From 1e25ecefe4c5e45ffdc5f147e2f7eb885a930970 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Derek McGowan Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:33:00 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Update governance and maintainers Update format of governance and bring in language from containerd. Update maintainers to reflect active maintainers. Signed-off-by: Derek McGowan --- .../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md | 0 CONTRIBUTING.md | 54 ++++ GOVERNANCE.md | 144 ++++++++++ MAINTAINERS | 253 +----------------- 4 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 240 deletions(-) rename code-of-conduct.md => .github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (100%) create mode 100644 GOVERNANCE.md diff --git a/code-of-conduct.md b/.github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md similarity index 100% rename from code-of-conduct.md rename to .github/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md diff --git a/CONTRIBUTING.md b/CONTRIBUTING.md index 25ff989c2..aec3817e9 100644 --- a/CONTRIBUTING.md +++ b/CONTRIBUTING.md @@ -72,3 +72,57 @@ You should follow the basic GitHub workflow: Refer to [containerd's contribution guide](https://github.com/containerd/project/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#successful-changes) for tips on creating a successful contribution. + +## Sign your work + +The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch. Your +signature certifies that you wrote the patch or otherwise have the right to pass +it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify +the below (from [developercertificate.org](http://developercertificate.org/)): + +``` +Developer Certificate of Origin +Version 1.1 + +Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors. +660 York Street, Suite 102, +San Francisco, CA 94110 USA + +Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this +license document, but changing it is not allowed. + +Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 + +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: + +(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I + have the right to submit it under the open source license + indicated in the file; or + +(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best + of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source + license and I have the right under that license to submit that + work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part + by me, under the same open source license (unless I am + permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated + in the file; or + +(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other + person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified + it. + +(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution + are public and that a record of the contribution (including all + personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is + maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with + this project or the open source license(s) involved. +``` + +Then you just add a line to every git commit message: + + Signed-off-by: Joe Smith + +Use your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) + +If you set your `user.name` and `user.email` git configs, you can sign your +commit automatically with `git commit -s`. diff --git a/GOVERNANCE.md b/GOVERNANCE.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7c05543fb --- /dev/null +++ b/GOVERNANCE.md @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +# docker/distribution Project Governance + +Docker distribution abides by the [CNCF Code of Conduct](https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md). + +For specific guidance on practical contribution steps please +see our [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) guide. + +## Maintainership + +There are different types of maintainers, with different responsibilities, but +all maintainers have 3 things in common: + +1) They share responsibility in the project's success. +2) They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the project. +3) They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what +is the most interesting or fun. + +Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to appreciate. +It's easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced feature. It's harder +to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady improvement in stability, +or the reliability of a release process. But those things distinguish a good +project from a great one. + +## Reviewers + +A reviewer is a core role within the project. +They share in reviewing issues and pull requests and their LGTM counts towards the +required LGTM count to merge a code change into the project. + +Reviewers are part of the organization but do not have write access. +Becoming a reviewer is a core aspect in the journey to becoming a maintainer. + +## Adding maintainers + +Maintainers are first and foremost contributors that have shown they are +committed to the long term success of a project. Contributors wanting to become +maintainers are expected to be deeply involved in contributing code, pull +request review, and triage of issues in the project for more than three months. + +Just contributing does not make you a maintainer, it is about building trust +with the current maintainers of the project and being a person that they can +depend on and trust to make decisions in the best interest of the project. + +Periodically, the existing maintainers curate a list of contributors that have +shown regular activity on the project over the prior months. From this list, +maintainer candidates are selected and proposed in a pull request or a +maintainers communication channel. + +After a candidate has been announced to the maintainers, the existing +maintainers are given five business days to discuss the candidate, raise +objections and cast their vote. Votes may take place on the communication +channel or via pull request comment. Candidates must be approved by at least 66% +of the current maintainers by adding their vote on the mailing list. The +reviewer role has the same process but only requires 33% of current maintainers. +Only maintainers of the repository that the candidate is proposed for are +allowed to vote. + +If a candidate is approved, a maintainer will contact the candidate to invite +the candidate to open a pull request that adds the contributor to the +MAINTAINERS file. The voting process may take place inside a pull request if a +maintainer has already