-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 220
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Signed-off-by: Anish Asthana <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
a46dbd6
commit b58a19f
Showing
2 changed files
with
189 additions
and
2 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ | ||
| # Community membership | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** This document is a work in progress | ||
|
|
||
| This document outlines the various responsibilities of contributor roles in Kubeflow. Kubeflow is divided into working groups that have stewardship over different subprojects/repositories | ||
|
|
||
| Responsibilities for most roles are scoped to these repositories. | ||
|
|
||
| | Role | Responsibilities | Requirements | Defined by | | ||
| | -----| ---------------- | ------------ | -------| | ||
| | Member | Active contributor in the community | Sponsored by 2 reviewers and multiple contributions to the project | Kubeflow GitHub org member| | ||
| | Reviewer | Review contributions from other members | History of review and authorship in a repository | [OWNERS] file reviewer entry | | ||
| | Approver | Contributions acceptance approval| Highly experienced active reviewer and contributor to a repository | [OWNERS] file approver entry| | ||
| | WG Lead | Provides technical leadership for a Working Group | Have sufficient domain knowledge to provide effective technical leadership | [wgs.yaml] entry | | ||
| | WG Chair | Provides overall leadership for a Working Group | Have sufficient domain knowledge to provide effective leadership | [wgs.yaml] entry | | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** Detail documentation for Working Group structure and responsibilities can be found at [wg-governance.md](https://github.com/kubeflow/community/blob/master/wgs/wg-governance.md) | ||
|
|
||
| ## New contributors | ||
|
|
||
| [New contributors] should be welcomed to the community by existing members, helped with PR workflow, and directed to relevant documentation and communication channels. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Established community members | ||
|
|
||
| Established community members are expected to demonstrate their adherence to the principles in this document, familiarity with project organization, roles, policies, procedures, conventions, etc., and technical and/or writing ability. Role-specific expectations, responsibilities, and requirements are enumerated below. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Member | ||
|
|
||
| Members are *[continuously active]* contributors in the community. They can have issues and PRs assigned to them and tests are automatically run for their PRs. Members are expected to remain active contributors to the community. | ||
|
|
||
| **Defined by:** Member of the Kubeflow GitHub organization | ||
|
|
||
| ### Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| - Enabled two-factor authentication on their GitHub account | ||
| - Have made **at least** 2-3 [contributions] to the project or community. | ||
| - Have read the [contributor guide] | ||
| - Sponsored by 2 reviewers. **Note the following requirements for sponsors**: | ||
| - **[Open an issue][membership request] against the kubeflow/internal-acls repo** | ||
| - Ensure your sponsors are @mentioned on the issue | ||
| - **Open a pull request against the kubeflow/internal-acls repo** | ||
| - Complete every item on the checklist ([preview the current version of the template][membership template]) | ||
| - Make sure that the list of contributions included is representative of your work on the project. | ||
| - Have your sponsoring reviewers reply confirmation of sponsorship | ||
| - Once your sponsors have responded, your request will be reviewed by the Kubeflow team. Any missing information will be requested | ||
|
|
||
| ### Responsibilities | ||
|
|
||
| - Responsive to issues and PRs assigned to them | ||
| - Responsive to mentions of teams they are members of | ||
| - Active owner of code they have contributed (unless ownership is explicitly transferred) | ||
| - Code is well tested | ||
| - Tests consistently pass | ||
| - Addresses bugs or issues discovered after code is accepted | ||
| - Subscribed to <[email protected]> | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** members who frequently contribute code are expected to proactively perform code reviews and work towards becoming a primary *reviewer* for the subproject that they are active in. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Privileges | ||
|
|
||
| - Members can do `/lgtm` on open PRs. | ||
| - They can be assigned to issues and PRs, and people can ask members for reviews with a `/cc @username`. | ||
| - Tests can be run against their PRs automatically. No `/ok-to-test` needed. | ||
| - Members can do `/ok-to-test` for PRs that have a `needs-ok-to-test` label, and use commands like `/close` to close PRs as well. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Reviewer | ||
|
|
||
| Reviewers are able to review code for quality and correctness on some part of a subproject. They are knowledgeable about both the codebase and software engineering principles. | ||
|
|
||
| **Defined by:** *reviewers* entry in an OWNERS file in a repo owned by the Kubeflow project. | ||
|
|
||
| Reviewer status can be scoped to either parts of the codebase or the root directory for the entire codebase | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** Acceptance of code contributions requires at least one approver in addition to the assigned reviewers. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The following apply to the part of codebase for which one would be a reviewer in an [OWNERS] file. | ||
|
|
||
| - member for at least 3 months | ||
| - Primary reviewer for at least 5 PRs to the codebase | ||
