Commit bit assignment. #15

ipanova · 2018-08-16T10:45:58Z

No description provided.

daviddavis · 2018-08-16T11:55:31Z

pup-0006.md

+  and merged in the repositories of interest
+
+These requirements are somewhat vague by design and leave the decision to the judgement of the
+existing comitters. Users rely on the judgement of comitters already, so to rely on that judgement


s/comitters/committers/

FYI, there are several instances of "comitter" in this PUP.

daviddavis · 2018-08-16T12:00:51Z

I like that we've included revocation of the commit bit. I think that was a great idea.

I wonder if lack of activity should also be grounds for losing the commit bit.

Thanks for working on this 👍

jortel · 2018-08-16T12:44:03Z

pup-0006.md

+the following:
+
+* Name and email of the nominee. This can be a self-nomination.
+* explanation of why the nominee should be a comitter.


Explanation

jortel · 2018-08-16T12:44:26Z

pup-0006.md

+* Repositories being requested.
+* Vote end date. Must be 7 calendar days from now.
+
+To pass, a +1 vote is required from the majority of committers in that area and no -1 vote.


and no -1 votes.

jortel · 2018-08-16T12:46:41Z

pup-0006.md

+open discussion and debate.
+
+In the unhappy event that a committer continues to disregard good citizenship (or actively disrupts
+the project), person's status may be revoked.


), that person's commit status

dparalen · 2018-08-16T13:57:11Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Process
+
+A nomination or self-nomination email should be sent to the pulp-dev email list and must contain


Maybe I'm a bit pessimist but I'm wondering about spam-requests; shouldn't both the nomination and relieve votes be initialized by commit bit owners only? Another reason might be due to folks being afraid to apply on their own because of fearing of publicly being voted down...

...but I guess is OK as is; we probably shouldn't prevent anyone from self nominating or triggering a commit bit revocation...

dparalen · 2018-08-16T14:12:34Z

@ipanova thanks for the update! 👍

bmbouter · 2018-08-16T15:20:53Z

I prefer not having an "activity" requirement to keep the commit bit. People's ability to contribute ebbs and flows and I hope our process gives space for that. In the case a committer is really "disconnected" from a project, fellow committers can ask them to either get more involved or lay down the bit.

bmbouter · 2018-08-16T15:22:55Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Motivation
+
+Comitter - is an individual who is able to modify the source code and then commit the changes into


Can we adopt the github language formally here. I think that would be:
Committer - An individual who has write permissions to a [Pulp Organization](https://github.com/pulp/) repository.

bmbouter · 2018-08-16T15:25:24Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Scope
+
+This policy is intended as the default for all software in the Pulp [Github](https://github.com/pulp/)


s/Pulp Github organization/Pulp Organization/

bmbouter · 2018-08-16T15:25:54Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Criteria
+
+Becomming a comitter.


Can this get moved up and replace ## Criteria so it would be ## Becoming a committer.

bmbouter · 2018-08-17T13:21:16Z

pup-0006.md

+## Motivation
+
+Comitter - is an individual who has write permissions to a
+[Pulp Orpanization](https://github.com/pulp/) repository.


s/Orpanization/Organization/

bmbouter · 2018-08-17T13:22:49Z

pup-0006.md

+* Repositories being requested.
+* Vote end date. Must be 7 calendar days from now.
+
+To pass, a +1 vote is required from the majority of committers in that area and no -1 votes.


s/committers in that area/existing committers for that repository/

bmbouter · 2018-08-17T13:24:16Z

pup-0006.md

+The process is similar as for nominating a new committer with a +1 voting of supermajority of the
+committers.
+
+In case of voluntary resign of the commit bit, an email should be sent with the notification and


s/resign/resignation/

bmbouter · 2018-08-17T13:24:44Z

pup-0006.md

+
+In the unhappy event that a committer continues to disregard good citizenship (or actively disrupts
+the project), that person's status may be revoked.
+The process is similar as for nominating a new committer with a +1 voting of supermajority of the


This reads like it continues the previous paragraph, so I think it should continue after the sentence finishes on L#74.

The "disregard" implies active bad citizenship. Perhaps s/continues to disregard/fails to maintain/ allows for situations where someone has not maintained active participation, while still requiring a current committer to exercise judgement in nominating someone? I think this also allows for undesirable but most likely scenario where a committer might drop in participation so low that they are only able to communicate to an individual in the community but perhaps not send the actual resignation email as prescribed.

bmbouter · 2018-08-17T13:25:05Z

pup-0006.md

+In the unhappy event that a committer continues to disregard good citizenship (or actively disrupts
+the project), that person's status may be revoked.
+The process is similar as for nominating a new committer with a +1 voting of supermajority of the
+committers.


s/committers/existing committers for that repository/

dparalen · 2018-08-17T13:35:27Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+None.


