nominate pacoxu as sig node reviewer

[pacoxu]

What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/sig node

What this PR does / why we need it:
Requesting SIG Node reviewer status.

Special notes for your reviewer:
Completed reviewer requirements

• Member for at least 3 months

  • Yes, I became Kubernetes member in Sep. 2020(one year). Currently, I focus on kubeadm(reviewer)/sig-node/sig-testing(I mean CI-related works).

• Primary reviewer for at least 5 PRs to the codebase

  • Graduate sysctls to GA  #99158 and Promote sysctls e2e test to Conformance #99734 sysctl related
  • [WIP] fix Host events cannot be obtained #100847 （not merged yet）
  • dockershim: fix started and finished timestamp of the container status  #99585
  • test: Update nvidia-driver-installer used in gce-device-plugin-gpu job #101595
  • Update pause image to v3.5 #100292
  • Preferentially pull the the images of critical pod #93239 (try to add KEP for it which is declined in add KEP: pull image priority enhancements#2217)
  • Upgrade klog to avoid panics crashing components #100156
  • pkg/kubelet: improve the node informer sync check #99336
  • remove the TokenRequest and TokenRequestProjection feature gates #97148
  • 60+ PRs More: some comments are housekeepings or just triaging/checking CI status, such as structured log related PRs.

To summarize what I have done that is related to sig-node:

• Feature related: follow up of several sig-node related enhancements like: Streaming Proxy Redirects [DEPRECATED] enhancements#1558 \ Remove cAdvisor json metrics from the Kubelet enhancements#2129 \ Add sysctl support enhancements#34 \
  Quotas for Ephemeral Storage enhancements#1029 \ Clarify use of node-role labels within Kubernetes and migrate old components enhancements#1143
• Issues related: triaging issues and do some digging into CI failures: sig-node label issues that I commented on
• Activities: participate in sig-node bug scrub/ also apply for talks of KUBECON China(share my experience here to more)

• Reviewed or merged at least 20 substantial PRs to the codebase

  • Reviewer for 100 SIG-node releated PRs in k/k
  • Author of 21 merged SIG-node releated PRs in k/k

• Knowledgeable about the codebase

  • Yes

• Sponsored by a subproject approver

  • By @mrunalp

  • With no objections from other approvers

    • @Random-Liu
    • @dchen1107
    • @derekwaynecarr
    • @mrunalp
    • @yujuhong
    • @sjenning
    • @klueska

• May either self-nominate, be nominated by an approver in this subproject, or be nominated by a robot

NONE

/cc @Random-Liu @dchen1107 @derekwaynecarr @yujuhong @sjenning @mrunalp @klueska

[neolit123]

+1 for @pacoxu

[aojea]

+1

[derekwaynecarr]

/assign

[derekwaynecarr]

@pacoxu apologies for the lag on this issue. the SIG sub-project leads had tried to formulate a document for go forward criteria when evaluating reviewer and approver criteria.

/approve
/lgtm

To summarize the dimensions we looked for in reviewers which your nomination appears to capture from my perspective:

Committed

The 3 month of activities should be established looking at

• PRs reviews history
• Active participating in SIG Node or SIG Node CI weekly meetings or other transient meetings that arise when tackling specific problems in future (exceptions are allowed for cases when timezone or other personal limitations are not allowing for the meeting participation)

Technically sound

Proof of primary reviewership and significant contributions must be provided. Nominees must provide the list of PRs (at least 5 for primary reviewer and 20 substantial PRs authored or reviewed) as suggested in the membership document. Here are additional comments for this list of PRs:

• Reviewed PRs must be merged.
• Since the purpose is to demonstrate the nominee's technical depth, PRs like analyzer warnings fixes, mechanical “find/replace”-type PRs, minor improvements of kubelet logging and insignificant bug fixes are valued, but not counted towards the reviewer status nomination. Lack of reviews of those PRs may be a red flag for nomination approval.
  Making the most of reviews in a single area is a good indication that a subdirectory reviewer role may be preferred or top-level node reviewer. Finding the right balance helps balance the nominees future workload.
• A primary reviewer should drive the review of the PR without significant input / guidance from the approver or other reviewers.

Has enough context

It is hard to assess codebase knowledge and it always will be a judgement call. SIG Node will rely on the listed PR to ensure the person reviewed PRs from different areas of SIG Node codebase and on the comments made during SIG Node meetings.

Additional ways to establish the knowledge of context are:

• Contributions to k8s documentation
• Blog posts - k8s-hosted and external
• Talks at conferences and meetups
• Contributions to other SIGs

Trustworthy

Reviewer nominations are accepted by SIG Node approvers. SIG Node approvers take nominations seriously and are invested in building a healthy community. Nominees should help approvers understand their future goals in the community so we can help continue to build trust and mutual relationships and nurture new opportunities if and when a contributor wants to become an approver!

[pacoxu]

Thanks @derekwaynecarr for the detailed explaination.

/assign @thockin

[thockin]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: derekwaynecarr, pacoxu, thockin

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [thockin]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[pacoxu]

/retest
/skip