[Gluster-Maintainers] [Gluster-devel] Maintainers 2.0 Proposal

[Amar Tumballi]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Amar Tumballi <atumball at redhat.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Thanks for participating actively in the discussions. With all your
> co-operation we now have a update on maintainers 2.0 proposal. Vijay Bellur
> sent a patch last week [1] capturing all the discussions.
>
> Please go through the patch and see if you have any more concerns. There
> are many new names in there, so just review it so you can Ack it. Niels
> (ndevos) added all the people with their name on maintainers file as
> reviewers for the patch. Please take some time today and give +1 to it to
> acknowledge you are aware of the responsibilities. After 20 or more +1 on
> the patch, we will merge the patch, and accordingly raise a ticket to
> update the access to merge rights etc.
>
> Also, if your name is added in maintainers list (even as peer for
> component), please become member of Maintainers mailing list [2] This list
> is an open list (all archives available for anyone to read) so make sure
> you subscribe and become members.  Make sure you update your calendars with
> maintainer meeting timings, so you can attend it.
>
> [1] - https://review.gluster.org/17583
> [2] - http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
>
> Main maintainers 2.0 proposal link: https://hackmd.io/s/SkwiZd4qe
>
>
Thanks everyone. This activity is now complete. I have also raised a bug to
get the merge access to relevant maintainers on their components [3].

Every new maintainers, please make a note to become member of the mailing
list mentioned above this week, so you all can participate in the bi-weekly
maintainers' meeting.

Regards,
Amar

[3] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473525



> Write back if you have any more concerns.
>
> Regards,
> Amar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Michael Scherer <mscherer at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Le mardi 18 avril 2017 à 10:25 +0200, Niels de Vos a écrit :
>> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:53:55PM -0700, Amye Scavarda wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Michael Scherer <mscherer at redhat.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Le jeudi 13 avril 2017 à 18:01 -0700, Amye Scavarda a écrit :
>> > > > > In light of community conversations, I've put some revisions on
>> the
>> > > > > Maintainers changes, outlined in the hackmd pad:
>> > > > > https://hackmd.io/s/SkwiZd4qe
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Feedback welcomed!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Note that the goals of this are to expand out our reach as a
>> project
>> > > > > (Gluster.org) and make it easy to define who's a maintainer for
>> what
>> > > > > feature.
>> > > > > I'll highlight the goals in the document here:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * Refine how we declare component owners in Gluster
>> > > > > * Create a deeper sense of ownership throughout the open source
>> project
>> > > > > * Welcome more contibutors at a project impacting level
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We've clarified what the levels of 'owners' and 'peers' are in
>> terms of
>> > > > > responsibility, and we'll look to implement this in the 3.12
>> cycle.
>> > > > > Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > So, I realize that the concept of component is not defined in the
>> > > > document. I assume everybody have a shared understanding about what
>> it
>> > > > is, but maybe not, so wouldn't it make sense to define it more
>> clearly ?
>> > > >
>> > > > Is this planned to be done later as part of "We will be working on
>> > > > carving out new components for things that make logical sense." ?
>> > > >
>> > > > As for example, with regard to my previous comment, would
>> > > > "infrastructure" be a component, would "documentation" be a
>> component ?
>> > > >
>> > > > My understanding is that there's a working spreadsheet being
>> refined to
>> > > sort out what's an area that needs a maintainer defined, and what's
>> > > something that maybe doesn't need a named maintainer. Documentation
>> is a
>> > > tricky place to get to, because that's something that you do just
>> naturally
>> > > so that future-you doesn't hate current-you.
>> >
>> > I agree that documentation should be part of the standard development
>> > workflow. Unfortunately, this is not something that gets done without
>> > reminding everyone about it. We still need maintainers/owners to bug
>> > developers for documentation of new features, monitor the pull-request
>> > queue and decide if the documentation is written in an acceptible way.
>>
>> There is also the overall issue iof documentation consistency. For
>> example, style, glossary, etc, all kind of stuff that shouldn't be per
>> component but aligned overall.
>>
>> > The maintenance of the gluster.readthedocs.io site might be a
>> > infrastructure task?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more logical to have it managed by the people that did
>> champion RTD ? I am unable to find the discussions about it, but I am
>> quite sure I had some concerns regarding RTD and wouldn't volunteer to
>> maintain something where I had objections (such as "being unable to fix
>> anything" is quite high on my usual objection list for taking
>> responsibility of a piece of infra)
>> --
>> Michael Scherer
>> Sysadmin, Community Infrastructure and Platform, OSAS
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Amar Tumballi (amarts)
>



-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20170721/8c59d4ab/attachment.html>