discussed the candidacy with the candidate and a +maintainer is willing to be a sponsor by opening the pull request. The candidate +becomes a maintainer once the pull request is merged. + +## Stepping down policy + +Life priorities, interests, and passions can change. If you're a maintainer but +feel you must remove yourself from the list, inform other maintainers that you +intend to step down, and if possible, help find someone to pick up your work. +At the very least, ensure your work can be continued where you left off. + +After you've informed other maintainers, create a pull request to remove +yourself from the MAINTAINERS file. + +## Removal of inactive maintainers + +Similar to the procedure for adding new maintainers, existing maintainers can +be removed from the list if they do not show significant activity on the +project. Periodically, the maintainers review the list of maintainers and their +activity over the last three months. + +If a maintainer has shown insufficient activity over this period, a neutral +person will contact the maintainer to ask if they want to continue being +a maintainer. If the maintainer decides to step down as a maintainer, they +open a pull request to be removed from the MAINTAINERS file. + +If the maintainer wants to remain a maintainer, but is unable to perform the +required duties they can be removed with a vote of at least 66% of the current +maintainers. In this case, maintainers should first propose the change to +maintainers via the maintainers communication channel, then open a pull request +for voting. The voting period is five business days. The voting pull request +should not come as a surpise to any maintainer and any discussion related to +performance must not be discussed on the pull request. + +## How are decisions made? + +Docker distribution is an open-source project with an open design philosophy. +This means that the repository is the source of truth for EVERY aspect of the +project, including its philosophy, design, road map, and APIs. *If it's part of +the project, it's in the repo. If it's in the repo, it's part of the project.* + +As a result, all decisions can be expressed as changes to the repository. An +implementation change is a change to the source code. An API change is a change +to the API specification. A philosophy change is a change to the philosophy +manifesto, and so on. + +All decisions affecting distribution, big and small, follow the same 3 steps: + +* Step 1: Open a pull request. Anyone can do this. + +* Step 2: Discuss the pull request. Anyone can do this. + +* Step 3: Merge or refuse the pull request. Who does this depends on the nature +of the pull request and which areas of the project it affects. + +## Helping contributors with the DCO + +The [DCO or `Sign your work`](./CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work) +requirement is not intended as a roadblock or speed bump. + +Some contributors are not as familiar with `git`, or have used a web +based editor, and thus asking them to `git commit --amend -s` is not the best +way forward. + +In this case, maintainers can update the commits based on clause (c) of the DCO. +The most trivial way for a contributor to allow the maintainer to do this, is to +add a DCO signature in a pull requests's comment, or a maintainer can simply +note that the change is sufficiently trivial that it does not substantially +change the existing contribution - i.e., a spelling change. + +When you add someone's DCO, please also add your own to keep a log. + +## I'm a maintainer. Should I make pull requests too? + +Yes. Nobody should ever push to master directly. All changes should be +made through a pull request. + +## Conflict Resolution + +If you have a technical dispute that you feel has reached an impasse with a +subset of the community, any contributor may open an issue, specifically +calling for a resolution vote of the current core maintainers to resolve the +dispute. The same voting quorums required (2/3) for adding and removing +maintainers will apply to conflict resolution. diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index 3183620c5..3f97d6e87 100644 --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@ -1,243 +1,16 @@ -# Distribution maintainers file +# Docker distribution project maintainers & reviewers # -# This file describes who runs the docker/distribution project and how. -# This is a living document - if you see something out of date or missing, speak up! +# See GOVERNANCE.md for maintainer versus reviewer roles # -# It is structured to be consumable by both humans and programs. -# To extract its contents programmatically, use any TOML-compliant parser. +# MAINTAINERS +# GitHub ID, Name, Email address +"dmcgowan","Derek McGowan","derek@mcgstyle.net" +"manishtomar","Manish Tomar","manish.tomar@docker.com" +"stevvooe","Stephen Day","stevvooe@gmail.com" # - -[Rules] - - [Rules.maintainers] - - title = "What is a maintainer?" - - text = """ -There are different types of maintainers, with different responsibilities, but -all maintainers have 3 things in common: - -1) They share responsibility in the project's success. -2) They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the project. -3) They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what -is the most interesting or fun. - -Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to appreciate. -It's easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced feature. It's harder -to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady improvement in stability, -or the reliability of a release process. But those things distinguish a good -project from a great one. -""" - - [Rules.reviewer] - - title = "What is a reviewer?" - - text = """ -A reviewer is a core role within the project. -They share in reviewing issues and pull requests and their LGTM count towards the -required LGTM count to merge a code change into the project. - -Reviewers are part of the organization but do not have write access. -Becoming a reviewer is a core aspect in the journey to becoming a maintainer. -""" - - [Rules.adding-maintainers] - - title = "How are maintainers added?" - - text = """ -Maintainers are first and foremost contributors that have shown they are -committed to the long term success of a project. Contributors wanting to become -maintainers are expected to be deeply involved in contributing code, pull -request review, and triage of issues in the project for more than three months. - -Just contributing does not make you a maintainer, it is about building trust -with the