@Robert You can put me as the shepherd for the "Client" component for now.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > I moved the State Backend to the Checkpointing and added the three of you > as shepherds. > > We still need somebody for the client. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I agree. I could be the third backup if you need help with the component. >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Should probably, yes. >> > >> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 10:53 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Should state bakends and checkpointing go together? >> > > >> > > The two of us could be shepherds for that. Till would be another person >> > > (but he has a lot of components already). >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I think it would make sense to also move "State Backends" out from >> > > > "Runtime". This is also quite complex on it's own. I would of course >> > > > volunteer for this and I think Stephan, who is the current proposal >> for >> > > > "Runtime" would also be good. >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 19:22 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I am adding a dedicated component for "Checkpointing". It would >> > include >> > > > the >> > > > > checkpoint coordinator, barriers, threads, state handles and >> > recovery. >> > > > > >> > > > > I think that part is big and complex enough to warrant its own >> > > shepherd. >> > > > I >> > > > > would volunteer for that and be happy to also have a second >> shepherd. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Robert Metzger < >> rmetz...@apache.org> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > 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. >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
