Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

WIP: Add first draft of governance and contributor ladder documentation. #72

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
161 changes: 161 additions & 0 deletions CONTRIBUTOR_LADDER.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
# Contributor Ladder Template

* [Contributor Ladder](#contributor-ladder-template)
* [Contributor](#contributor)
* [Organization Member](#organization-member)
* [Reviewer](#reviewer)
* [Maintainer](#maintainer)
* [Inactivity](#inactivity)
* [Involuntary Removal](#involuntary-removal-or-demotion)
* [Stepping Down/Emeritus Process](#stepping-downemeritus-process)
* [Contact](#contact)


## Contributor Ladder

Hello! We are excited that you want to learn more about our project contributor ladder! This contributor ladder outlines the different contributor roles within the project, along with the responsibilities and privileges that come with them. Community members generally start at the first levels of the "ladder" and advance up it as their involvement in the project grows. Our project members are happy to help you advance along the contributor ladder.

Each of the contributor roles below is organized into lists of three types of things. "Responsibilities" are things that contributor is expected to do. "Requirements" are qualifications a person needs to meet to be in that role, and "Privileges" are things contributors on that level are entitled to.

Open Cluster Management is a project made up of several Subprojects, such as Foundation and Policy. This contributor ladder applies to each Subproject. As such, a contributor advances in each Subproject separately, and may be a Member in one Subproject while being a Maintainer in another. For the Open Cluster Management project overall, the contributor is considered to be the highest level they have reached in any Subproject. Thus, someone who is a Project Member in one Subproject is a Project Member of OCM overall.
Copy link
Collaborator

@juliana-hsu juliana-hsu Sep 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not quite sure what this sentence is trying to say: "For the Open Cluster Management project overall, the contributor is considered to be the highest level they have reached in any Subproject."?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, if you're a Maintainer in Policy Manager, then you're considered a Maintainer in Open Cluster Management, even if you don't contribute to API at all.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is probably good to use the example in the comment instead of the one now to illustrate this idea.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed. Can you suggest two appropriate subprojects for the example?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.


### Contributor

Description: A Contributor contributes directly to the project and adds value to it. Contributions need not be code. People at the Contributor level may be new contributors, or they may only contribute occasionally.

* Responsibilities include:
* Follow the CNCF CoC
* Follow the project contributing guide
* Requirements (one or several of the below):
* Sign the DCO for Open Cluster Management, either individually or through their employer
* Report and sometimes resolve issues
* Occasionally submit PRs
* Contribute to the documentation
* Show up at meetings, takes notes
* Answer questions from other community members
* Submit feedback on issues and PRs
* Test releases and patches and submit reviews
* Run or helps run events
* Promote the project in public
* Help run the project infrastructure
* Privileges:
* Invitations to contributor events
* Eligible to become an Organization Member


### Organization Member
Description: An Organization Member is an established contributor who regularly participates in the project. Organization Members have privileges in both project repositories and elections, and as such are expected to act in the interests of the whole project. While Organization Members are selected by individual subprojects, some of their requirements and privileges apply to the entire OCM project.

An Organization Member must meet the responsibilities and has the requirements of a Contributor, plus:

* Responsibilities include:
* Continues to contribute regularly, as demonstrated by having at least 25 contributions a year, as demonstrated by Devstats project metrics.
* Requirements:
* Must have successful contributions to the project, including at least one of the following:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a script showing the current potential pool of members that match the explicit criteria, versus equivalent combination?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

not yet. This is annoyingly one of the things that will be easier to answer if we get accepted to CNCF and gain access to devstats.

* 2 accepted PRs,
* Reviewed 3 PRs,
* Resolved and closed 5 Issues,
* Become responsible for a key project management area,
* Or some equivalent combination or contribution
* Must have been contributing for at least 3 months
* Must be actively contributing to at least one project area
* Must have two sponsors who are also Organization Members
<!-- enable when we have enough multi-org contributors: at least one of whom does not work for the same employer -->
* Enable 2FA on their GitHub account

* Privileges:
* May be assigned Issues and Reviews
* May give commands to CI/CD automation
juliana-hsu marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
* Entitled to vote in the [TODO: appropriate election]
* Can be added to GitHub teams in the Open Cluster Management org
* Can recommend other contributors to become Org Members

The process for a Contributor to become an Organization Member is as follows:

<!-- the process of becoming an organization member is going to depend strongly on how your project manages its infrastructure. TODO: Project leads to fill in exact details of how a contributor becomes an organization member-->
1. The contributor or an Org Member may propose them for membership in an Issue in the relevant Subproject. This issue will name at least two existing Org Members (sponsors) who can vouch for the contributor, and will list their existing contributions.
2. Both sponsors will +1 the request.
3. GitHub administrator will add the contributor to the GitHub organization, as well as to the relevant Subproject's general contributor Team.