current maintainers of the project and being a person that they can -depend on and trust to make decisions in the best interest of the project. - -Periodically, the existing maintainers curate a list of contributors that have -shown regular activity on the project over the prior months. From this list, -maintainer candidates are selected and proposed on the maintainers mailing list. - -After a candidate has been announced on the maintainers mailing list, the -existing maintainers are given five business days to discuss the candidate, -raise objections and cast their vote. Candidates must be approved by at least 66% of the current maintainers by adding their vote on the mailing -list. Only maintainers of the repository that the candidate is proposed for are -allowed to vote. - -If a candidate is approved, a maintainer will contact the candidate to invite -the candidate to open a pull request that adds the contributor to the -MAINTAINERS file. The candidate becomes a maintainer once the pull request is -merged. -""" - - [Rules.stepping-down-policy] - - title = "Stepping down policy" - - text = """ -Life priorities, interests, and passions can change. If you're a maintainer but -feel you must remove yourself from the list, inform other maintainers that you -intend to step down, and if possible, help find someone to pick up your work. -At the very least, ensure your work can be continued where you left off. - -After you've informed other maintainers, create a pull request to remove -yourself from the MAINTAINERS file. -""" - - [Rules.inactive-maintainers] - - title = "Removal of inactive maintainers" - - text = """ -Similar to the procedure for adding new maintainers, existing maintainers can -be removed from the list if they do not show significant activity on the -project. Periodically, the maintainers review the list of maintainers and their -activity over the last three months. - -If a maintainer has shown insufficient activity over this period, a neutral -person will contact the maintainer to ask if they want to continue being -a maintainer. If the maintainer decides to step down as a maintainer, they -open a pull request to be removed from the MAINTAINERS file. - -If the maintainer wants to remain a maintainer, but is unable to perform the -required duties they can be removed with a vote of at least 66% of -the current maintainers. An e-mail is sent to the -mailing list, inviting maintainers of the project to vote. The voting period is -five business days. Issues related to a maintainer's performance should be -discussed with them among the other maintainers so that they are not surprised -by a pull request removing them. -""" - - [Rules.decisions] - - title = "How are decisions made?" - - text = """ -Short answer: EVERYTHING IS A PULL REQUEST. - -distribution is an open-source project with an open design philosophy. This means -that the repository is the source of truth for EVERY aspect of the project, -including its philosophy, design, road map, and APIs. *If it's part of the -project, it's in the repo. If it's in the repo, it's part of the project.* - -As a result, all decisions can be expressed as changes to the repository. An -implementation change is a change to the source code. An API change is a change -to the API specification. A philosophy change is a change to the philosophy -manifesto, and so on. - -All decisions affecting distribution, big and small, follow the same 3 steps: - -* Step 1: Open a pull request. Anyone can do this. - -* Step 2: Discuss the pull request. Anyone can do this. - -* Step 3: Merge or refuse the pull request. Who does this depends on the nature -of the pull request and which areas of the project it affects. -""" - - [Rules.DCO] - - title = "Helping contributors with the DCO" - - text = """ -The [DCO or `Sign your work`]( -https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work) -requirement is not intended as a roadblock or speed bump. - -Some distribution contributors are not as familiar with `git`, or have used a web -based editor, and thus asking them to `git commit --amend -s` is not the best -way forward. - -In this case, maintainers can update the commits based on clause (c) of the DCO. -The most trivial way for a contributor to allow the maintainer to do this, is to -add a DCO signature in a pull requests's comment, or a maintainer can simply -note that the change is sufficiently trivial that it does not substantially -change the existing contribution - i.e., a spelling change. - -When you add someone's DCO, please also add your own to keep a log. -""" - - [Rules."no direct push"] - - title = "I'm a maintainer. Should I make pull requests too?" - - text = """ -Yes. Nobody should ever push to master directly. All changes should be -made through a pull request. -""" - - [Rules.tsc] - - title = "Conflict Resolution and technical disputes" - - text = """ -distribution defers to the [Technical Steering Committee](https://github.com/moby/tsc) for escalations and resolution on disputes for technical matters." - """ - - [Rules.meta] - - title = "How is this process changed?" - - text = "Just like everything else: by making a pull request :)" - -# Current project organization -[Org] - - [Org.Maintainers] - people = [ - "dmcgowan", - "dmp42", - "stevvooe", - ] - [Org.Reviewers] - people = [ - "manishtomar", - "caervs", - "davidswu", - "RobbKistler" - ] - -[people] - -# A reference list of all people associated with the project. -# All other sections should refer to people by their canonical key -# in the people section. - - # ADD YOURSELF HERE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER - - [people.caervs] - Name = "Ryan Abrams" - Email = "rdabrams@gmail.com" - GitHub = "caervs" - - [people.davidswu] - Name = "David Wu" - Email = "dwu7401@gmail.com" - GitHub = "davidswu" - - [people.dmcgowan] - Name = "Derek McGowan" - Email = "derek@mcgstyle.net" - GitHub = "dmcgowan" - - [people.dmp42] - Name = "Olivier Gambier" - Email = "olivier@docker.com" - GitHub = "dmp42" - - [people.manishtomar] - Name = "Manish Tomar" - Email = "manish.tomar@docker.com" - GitHub = "manishtomar" - - [people.RobbKistler] - Name = "Robb Kistler" - Email = "robb.kistler@docker.com" - GitHub = "RobbKistler" - - [people.stevvooe] - Name = "Stephen Day" - Email = "stephen.day@docker.com" - GitHub = "stevvooe" +# REVIEWERS +# GitHub ID, Name, Email address +"caervs","Ryan Abrams","rdabrams@gmail.com" +"davidswu","David Wu","dwu7401@gmail.com" +"RobbKistler","Robb Kistler","robb.kistler@docker.com" +"thajeztah","Sebastiaan van Stijn","github@gone.nl"