Following up on this, this revision cycle is meant to be more clear about owners + peers, and less focused on the Red Hat shorthand for levels of responsibility.
--
As far as further goals, I think we can outline Architects and Leads responsibility in a further cycle. I'll let Vijay respond to a further governance document.
-amye
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Amye Scavarda | amye@xxxxxxxxxx | Gluster Community Lead
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
