Hi Robert, Thanks for the feedback. I have updated the flip with your suggestions.
Comments on your suggestions : * “Another benefit related to this is that it is easier for the PMC to screen for committer candidates based on their review involvement and quality.” Good idea. * “Update the wiki process” – I have updated with a link * Comments around “community-reviewed-requires-deep-review”. I was looking for a way to indicate that the community review would not add much benefit and requires subject matter expect due to the complexity / far reaching implication of a change. These sort of changes I feedback on but would not approve. The community review is still valuable in these cases as well. Let’s leave this one out for now. * *community-reviewed-suggest-close* How can community reviewers tell Flinkbot that they want to close a PR? will we introduce a new command? Yes I will add details to the Flip * *community-health-initiative-reviewed* I will change to have the same prefix. * On the performance metrics thought. Not evil - I like it that we can evidence what is working and what is not working about all aspects of the process. So we can make targeted changes. I think this applies to all parts of the process. We are gathering a snapshot of how the process is working currently, I hope that we can get a lot of insight from trawling Git. I hope that we can get more insight when we have these labels as it will call out the impact of the community reviewers. We could split on a user basis, it is probably worth doing on a project basis as well to get project wide insights as to what might be working well. Kind regards, David From: Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> Date: Thursday, 10 April 2025 at 08:45 To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-518: Introduce a community review process Thanks for the FLIP. In the benefits section, you are mentioning: - community reviewing then becomes a respected way to contribute to Flink on the road to becoming a committer. So, it is in the contributor’s interest to review. Another benefit related to this is that it is easier for the PMC to screen for committer candidates based on their review involvement and quality. "*Update the wiki process"* Which process do you mean? Can you share a link? > *community-reviewed-requires-deep-review* I am not convinced that this is a good label to introduce, because it is an "easy way out" for community reviewers. If the community review process is for contributors to behave like committers, then the community should also be involved in deep reviews. Otherwise, the PMC can not assess if a community reviewer is ready for committership. > *community-reviewed-suggest-close* How can community reviewers tell Flinkbot that they want to close a PR? will we introduce a new command? > *c**ommunity-health-initiative-reviewed* I like that the other labels are all prefixed by `community-reviewed`, this one isn't. What's the benefit of adding a CHI-specific label, instead of just having one process for community reviews? CHI members are part of this? I know this is a bit of an evil "let's create performance metrics" thought, but what do you think about measuring the accept rate of community reviewers? E.g. for a user a, what % of their approved PRs have been merged w/o further feedback by a committer? I guess one problem of this idea is that folks can focus on just approving typo fixes. E..g there will be an incentive for people to open typo fix PRs, and there will be an incentive for folks to approve those. Just an idea. Maybe for v2 of this. Best, Robert On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:33 PM Doğuşcan Namal <namal.dogus...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yep, ship it. > > I don’t see any harm on start following the suggested process since it only > adds a few labels to the existing PRs. > > We could learn more by time and improve the process on the way. > > QQ. Do the proposed flinkbot commands work already? > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 15:32, David Radley <david_rad...@uk.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > I would like to start a discussion around FLIP-518< > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/_wuWF><https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/_wuWF%3e> > > which proposes a new > > community review process. Please let me know if you support this idea, or > > would like changes. > > > > We hope this process improvement will > > > > * Encourage more people in the community review PRs, by formally > > recognising reviews as contributions. > > * Reducing the workload on committers. > > * Reducing our technical backlog. > > > > > > Kind regards, David. > > > > Unless otherwise stated above: > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > > Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 > > Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, > > Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN > > > Unless otherwise stated above: IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN
