[ovs-dev] Introduce Emeritus Committer status.

This patch introduces an Emeritus status for OVS committers. An
Emeritus Committer is recognized as having made a significant impact
to the project and having been a committer in the past.  It is
intended as an option for those that do not currently have the time or
interest to fulfill committer responsibilities based on their current
responsibilities.  While in this status, they are not included in
voting for governance purposes.

An emeritus committer may be re-instated as a full committer at any
time.

See documentation contents for full details.

Suggested-by: Ethan J. Jackson <ejj@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant <russell@ovn.org>
---
 Documentation/automake.mk                          |  1 +
 Documentation/index.rst                            |  3 +-
 .../internals/committer-emeritus-status.rst        | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/internals/index.rst                  |  1 +
 MAINTAINERS.rst                                    | 14 ++++-
 5 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/internals/committer-emeritus-status.rst

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:19:04PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> This patch introduces an Emeritus status for OVS committers. An
> Emeritus Committer is recognized as having made a significant impact
> to the project and having been a committer in the past.  It is
> intended as an option for those that do not currently have the time or
> interest to fulfill committer responsibilities based on their current
> responsibilities.  While in this status, they are not included in
> voting for governance purposes.
> 
> An emeritus committer may be re-instated as a full committer at any
> time.
> 
> See documentation contents for full details.
> 
> Suggested-by: Ethan J. Jackson <ejj@eecs.berkeley.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant <russell@ovn.org>

Thank you.

I felt like doing some editing.  Here is my version.  You don't have to
use it though.

I have procedural questions:

    1. Do we need to get Linux Foundation approval for this change?  My
       inclination is to believe that we do not, because 2.c.iii in the
       project charter says that the committers may "amend, adjust and
       refine the roles of Contributors and Committers listed in Section
       2.b., create new roles and publicly document responsibilities and
       expectations for such roles, as it sees fit" and I think that
       this falls squarely in that category.

    2. Do we need a vote of the committers to approve this change?  I
       think that I would be more comfortable if we did have one.

Thanks,

Ben.

--8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--

OVS committers are nominated and elected based on their impact on the Open
vSwitch project.  Over time, as committers' responsibilities change, some may
become unable or uninterested to actively participate in project governance.
Committer "emeritus" status provides a way for committers to take a leave of
absence from OVS governance responsibilities.  The following guidelines clarify
the process around the emeritus status for committers:

* An committer may choose to transition from active to emeritus, or from
  emeritus to active, by sending an email to the committers mailing list.

* If a committer hasn't been heard from in 6 months, and does not respond to
  reasonable attempts to contact him or her, the other committers can vote as a
  majority to transition the committer from active to emeritus.  (If the
  committer resurfaces, he or she can transition back to active by sending an
  email to the committers mailing list.)

* Emeritus committers may stay on the committers mailing list to continue to
  follow any discussions there.

* Emeritus committers do not nominate or vote in committer elections.  From a
  governance perspective, they are equivalent to a non-committer.

* Emeritus committers cannot merge patches to the OVS repository.

* Emeritus committers will be listed in a separate section in the
  MAINTAINERS.rst file to continue to recognize their contributions to the
  project.

Emeritus status does not replace the procedures for forcibly removing a
committer.

Note that just because a committer is not able to work on the project on a
day-to-day basis, we feel they are still capable of providing input on the
direction of the project.  No committer should feel pressured to move
themselves to this status.  Again, it's just an option for those that do not
currently have the time or interest.

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:19:04PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> This patch introduces an Emeritus status for OVS committers. An
>> Emeritus Committer is recognized as having made a significant impact
>> to the project and having been a committer in the past.  It is
>> intended as an option for those that do not currently have the time or
>> interest to fulfill committer responsibilities based on their current
>> responsibilities.  While in this status, they are not included in
>> voting for governance purposes.
>>
>> An emeritus committer may be re-instated as a full committer at any
>> time.
>>
>> See documentation contents for full details.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Ethan J. Jackson <ejj@eecs.berkeley.edu>
>> Signed-off-by: Russell Bryant <russell@ovn.org>
>
> Thank you.
>
> I felt like doing some editing.  Here is my version.  You don't have to
> use it though.

I like your edits.  I'll use them and post a v2.

>
> I have procedural questions:
>
>     1. Do we need to get Linux Foundation approval for this change?  My
>        inclination is to believe that we do not, because 2.c.iii in the
>        project charter says that the committers may "amend, adjust and
>        refine the roles of Contributors and Committers listed in Section
>        2.b., create new roles and publicly document responsibilities and
>        expectations for such roles, as it sees fit" and I think that
>        this falls squarely in that category.

For others following along, see http://openvswitch.org/charter/

I agree with your interpretation.

>     2. Do we need a vote of the committers to approve this change?  I
>        think that I would be more comfortable if we did have one.

Yes, I think that would be best.

Shall we record the vote as a set of acks on the patch?

>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>
> --8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--
>
> OVS committers are nominated and elected based on their impact on the Open
> vSwitch project.  Over time, as committers' responsibilities change, some may
> become unable or uninterested to actively participate in project governance.
> Committer "emeritus" status provides a way for committers to take a leave of
> absence from OVS governance responsibilities.  The following guidelines clarify
> the process around the emeritus status for committers:
>
> * An committer may choose to transition from active to emeritus, or from
>   emeritus to active, by sending an email to the committers mailing list.
>
> * If a committer hasn't been heard from in 6 months, and does not respond to
>   reasonable attempts to contact him or her, the other committers can vote as a
>   majority to transition the committer from active to emeritus.  (If the
>   committer resurfaces, he or she can transition back to active by sending an
>   email to the committers mailing list.)
>
> * Emeritus committers may stay on the committers mailing list to continue to
>   follow any discussions there.
>
> * Emeritus committers do not nominate or vote in committer elections.  From a
>   governance perspective, they are equivalent to a non-committer.
>
> * Emeritus committers cannot merge patches to the OVS repository.
>
> * Emeritus committers will be listed in a separate section in the
>   MAINTAINERS.rst file to continue to recognize their contributions to the
>   project.
>
> Emeritus status does not replace the procedures for forcibly removing a
> committer.
>
> Note that just because a committer is not able to work on the project on a
> day-to-day basis, we feel they are still capable of providing input on the
> direction of the project.  No committer should feel pressured to move
> themselves to this status.  Again, it's just an option for those that do not
> currently have the time or interest.
>

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:25:57PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote:
> >     2. Do we need a vote of the committers to approve this change?  I
> >        think that I would be more comfortable if we did have one.
> 
> Yes, I think that would be best.
> 
> Shall we record the vote as a set of acks on the patch?

I think that would be harmless in this case, but I believe that it would
set a bad precedent.  We do not use a secret voting system among the
committers but we have never (as far as I know) released the details of
a vote result to a wider community.  So I'd prefer, slightly, to do the
vote on the committers list in the usual way.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:25:57PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <blp@ovn.org> wrote:
>> >     2. Do we need a vote of the committers to approve this change?  I
>> >        think that I would be more comfortable if we did have one.
>>
>> Yes, I think that would be best.
>>
>> Shall we record the vote as a set of acks on the patch?
>
> I think that would be harmless in this case, but I believe that it would
> set a bad precedent.  We do not use a secret voting system among the
> committers but we have never (as far as I know) released the details of
> a vote result to a wider community.  So I'd prefer, slightly, to do the
> vote on the committers list in the usual way.

OK, sure.  I didn't think about it enough since votes don't happen
often.  I didn't mean to stray from the norm.