Clerical updates to governance #170
Conversation
This change also replaces some uses of the mailing list with github discussions
When we used reviewboard (many, many years ago) the term for the person with the ability to modify the mainline code was "committer." Now that we are using github, we're using the term "maintainer." This commit makes that change to the governance file. Other minor reviewboard->github changes are also included.
_pages/governance.md
Outdated
| A committer who shows an above-average level of contribution to the project, particularly with respect to its strategic direction and long-term health, may be nominated to become a member of the PMC. This role is described below. | ||
| A maintainer who shows an above-average level of contribution to the project, particularly with respect to its strategic direction and long-term health, may be nominated to become a member of the PMC. This role is described below. | ||
|
|
||
| Note: The definitive list of maintainers is kept via a GitHub Team and lists on the website, etc. may be out of date. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This note is somewhat word salad and I'm not sure how to parse it. Do we need to say where the GitHub Team is kept?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GitHub doesn't have an option to show memberships of teams unless you are part of the organization. So, there's no good way to automatically make sure everything is visible publicly. That's what this was trying to say. I've updated it to be clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure ... however what does "kept via a GitHub Team" mean then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/organizing-members-into-teams/about-teams
Could you give me a suggestion on how to update the sentence to make it more clear?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GitHub doesn't have an option to show memberships of teams unless you are part of the organization. So, there's no good way to automatically make sure everything is visible publicly. That's what this was trying to say. I've updated it to be clearer.
If the Teams page is not accessible to everyone we shouldn't be using it as main reference IMHO.
We already have a maintainers file within the gem5 repo: https://github.com/gem5/gem5/blob/stable/MAINTAINERS.yaml.
Can't we add a similar file for the PMC?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think @giactra 's suggestion is the way I would go about it, but if it's not possible then I think the current wording is ok.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, we can do this. I suggest doing it when I move the governance into the repo. We can have a single PR that fixes the maintainers, PMC list, and moves the governance into the gem5 repo.
Would that be acceptable?
I will likely put PMC and MAINTAINERS in the same file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If @giactra is ok with it, it's fine with me -- I will wait to approve until he confirms.
|
Hi Jason, I haven't reviewed the document word for word, but it looks like a good improvement to me. My overall feeling (no need to address it with this PR and maybe we should defer its discussion to a dev meeting) is that we should try to make the governance document as tool agnostic as we can, and push most of the low level technicalities to other existing documents. Is using GitHub (e.g. over GitLab) really relevant in terms of governance of the project? For instance I feel most of the indications on how to contribute to the project could go (and probably are already there) to the CONTRIBUTING.md file. In this way
|
This is a good idea. I'll hold off on this until after this PR is merged. |
This updates the governance document on the website to reflect that we are using github now. It also includes some small typological changes.