In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio, and said there are contributions from them.
I think their engineers are more interesting and be involved in Kudu actively, why not think about to invite them to be committer first? Just my 2 cents:) Thanks. *=== Community ===* > > *Though Kudu is relatively new as an open source project, it has already**seen > promising growth in its community across several organizations:* > > * * '''Cloudera''' is the original development sponsor for Kudu.* > * * '''Xiaomi''' has been helping to develop and optimize Kudu for a new* > *production use case, contributing code, benchmarks, feedback, and* > *conference talks.* > * * '''Intel''' has contributed optimizations related to their hardware* > *technologies.* > * * '''Dropbox''' has been experimenting with Kudu for a machine > monitoring* > *use case, and has been contributing bug reports and product feedback.* > * * '''Dremio''' is working on integration with Apache Drill and exploring* > *using Kudu in a production use case.* > * * Several community-built Docker images, tutorials, and blog posts > have**sprouted > up since Kudu’s release.* > > > > *By bringing Kudu to Apache, we hope to encourage further contribution > from* > *the above organizations as well as to engage new users and contributors > in**the community.* > Best Regards! --------------------- Luke Han On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the > > > > contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed > to > > the > > > > project. Am I reading this right? > > > > > > We've had this debate about committer cattle call additions many > > > times. The position that Todd is taking is completely reasonable. The > > > expectation that just about anybody can join a project during the > > > proposal phase is messed up and I wish that tradition had never caught > > > > That's not my point, Marvin. The people who contributed less than 20 > > commits > > (hmm, why not 4 or a 107?) are still contributors. And in my opinion, > they > > at > > least have to be invited to participate in the podling, if it is accepted > > by > > IPMC. So, I will re-phrase: "was an invitation to participate in the > > project > > extended to all contributors?". > > > > Shall it be done formally or by providing "Interested Party" is an > > implementation detail. > > > > > We haven't formally extended any invitation to these people to continue > participating in the project at the ASF. Those who are active in the > project I fully anticipate will continue to be active and work their way > towards committership. Others who contributed in the past but whom we > haven't seen in 12+ months are of course welcome to come back to the > project. In that case, I think it would be an easy vote to committership. > > If anyone is interested in the project, feel free to edit the wiki and add > an "Interested Parties" section. I haven't seen that one before on other > proposals, and not sure what it accomplishes. The whole nature of the ASF > is that no explicit "invitations to participate" are necessary. Everyone is > by default invited to participate and contribute. To make that explicit, > though, I'll make sure to send out a note to all of our previous > contributors once we're accepted for incubation. > > The reason that we elected to include the "active in the last 12 months" > was to avoid creating a project with a super-long list of employees of a > single company. Seeing such a list can be discouraging for new folks -- > both because of the "wall of single employer" effect and because newcomers > to the community are likely to be confused why these people have been made > committers when they have never once participated inside the ASF. > > If the IPMC at large feels that the above reasoning is inappropriate, we > can change the proposal to include a few more committers -- there's a small > handful of folks who made significant contributions to the project early on > that are no longer active. I don't imagine these people will end up > contributing or voting on releases, though, so it seems like an artificial > "stuffing" of the committer list. > > Thanks > -Todd >