None (hopefully) :P

RCMariko

Comments are suggested clarifications, and as such, my approval is not contingent upon accepting them.

RCMariko · 2018-08-17T18:31:14Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Summary
+
+For pulpcore and its related tools, there is no written process to describe giving the commit bit


I like the comment for clarification that "area" means repository on line 62. I suggest we start general (s/pulpcore and its related tools/the Pulp project/) - I'll give specific comments to be more specific below.

yeah I like the "Pulp project repositories" wording more

RCMariko · 2018-08-17T18:34:20Z

pup-0006.md

+[Pulp Orpanization](https://github.com/pulp/) repository.
+To have "a commit bit" means that one is permitted to commit those changes. 
+
+Historically the commit bit was given on day 0 when hired on the core team at Red Hat.  In Oct 2017


Add: In practice, engineers did not act as commit bit owners from day 0 nor for all repositories in Pulp Organization.

I guess when it comes to motivation, we'd better emphasize we want an open process instead

RCMariko · 2018-08-17T20:11:25Z

pup-0006.md

+
+In the unhappy event that a committer continues to disregard good citizenship (or actively disrupts
+the project), that person's status may be revoked.
+The process is similar as for nominating a new committer with a +1 voting of supermajority of the


The "disregard" implies active bad citizenship. Perhaps s/continues to disregard/fails to maintain/ allows for situations where someone has not maintained active participation, while still requiring a current committer to exercise judgement in nominating someone? I think this also allows for undesirable but most likely scenario where a committer might drop in participation so low that they are only able to communicate to an individual in the community but perhaps not send the actual resignation email as prescribed.

dparalen · 2018-08-21T09:31:08Z

The "disregard" implies active bad citizenship. Perhaps s/continues to disregard/fails to maintain/ allows for situations where someone has not maintained active participation, while still requiring a current committer to exercise judgement in nominating someone?

I guess "fails to maintain" is indeed a better wording as it matches what the most common situation is...

I think this also allows for undesirable but most likely scenario where a committer might drop in participation so low that they are only able to communicate to an individual in the community but perhaps not snd the actual resignation email as prescribed.

...most of the time their communication would just cease, be it reviews, pull request, IRC or e-mail. Their commit status should follow, no matter the actual reason.

bmbouter · 2018-08-24T20:33:54Z

@ipanova an additional line needs to be added to index file so when merged this pup will be shown in the index as pup5.

bmbouter · 2018-08-24T20:35:00Z

@ipanova Can you also add one for PUP5 as well while you're in there?

bmbouter · 2018-08-24T20:38:24Z

pup-0006.md

+Overall the candidate must have demonstrated:
+* project commitment, active involvement and care towards the needs of all Pulp users and not only
+  their own interests
+* to provide constructive code reviews


for language reasons I think this should be s/to provide/contribution of/ This makes the above sentence 'must have demonstrated contribution of ...' similar to the others.

bmbouter · 2018-08-24T20:41:29Z

pup-0006.md

+
+In the unhappy event that a committer continues to disregard good citizenship (or actively disrupts
+the project), that person's status may be revoked. The process is similar as for nominating a new
+committer with a +1 voting of supermajority of the existing committers for that repository.


We need to specifically say "two-thirds of the existing ...". The supermajority term can ambiguously mean three-fifths, 55percent, etc according to wikipedia. I mean it to be two-thirds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

Ah, this is a good clarification.

dparalen

LGTM; I've just got some nits to pick...

dparalen · 2018-08-24T15:25:45Z

pup-0006.md

+
+Comitter - is an individual who has write permissions to a
+[Pulp Organization](https://github.com/pulp/) repository.
+To have "a commit bit" means that one is permitted to commit those changes. 


nit: ... one is permitted to commit changes to a [Pulp Organization] repository

dparalen · 2018-08-24T15:26:24Z

pup-0006.md

+
+## Summary
+
+For [Pulp project repositories](https://github.com/pulp/), there is no written process to describe


nit: For the[Pulp Organization]... there is no official process to give the commit bit...

dparalen · 2018-08-27T10:41:23Z

pup-0006.md

+the existing committers decided to stop that practice and instead document an open process.
+Engineers hired on the Pulp team since Oct '17 have not received commit bit.
+
+We have not yet documented an open process of which to become a committer.


nit: s/documented/established

dparalen · 2018-08-27T10:41:51Z

pup-0006.md

+Engineers hired on the Pulp team since Oct '17 have not received commit bit.
+
+We have not yet documented an open process of which to become a committer.
+The process outlined in this document is inspired by processes in Chromium projects and Apache


nit: ...by the processes used...

dparalen · 2018-08-27T10:51:30Z

pup-0006.md

+To have "a commit bit" means that one is permitted to commit those changes. 
+
+Historically the commit bit was given on day 0 when hired on the core team at Red Hat.  In Oct 2017
+the existing committers decided to stop that practice and instead document an open process.


