On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:40:35AM +0200, Michael Scherer 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 ? Indeed, that is one of the things that I mentioned in a similar way on the previous version of the document. Because the document is aimed at the Gluster Community, it should address not only the main GlusterFS project, but also other "components maintained by the community". There are many different projects in the Gluster Community, of which the GlusterFS project is one, infrastructure, documentation and probably all repositories under https://github.com/gluster are others. Modules for Samba, NFS-Ganesha and other "external" projects probably do not count towards "Gluster proper" and are not included in the "Maintainers 2.0" approach (mentioning the excluded kinds of projects would be a good thing too). Also, the other relevant "roles" like "Project Lead", "Community Lead" and "Project Architect" need to be explained with their responsibilities. A paragraph of their description should probably be added to the MAINTAINERS [0] file when that gets updated too. A single naming for the roles would be best (no more "maintainers" anywhere?). Where would it be listed who has which role in the Gluster Community? When I click through the previous conversation, much of the feedback that was given on an earlier version [1] has not been included or addressed it seems. In one of the emails Vijay mentioned a "project governance document" is being written, and that should probably give more clarity when reading the Maintainers 2.0 proposal. A link to that document would be helpful. Thanks, Niels 0. https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS 1. http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/2017-March/002368.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
