+1000 for this "I never think it is a shame to leave a project, since it is normal that people move on to a new target and didn't have time to say goodbye"
Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) ________________________________ From: Yujun Zhang [[email protected]] Sent: 14 December 2016 15:10 To: joehuang; Raymond Paik Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance I think there is no mandatory rule for PTL to attend TSC meeting in order to complete the removal process. At least, I never did that before. On my side, I have tried to contact several inactive committers to ask for their willingness and most of them replies politely to explain why. And we have a happy ending by putting them in retired list[1]. I did encounter the situation that losing contact to some committer. And we just ask TSC to approve the removal and that's it. After all, I never think it is a shame to leave a project, since it is normal that people move on to a new target and didn't have time to say goodbye. [1]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Platform+Performance+Benchmarking#PlatformPerformanceBenchmarking-RetiredCommitters On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:17 PM joehuang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In OPNFV we "assume bad faith"? This is not a good assumption. The less meeting, the better, and usually a TSC meeting will be in the night or early morning for me to join. If even need to go to TSC meeting for 5 minutes for approval, I would prefer to retain the inactive committer there, just let it be. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) ________________________________ From: Raymond Paik [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 14 December 2016 13:33 To: joehuang Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance Joe, On the first point, I'm not sure why you are saying you need to be committer to submit a patch in OPNFV. There are plenty of regular contributors who submit code/patches to OPNFV. Let me know if I'm not understanding your point. On your second point, I can recall a few committers who voluntarily stepped down in the past few of months. One of them was your Board member Wenjing who stepped down as a committer for QTIP. One of the reasons why TSC approval is desired for revoking committer status is to prevent PTLs from potentially acting in bad faith. I don't know if there are any PTLs in OPNFV who would act in bad faith, but it's good to have checks & balances. Is it really that difficult to send an email to the TSC mailing list and then come to the TSC meeting for 5 minutes to get an approval? Others in the community are welcome to weigh in on this... Thanks, Ray On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, joehuang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, Raymond, My suggestion is to update the TSC Charter. Compared to OpenStack core reviewer/contributor maintenance, often feel that OPNFV governance brings lots of inconvenience: For example, if one wants to submit a patch, he/she usually has to be a committer in OPNFV before he submit a patch. But in OpenStack, anyone is able to submit a patch, and core reviewers will make sure this patch should be approved or not. If one is nominated as committer to be a core reviewer, and pass the voting, then any other core reviewer can add the new one to core reviewer list, but in OPNFV, you have to submit a patch or ask help from help-desk. And another example, I seldom find that there is a stepping down notification in OPNFV mail-list from committer(yes, I saw some PTL stepping down notification), it seems not the fashion in OPNFV. But in OpenStack, a core reviewer is quite important role in code review, if he is not able to do the core reviewer responsibility, he will send a notification to the OpenStack mail-list. I really don't know the reason why when we find some committer is inactive in the past 6 months, we need the approve from TSC? Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) ________________________________ From: Raymond Paik [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: 14 December 2016 12:43 To: joehuang Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] committer list maintainance Joe, If there's an inactive committer (for more than 6 months) and the PTL is not able to reach that committer for whatever reason, the PTL needs to make a request to the TSC to revoke the committer status. The PTL should not do this unilaterally. Please see the 8th paragraph in the Section 8 of the TSC Charter (https://www.opnfv.org/developers/technical-project-governance/tsc-charter)... Thanks, Ray On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:18 PM, joehuang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, In each project's wiki page, we often list committers and contributors, as OPNFV's ongoing development, some new committers come, some committers grow other interesting and put less focus on the old project. I have one suggestion for the maintenance on committer list: for those who have shifted interest, for example, not shown in the weekly meeting and mail-list discussion ( all these could be found in the log) in the past 6 months, but they forget to send a stepping down notification in the mail-list, PTL should be able to move the committer to the contributor list by default, and update the list in the git repository too. It's not good idea ( not polite too :-) ) to send mail to ask "hey, would you continue to contribute in the project, if not, I'll remove you from the committer list". Best Regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
