Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

*: create project governance #11175

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2019
Merged

*: create project governance #11175

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2019

Conversation

spzala
Copy link
Member

@spzala spzala commented Sep 23, 2019

Create project governance.

@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 23, 2019

@gyuho please take a look. If the flow and content looks good to you, I would request others to review. Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@jingyih jingyih left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @spzala !

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
Afterward, create a pull request to remove yourself from the [MAINTAINERS](./MAINTAINERS)
file.

## Approvers
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are approvers and reviewers refer to the list in OWNERS file?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jingyih thank you and yes, that's true. Good idea to provide link to the OWNERS file while mentioning them if that's what you are thinking! Also, most other projects usually have one file - MAINTAINERS or OWNERS - with maintainers/approvers/reviewers listed separately underneath. So I am up for merging them like moving maintainers in the OWNER file or other way.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree, having both files is also confusing to me, which is why I asked the question initially.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, merging into one sound better.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, sounds great!

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
reached an impasse with a subset of the community, any contributor may open a GitHub
issue or PR or send an email to `[email protected]`. If the
maintainers themselves cannot decide an issue, the issue will be resolved by a
supermajority of the maintainers.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/the maintainers./the maintainers./?

Create project governance.
@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 24, 2019

@gyuho @jingyih I am going with maintainers file considering its format is more readable. Other projects like Prometheus, Containerd, Fluentd also use maintainers file. Also, cleaned up the content of owners file a bit. Hope makes sense. Thanks!

@jingyih
Copy link
Contributor

jingyih commented Sep 24, 2019

@gyuho @jingyih I am going with maintainers file considering its format is more readable. Other projects like Prometheus, Containerd, Fluentd also use maintainers file. Also, cleaned up the content of owners file a bit. Hope makes sense. Thanks!

Thanks! The new maintainers file looks consistent with the governance doc.

@gyuho
Copy link
Contributor

gyuho commented Sep 24, 2019

@spzala Let's highlight this in changelog as well. thx

@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 25, 2019

Thanks @gyuho @jingyih !! Let's wait for rest of this week before we merge if we get any other comments? /cc @philips @xiang90 @jpbetz @hexfusion

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Sep 26, 2019

lgtm.

One discussion: Was there a discussion on the concept of approvers? Have we needed this additional abstraction in the past? And did Fanmin and Anthony agree to be approvers?

@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 26, 2019

lgtm.

One discussion: Was there a discussion on the concept of approvers? Have we needed this additional abstraction in the past? And did Fanmin and Anthony agree to be approvers?

@philips thanks, and good points for discussion something I also thought myself too but I decided to kept the roles the same way except removing overlapping of members between roles. Now that you mentioned, I will reach out to Fanmin and Anthony for their interest. Also, though current roles provides good distinction, most projects only have two (maintainers/approvers and reviewers). I personally is totally good in keeping only two roles (maintainers and approvers/reviewers) if everyone is fine with it.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Sep 26, 2019 via email

@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 30, 2019

@gyuho @jingyih @philips @xiang90 please look at the updated changes. Also, I have informed Fanmin and Anthony about this PR. Thanks!

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
Contributors who are interested in becoming a maintainer, if performing these
responsibilities, should discuss their interest with the existing maintainers. New
maintainers must be nominated by an existing maintainer and must be elected by a
supermajority of maintainers. Likewise, maintainers can be removed by a supermajority
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

extra whitespace character :)

s/supermajority of maintainers/supermajority of maintainers/

Copy link
Member Author

@spzala spzala Sep 30, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ahh :), good catch. Thanks @gyuho I will update the commit!

Copy link
Contributor

@gyuho gyuho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, thanks for working on this @spzala

@jingyih
Copy link
Contributor

jingyih commented Sep 30, 2019

LGTM! Thanks!

Not sure why travis is complaining about the commit title...

@spzala
Copy link
Member Author

spzala commented Sep 30, 2019

LGTM! Thanks!

Not sure why travis is complaining about the commit title...

Thanks @jingyih - interesting, let me update PR to address comment from @gyuho and be more explicit with commit title, however as you pointed out travis failure is strange.
p.s. @jingyih I see, seems like it was due to a space before * I just pushed a change without changing commit title, hopefully it should go fine.

Create project governance.
@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Sep 30, 2019

LGTM

@gyuho gyuho merged commit 236ac2a into etcd-io:master Sep 30, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants