You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hawq.apache.org by Xin Zhang <xz...@pivotal.io> on 2015/12/05 02:49:24 UTC
What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
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
>>> >> > >> >>>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >> >>
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: What's bar to be a HAWQ committer?
Posted by Lei Chang <ch...@gmail.com>.
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>.
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 Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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>.
@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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
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 <ro...@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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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>.
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 <ro...@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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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>.
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 <ro...@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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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 <ro...@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>.
add the link:
http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Lei Chang <ch...@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 <ro...@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>.
Here is the common apache process for becoming a new committer.
Cheers
Lei
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@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 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
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