Okay, it seems that we agree on the Shepherd name. Also, it seems that everyone agrees to the proposed shepherds so far.
The "Client" component still needs a shepherd. Are there any volunteers? On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Chiwan Park <chiwanp...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > +1 for shepherd > I would like to add me to shepherd for FlinkML. > > Regards, > Chiwan Park > > > On Jun 3, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 for shepherd > > > > I would prefer using that term rather than maintainer. It is being used > in > > Incubator PMC to help them keeping healthy development in podlings. > > > > The term "maintainer" kind of being scrutinized in ASF communities, in > > recent episodes happening in Spark community. > > > > - Henry > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> 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. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
