I like the name "shepherd". It implies a non-authorative role, and implies guidance, which is very fitting.
I also thing there is no problem with having a "component shepherd" and a "pull request shepherd". Stephan On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > >> >>> > > >> > > >> > > >
