[DISCUSSION] Proposals for New Committers and PMC

[Victor Barua]

Hello everyone!

It feels like it might be new contributor season, or maybe it's just spring. Wanted to start a thread for folks to propose new project committers or PMC members, if they had any in mind.

Best,

   Victor B.

[YongChul Kwon]

I would like to nominate the following two people as new PMC members.

* Ben Bellick: for contributions in lambda, and for improving/vetting various aspects of projects including documentation, testing, and infrastructure.

* Niels Pardon: for contributions improving and vetting extensions, documentation, testing, and participating in technical discussions.

Both actively contribute to the core Substrait project, participate in the bi-weekly meetings, and are a pleasure to work with.

Best,

YongChul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "substrait" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to substrait+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/760bd333-d649-49ac-9224-07332356a974n%40googlegroups.com.

[Victor Barua]

I think both Niels and Ben would be good PMC candidates for the reasons you've pointed YongChul.

[Jacques Nadeau]

Two thoughts...

First: Yes, think both would be good PMC additions. They are both long term positive influences on the community.

Second: If Niels and Ben are voted in I think that results in enough people at a single company to make unilateral specification changes (2x datadog). I suggest it's important to still have people working for at least two different companies to keep eyes on spec changes. 

Quick note with the required vote governance doc: I don't think we have clear formality around whether you can +1 your own spec change. The way I read the governance doc right now is that you can. It might be good to make that more explicit. (I would normally read the doc the opposite way except for the explicit comment on other lines of "not including proposer").

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/f9ed3abf-6ebe-4f94-b137-d768185e0316n%40googlegroups.com.

[Victor Barua]

that results in enough people at a single company to make unilateral specification changes (2x datadog)

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to put affiliation restrictions on votes.

I don't think we have clear formality around whether you can +1 your own spec change. The way I read the governance doc right now is that you can. It might be good to make that more explicit.

The way that I've been reading it is that the proposer is an implicit +1 vote, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. As you say though, we should make that explicit. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/CAJ9XdSq001v-3VWz8LkBVBC-ybcgX164C%3DwDEzopB3MT4z%2Bo1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jacques Nadeau]

> I think it would be perfectly reasonable to put affiliation restrictions on votes.

I wasn't arguing for that (and am neutral on whether it is a good idea). We choose PMC members based on the belief that they will keep the project's best interests in mind. I strongly believe having the right people in place is our best path to success. I just wanted to call attention to that change.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/CAM8sWgBsaOBO8tuEqc%2B2MQhX_O6gbEO4LB3fzMRCNn-Aas1ykQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Weston Pace]

Late to the party but +1 for both Niels and Ben.  Thank you for making the suggestions YongChul.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/CAJ9XdSrZxtGyRnP1O-L%3DHcbx7OzVhWhMtY7zaL1uCEUyc2wFqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[YongChul Kwon]

Regarding the affiliation restrictions rule...

Assuming good people who prioritize the sucess of project over conflicts of interest would not require an explicit affiliation restriction rule, I don't believe we need one now. But if anyone has a strong +1, no objection.

YongChul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/CAE4AYb22KAJ5Ke1znL08a7Dpvr0BLR-4RnS0V5LJEk5P6WB1iQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ben Bellick]

If others want to impose a restriction, I am happy with that. Though the formal rule may not be necessary at this stage. 

I personally won't merge DD-only spec changes except for changes which are minor (e.g. small documentation formatting changes). Of course, the meaning of "minor" is a judgement call :) 

If it seems ambiguous, I'll opt to be cautious and defer to non-DD PMCs.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/substrait/CAPRo3Ri%3D1z%2B77fmvDHJEG_Ygf%3DpWWfgMVrdsYWFf7vE%3D0o3AYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Victor Barua]

> I wasn't arguing for that (and am neutral on whether it is a good idea) ... I just wanted to call attention to that change

Understood. I wanted to offer it in case anyone felt like it was needed. Happy to hold off any such changes for now, but I'd be happy to revisit them if folks ever felt they were needed.

> We choose PMC members based on the belief that they will keep the project's best interests in mind. I strongly believe having the right people in place is our best path to success.

Agreed. To add to Ben's statement, I also have a general personal policy of gathering feedback across organizations for bigger changes, and will continue to do so.

I don't think there are any other candidates, for PMC or Commiter, proposed at this point. I'm going to close thread and send out the official voting emails.