...and instead establish....

dparalen · 2018-08-27T10:54:23Z

pup-0006.md

+* contribution of constructive code reviews
+* the ability to collaborate with the team and understand its policies and workflows
+* understanding of the projects' code base and functionality by submitting code that was accepted
+  and merged in the repositories of interest


nit: ...in the project repositories

dparalen · 2018-08-27T11:00:18Z

pup-0006.md

+## Summary
+
+For [Pulp project repositories](https://github.com/pulp/), there is no written process to describe
+giving the commit bit to a contributor. The existing committers want to openly document the process.


nit: The current committers want to establish an open process for doing so.

jlsherrill · 2018-08-28T23:30:45Z

pup-0006.md

+committer with a +1 voting of two-thirds of the existing committers for that repository.
+
+In case of voluntary resignation of the commit bit, an email should be sent with the notification and
+reasoning. No futher voting should take place.


I might would add some portion of lack of activity. (for example:. a committer has not had some activity after 6 months)

I'm sentimental towards the idea that committers should be active, but in terms of requirements I think we should rely on the normal removal process described "Revocation of the committer status" to handle cases where committers go dark for too long. A requirement of activity could easily be satisfied with a single comment or PR review.

In my understanding it is implied that in order to get eligible to get the commit bit it is required to be active, then to maintain the status it's also common sense to continue to be active as well as continuing to demonstrate [0]
[0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/15/files#diff-524cae13395c2799735cd173283a43faR39

daviddavis · 2018-08-30T12:18:53Z

ipanova mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2018

Commit bit pup #10

Closed

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch from acbc33f to 9d69392 Compare August 16, 2018 10:50

daviddavis reviewed Aug 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

jortel reviewed Aug 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

dparalen reviewed Aug 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

bmbouter reviewed Aug 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch from 9d69392 to 975c9c7 Compare August 17, 2018 11:19

bmbouter reviewed Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

dparalen reviewed Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

pup-0006.md

## Unresolved Questions

None.

Copy link

dparalen Aug 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

None (hopefully) :P

RCMariko approved these changes Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

jamescassell approved these changes Aug 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch 2 times, most recently from 002c498 to de8e67e Compare August 21, 2018 09:02

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch from de8e67e to 7e907fb Compare August 24, 2018 13:54

bmbouter reviewed Aug 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch from 7e907fb to 17efd2e Compare August 27, 2018 10:32

dparalen approved these changes Aug 27, 2018

View reviewed changes

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch 2 times, most recently from 85005e9 to 27878b4 Compare August 28, 2018 14:06

jlsherrill reviewed Aug 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

Commit bit assignment.

d12765b

ipanova force-pushed the pup6 branch from 27878b4 to d12765b Compare August 30, 2018 10:20

ipanova merged commit d12765b into pulp:master Aug 30, 2018


		## Process

		A nomination or self-nomination email should be sent to the pulp-dev email list and must contain


		## Motivation

		Comitter - is an individual who is able to modify the source code and then commit the changes into


		## Scope

		This policy is intended as the default for all software in the Pulp [Github](https://github.com/pulp/)


		## Summary

		For pulpcore and its related tools, there is no written process to describe giving the commit bit


		## Summary

		For [Pulp project repositories](https://github.com/pulp/), there is no written process to describe

Commit bit assignment. #15

Commit bit assignment. #15

Conversation

ipanova commented Aug 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daviddavis commented Aug 16, 2018

jortel Aug 16, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jortel Aug 16, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dparalen commented Aug 16, 2018

bmbouter commented Aug 16, 2018

bmbouter Aug 16, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RCMariko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dparalen commented Aug 21, 2018

bmbouter commented Aug 24, 2018

bmbouter commented Aug 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dparalen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

daviddavis commented Aug 30, 2018

jortel Aug 16, 2018 •

edited

jortel Aug 16, 2018 •

edited

bmbouter Aug 16, 2018 •

edited