| - Reviewed or merged at least 20 substantial PRs to the codebase | ||
| - Knowledgeable about the codebase | ||
| - Sponsored by a subproject approver | ||
| - With no objections from other approvers | ||
| - Done through PR to update the OWNERS file | ||
| - May either self-nominate or be nominated by an approver in this subproject | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** Working Group Leads may nominate and approve `Reviewers` that don't meet these requirements due to exceptional circumstances. While acceptable in the short term, Working Group Leads should ensure that these `Reviewers` eventually meet the requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The following apply to the part of codebase for which one would be a reviewer in an [OWNERS] file (for repos using the bot). | ||
|
|
||
| ### Responsibilities | ||
|
|
||
| - All responsiblities that community members have | ||
| - Responsible for project quality control via [code reviews] | ||
| - Focus on code quality and correctness, including testing and factoring | ||
| - May also review for more holistic issues, but not a requirement | ||
| - Expected to be responsive to review requests | ||
| - Assigned PRs to review related to subproject of expertise | ||
| - Assigned test bugs related to subproject of expertise | ||
|
|
||
| ### Privileges | ||
|
|
||
| - All Privileges that community members have | ||
| - Code reviewer status may be a precondition to accepting large code contributions | ||
| - May get a badge on PR and issue comments | ||
|
|
||
| ## Approver | ||
|
|
||
| Code approvers are able to both review and approve code contributions. While | ||
| code review is focused on code quality and correctness, approval is focused on | ||
| holistic acceptance of a contribution including: backwards / forwards | ||
| compatibility, adhering to API and flag conventions, subtle performance and | ||
| correctness issues, interactions with other parts of the system, etc. | ||
|
|
||
| **Defined by:** *approvers* entry in an OWNERS file in a repo owned by the Kubeflow project. | ||
|
|
||
| Approver status is scoped to a part of the codebase. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The following apply to the part of codebase for which one would be an approver in an [OWNERS] file (for repos using the bot). | ||
|
|
||
| - Reviewer of the codebase for at least 3 months | ||
| - Primary reviewer for at least 10 substantial PRs to the codebase | ||
| - Reviewed or merged at least 30 PRs to the codebase | ||
| - Nominated by a WG Lead, Chair or owner | ||
| - With no objections from other Leads or owners | ||
| - Done through PR to update the top-level OWNERS file | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** Working Group Leads may nominate and approve `Approvers` that don't meet these requirements due to exceptional circumstances. While acceptable in the short term, Working Group Leads should ensure that these `Approvers` eventually meet the requirements | ||
|
|
||
| ### Responsibilities | ||
|
|
||
| The following apply to the part of codebase for which one would be an approver | ||
| in an [OWNERS] file (for repos using the bot). | ||
|
|
||
| - All responsibilities that reviewers have | ||
| - Approver status may be a precondition to accepting large architectural contributions | ||
| - Demonstrate sound technical judgement | ||
| - Responsible for project quality control via code reviews | ||
| - Focus on holistic acceptance of contribution such as dependencies with other features, backwards / forwards | ||
| compatibility, API and flag definitions, etc | ||
| - Expected to be responsive to review requests | ||
| - Mentor contributors and reviewers | ||
|
|
||
| ### Privileges | ||
|
|
||
| - All privileges that reviewers have | ||
| - May approve code contributions for acceptance | ||
|
|
||
| ## Inactive members | ||
|
|
||
| *Members are continuously active contributors in the community.* | ||
|
|
||
| A core principle in maintaining a healthy community is encouraging active | ||
| participation. It is inevitable that people's focuses will change over time and | ||
| they are not expected to be actively contributing forever. | ||
|
|
||
| However, being a member of one of the Kubeflow GitHub organizations comes with | ||
| an [elevated set of permissions]. These capabilities should not be used by those | ||
| that are not familiar with the current state of the Kubeflow project. | ||
|
|
||
| Therefore members with an extended period (1 year) away from the project with no activity | ||
| will be removed from the Kubeflow GitHub Organizations and will be required to | ||
| go through the org membership process again after re-familiarizing themselves | ||
| with the current state. | ||
|
|
||
| ### How inactivity is measured | ||
|
|
||
| Inactive members are defined as members of one of the Kubeflow Organizations | ||
| with **no** contributions across any organization within 12 months. | ||
|
|
||
| After an extended period away from the project with no activity | ||
| those members would need to re-familiarize themselves with the current state | ||
| before being able to contribute effectively. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Credit | ||
|
|
||
| This set of guidelines is heavily inspired by the [Kubernetes membership guidelines](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md?plain=1#community-membership). | ||
|
|
||
| [contributions]: https://contribute.cncf.io/contributors/getting-started/ | ||
| [contributor guide]: https://www.kubeflow.org/docs/about/contributing/ | ||
| [membership template]: https://github.com/kubeflow/internal-acls/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/join_org.md | ||
| [New contributors]: /CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
| [elevated set of permissions]: #responsibilities-and-privileges | ||
| [continuously active]: #inactive-members |