committed
>>> >> > by existing committers
>>> >> > 3. documentation contributions
>>> >> > 4. wiki/social media contributions
>>> >> > 5. review of patches submitted by others
>>> >> > 6. reviews of release candidates
>>> >> > 7. bug reports
>>> >> > 8. work with peers collaboratively and potentially as a mentor to
>>> new
>>> >> > contributors
>>> >> >
>>> >> > More discussions are welcomed :-)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cheers
>>> >> > Lei
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > My thought is that a committer should be able to act as a mentor,
>>> work
>>> >> > > with peers collaboratively and contribute to the project
>>> continuously
>>> >> or a
>>> >> > > long time period.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > What do you guys think?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Cheers
>>> >> > > Lei
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>>> roman@shaposhnik.org
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >> Lei, what are your thoughts on the required level of
>>> >> > >> contribution to be considered?
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Thanks,
>>> >> > >> Roman.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Lei Chang <
>>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
>>> >> > >> wrote:
>>> >> > >> > add the link:
>>> >> > >> >
>>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <
>>> chang.lei.cn@gmail.com>
>>> >> > >> wrote:
>>> >> > >> >
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >> Here is the common apache process for becoming a new committer.
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >> Cheers
>>> >> > >> >> Lei
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>>> >> > >> roman@shaposhnik.org>
>>> >> > >> >> wrote:
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>> Hi Xin!
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> this is a great question. Certainly this is something that
>>> HAWQ
>>> >> > >> >>> community has to ponder soon enough. There are no hard and
>>> >> > >> >>> fast rules, but here are a few things that typically would
>>> prompt
>>> >> > >> >>> considering somebody a candidate for a committer:
>>> >> > >> >>> 1. participation in the mailing list conversations
>>> >> > >> >>> 2. code contributions (patches submitted to JIRA or PRs)
>>> >> committed
>>> >> > >> >>> by existing committers
>>> >> > >> >>> 3. documentation contributions
>>> >> > >> >>> 4. wiki/social media contributions
>>> >> > >> >>> 5. review of patches submitted by others
>>> >> > >> >>> 6. reviews of release candidates
>>> >> > >> >>> 7. bug reports
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> If the behavior of contributing to the project in a variety of
>>> >> > >> different
>>> >> > >> >>> ways
>>> >> > >> >>> continues for a few months I think it is reasonable to expect
>>> that
>>> >> > >> your
>>> >> > >> >>> merit should be considered as a basis for commitership.
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> Thanks,
>>> >> > >> >>> Roman.
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Xin Zhang <xz...@pivotal.io>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > >> >>> > Hi HAWQ devs,
>>> >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> > >> >>> > I recently started contributing to apache-hawq.
>>> >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> > >> >>> > I am wondering what's bar to be considered at a committer,
>>> and
>>> >> > >> what's
>>> >> > >> >>> the
>>> >> > >> >>> > process to submit a request, and when PMC can review the
>>> >> request.
>>> >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> > >> >>> > I am pretty new to OSS as well as this project, and any
>>> >> guidance is
>>> >> > >> >>> greatly
>>> >> > >> >>> > appreciated.
>>> >> > >> >>> >
>>> >> > >> >>> > --
>>> >> > >> >>> > Thanks,
>>> >> > >> >>> > Shin
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>