Обсуждение: Suggestion, add committfest managers to the contributors page
$subject basically. They volunteer to take on a management role that doesn't tend to be popular and the added recognition seems warranted. I would suggest listing them only until we publish the release they were a manager for and then we memorialize their role in the major version as part of its history and start the listing anew. That limits the size to around 6.
David J.
> On 27 Mar 2022, at 00:35, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > $subject basically. They volunteer to take on a management role that doesn't tend to be popular and the added recognitionseems warranted. I would suggest listing them only until we publish the release they were a manager for and thenwe memorialize their role in the major version as part of its history and start the listing anew. That limits the sizeto around 6. While I'm not on the contributor committee, I do think this idea has merits. Personally I would expand scope to also list the RMT for similar reasons. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On 3/26/22 7:41 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 27 Mar 2022, at 00:35, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> $subject basically. They volunteer to take on a management role that doesn't tend to be popular and the added recognitionseems warranted. I would suggest listing them only until we publish the release they were a manager for and thenwe memorialize their role in the major version as part of its history and start the listing anew. That limits the sizeto around 6. > > While I'm not on the contributor committee, I do think this idea has merits. > Personally I would expand scope to also list the RMT for similar reasons. I think there are a few things here. For specifically being listed on the contributors page, that would be a discussion for the contributor committee, as Daniel says (contributors@postgresql.org). For the release notes, that's likely a discussion on -hackers/-docs in terms of how we would want to denote that. I know that Peter spends a fair bit of time compiling the list of all contributors to a major release for the release notes, though we haven't broken out folks on their roles in that (outside of who authored a feature). Jonathan
Вложения
> On 27 Mar 2022, at 01:37, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote: > > On 3/26/22 7:41 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 27 Mar 2022, at 00:35, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> $subject basically. They volunteer to take on a management role that doesn't tend to be popular and the added recognitionseems warranted. I would suggest listing them only until we publish the release they were a manager for and thenwe memorialize their role in the major version as part of its history and start the listing anew. That limits the sizeto around 6. >> While I'm not on the contributor committee, I do think this idea has merits. >> Personally I would expand scope to also list the RMT for similar reasons. > > I think there are a few things here. > > For specifically being listed on the contributors page, that would be a discussion for the contributor committee, as Danielsays (contributors@postgresql.org). Absolutely agree. > For the release notes, that's likely a discussion on -hackers/-docs in terms of how we would want to denote that. I knowthat Peter spends a fair bit of time compiling the list of all contributors to a major release for the release notes,though we haven't broken out folks on their roles in that (outside of who authored a feature). I think it's worth thinking about the roles which for a timeboxed period requires an investment in time frequently matching that of an FTE (like CFM and RMT). Thats admittedly a very arbitrary measurement, but I think in general the discussion could be worth having, if only to settle on what we have today being the preferred option. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On 3/27/22 4:51 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > I think it's worth thinking about the roles which for a timeboxed period > requires an investment in time frequently matching that of an FTE (like CFM and > RMT). Thats admittedly a very arbitrary measurement, but I think in general > the discussion could be worth having, if only to settle on what we have today > being the preferred option. Agreed. I think it's worth having. For my personal opinion, I'm generally in favor of this idea, but I'll chime in on the -docs/-hackers thread (wherever you think is best to have it). Jonathan
Вложения
> On 28 Mar 2022, at 16:53, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote: > > On 3/27/22 4:51 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> I think it's worth thinking about the roles which for a timeboxed period >> requires an investment in time frequently matching that of an FTE (like CFM and >> RMT). Thats admittedly a very arbitrary measurement, but I think in general >> the discussion could be worth having, if only to settle on what we have today >> being the preferred option. > > Agreed. I think it's worth having. > > For my personal opinion, I'm generally in favor of this idea, but I'll chime in on the -docs/-hackers thread (whereveryou think is best to have it). Agreed. David, being the OP on the thread, please raise this on -hackers (probably the best audience) or -docs so we can discuss this in a wider group. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
On Monday, March 28, 2022, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2022, at 16:53, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/27/22 4:51 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> I think it's worth thinking about the roles which for a timeboxed period
>> requires an investment in time frequently matching that of an FTE (like CFM and
>> RMT). Thats admittedly a very arbitrary measurement, but I think in general
>> the discussion could be worth having, if only to settle on what we have today
>> being the preferred option.
>
> Agreed. I think it's worth having.
>
> For my personal opinion, I'm generally in favor of this idea, but I'll chime in on the -docs/-hackers thread (wherever you think is best to have it).
Agreed. David, being the OP on the thread, please raise this on -hackers
(probably the best audience) or -docs so we can discuss this in a wider group.
I will do that.
David J.
Greetings, * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote: > On 3/26/22 7:41 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >>On 27 Mar 2022, at 00:35, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>$subject basically. They volunteer to take on a management role that doesn't tend to be popular and the added recognitionseems warranted. I would suggest listing them only until we publish the release they were a manager for and thenwe memorialize their role in the major version as part of its history and start the listing anew. That limits the sizeto around 6. > > > >While I'm not on the contributor committee, I do think this idea has merits. > >Personally I would expand scope to also list the RMT for similar reasons. > > I think there are a few things here. > > For specifically being listed on the contributors page, that would be a > discussion for the contributor committee, as Daniel says > (contributors@postgresql.org). Yes, that would be the place to bring it up. As a member of that committee, but only my personal thoughts on it in particular, I worry that a simple "if you get to be a CFM one time then you get listed as a contributor" rule would encourage folks who aren't really qualified to try to be CFM. The contributors committee does look at a lot of different sources, including things like posts to various mailing lists, involvement in committees, being mentioned as a patch author or reviewer, etc. I doubt that an individual qualified to be a CFM and who fills that role for a particular CF would end up excluded from the list if they're otherwise active in the project. Specific individuals who folks want to nominate or have us look at can certainly be sent to contributors@ for us to consider, of course, by anyone at any time. We've had a few of late and we've been discusing (today, in fact) both those and pulling together a set of updates to make once we get past feature freeze. All that said, I'll look at adding a check to see if an individual was a CFM or member of RMT each CF/release to our data set, so that we can see that easily and include it in our consideration of who should be listed. Thanks! Stephen