I think calling the role maintainer is not a good idea. The Spark community had a maintainer process which they just voted to remove. From my understanding, a maintainer in Spark had a more active role than the role we are currently discussing.
I would prefer to not call the role "maintainer" to make clear that the responsibilities are different (less active) and mainly observing. 2016-06-01 13:14 GMT+02:00 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org>: > Thanks! I like the idea of renaming it. I'm fine with shepherd and I > also like Vasia's suggestion "champion". > > I would like to add "Distributed checkpoints" as a separate component > to track development for check- and savepoints. > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Btw, in Jira, if we clean up our components we can also set a component > > Lead that would get notified of issues for that component. > > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 10:43 Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I'd also go with maintainer. > >> > >> On 01.06.2016 10:32, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > I think maintainer is also fine if we clearly specify that they are > not > >> > meant as dictators or gatekeepers of the component that they are > >> > responsible for. > >> > > >> > -Aljoscha > >> > > >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 at 09:48 Vasiliki Kalavri < > vasilikikala...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> we could go for something like "sponsor" or "champion" :) > >> >> I'm fine with the proposal. Good to see more than 1 person for both > >> Gelly > >> >> and Table API. > >> >> > >> >> cheers, > >> >> -V. > >> >> > >> >> On 1 June 2016 at 05:46, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I'd like to be added to the Streaming Connectors component (already > >> >> edited > >> >>> Wiki) :) > >> >>> > >> >>> Ah, naming, one of the hardest problems in programming :P Some > >> comments: > >> >>> I agree with Robert that the name "maintainers" will be somewhat > >> >> misleading > >> >>> regarding the authoritative difference with committers / PMCs, > >> especially > >> >>> for future newcomers to the community who don't come across the > >> original > >> >>> discussion on this thread. > >> >>> > >> >>> Simone's suggestion of Overseer seems good. The name naturally > matches > >> >> its > >> >>> role - > >> >>> - A group of "Overseers" for components, who keeps an eye on related > >> mail > >> >>> threads, known limitations and issues, JIRAs, open PRs, requested > >> >> features, > >> >>> and potential new overseers and committers, etc, for the component > >> >>> (original > >> >>> maintainer role). > >> >>> - A "Shepherd" for individual PRs, assigned from the overseers of > the > >> >>> component with the aim to guide the submitting contributor. > Overseers > >> >>> typically pick up new PRs to shepherd themselves, or the leading > >> overseer > >> >>> allocates an overseer to shepherd a PR which hasn't been picked up > yet > >> >>> after > >> >>> a certain period of time. > >> >>> > >> >>> Or perhaps we can also simply go for "Shepherds" for components and > >> >>> "Assigned Shepherd" for individual PRs? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> View this message in context: > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/PROPOSAL-Structure-the-Flink-Open-Source-Development-tp11598p11932.html > >> >>> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list > archive > >> at > >> >>> Nabble.com. > >> >>> > >> > >> >