### Reviewer
<!-- Some projects have CI/CD systems that allow for designating people as official reviewers, whose reviews count towards a PR being accepted into the project. Other projects offer reviewers specific recognition and status. This role is for either of those kinds of projects. Smaller projects will not use it.-->
<!--TODO: project leads to fill in exact details of this role for your project-->
Description: A Reviewer has responsibility for specific code, documentation, test, or other project areas. They are collectively responsible, with other Reviewers, for reviewing all changes to those areas and indicating whether those changes are ready to merge. They have a track record of contribution and review in the project.

Reviewers are responsible for a "specific area." This can be a specific code directory, driver, chapter of the docs, test job, event, or other clearly-defined project component that is smaller than an entire repository or subproject. Most often it is one or a set of directories in one or more Git repositories. The "specific area" below refers to this area of responsibility.

Reviewers have all the rights and responsibilities of an Organization Member, plus:

* Responsibilities include:
* Following the reviewing guide
* Reviewing most Pull Requests against their specific areas of responsibility
* Reviewing at least 10 PRs per year
* Helping other contributors become reviewers
* Requirements:
* Experience as a Contributor for at least 3 months

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about a new repository that is less than 3 months old?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How likely is it that a new subproject would want to elevate people to Organization Member or Reviewer based on their contributions solely to that subproject in its first three months of existence, but after bootstrapping?

The reason for the time requirement, btw, is to avoid a lot of assignment of higher-level permissions based on "X has just been hired". In other projects, the assignment of community permissions on hiring to people who have not yet contributed anything at all has resulted in huge bloated lists of users with privileges that someone else then needs to audit and purge. A time requirement also makes things fairer to freelance contributors.

* Is an Organization Member
* Has reviewed, or helped review, at least 10 Pull Requests
* Has analyzed and resolved test failures in their specific area
* Has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the specific area
* Commits to being responsible for that specific area
* Is supportive of new and occasional contributors and helps get useful PRs in shape to commit
* Additional privileges:
* Has GitHub or CI/CD rights to approve pull requests in specific directories
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

At least some of the open-cluster-management repos have separate lgtm and approve. Is it intentional that this Reviewer role holds approving power?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Org members have the right to LGTM. Note the "in specific directories" they idea is that Reviewer is an expert on one particularly piece of code/docs, as opposed to having root approval.

* Can recommend and review other contributors to become Reviewers

The process of becoming a Reviewer is:
<!-- TODO: define your exact process here. What's below is given as an example process for a project that uses Owners files and has defined teams for each project area -->
1. The contributor is nominated by opening a PR against the appropriate repository, which adds their GitHub username to the OWNERS file for one or more directories.
2. At least two members of the team that owns that repository or main directory, who are already Approvers, approve the PR.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about a new repository that has no contributors/members yet?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How could you have repository with no contributors? Someone had to write the code.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... does suggest that having a "bootstrapping" para for new projects might be a good idea, though.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How could you have repository with no contributors? Someone had to write the code.

"Member" status takes 3 months and the team that owns that repository may not have any approvers.

 * Must have been contributing for at least 3 months

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, this comes down to Bootstrapping again.


### Maintainer
Description: Maintainers are very established contributors who are responsible for one or more Subprojects. As such, they have the ability to approve PRs against any area of that Subproject, and are expected to participate in making decisions about the strategy and priorities of that Subproject and Open Cluster Management as a whole.

A Maintainer must meet the responsibilities and requirements of a Reviewer, plus:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Our community is still very small and super concentrated. I wonder if we can have some exceptions such as 2 TOC members can nominate a new member to be a reviewer?


* Responsibilities include:
* Reviewing at least 20 PRs per year, especially PRs that involve multiple parts of the project
* Mentoring new Reviewers
* Writing refactoring PRs
* Participating in CNCF maintainer activities
* Determining strategy and policy for the project
* Participating in, and leading, community meetings
* Requirements
* Experience as a Reviewer for at least 3 months

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about a new repository that is less than 3 months old?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My suggestion would be that any project less than 3 months old is unlikely to be promoting folks aside from the original founding team.

* Demonstrates a broad knowledge of the project across multiple areas
* Is able to exercise judgement for the good of the project, independent of their employer, friends, or team
* Mentors other contributors
* Can commit to spending at least 15 hours per month working on the project
* Additional privileges:
* Added to root OWNERs file in one or more Subprojects
* Approve PRs to any area of those Subprojects
* Represent the project in public as a Maintainer
* Communicate with the CNCF on behalf of the project
* Have a vote in Maintainer decision-making meetings


Process of becoming a maintainer:
1. Any current Maintainer may nominate a current Reviewer to become a new Maintainer, by opening a PR against the root of the Subproject's primary repository, adding the nominee as an Approver in the OWNERS file.
2. The nominee will add a comment to the PR testifying that they agree to all requirements of becoming a Maintainer.
3. A majority of the current Maintainers of that Subproject must then approve the PR.

## Inactivity
It is important for contributors to be and stay active to set an example and show commitment to the project. Inactivity is harmful to the project as it may lead to unexpected delays, contributor attrition, and a loss of trust in the project.

* Inactivity is measured by:
* Periods of no contributions for longer than 18 months
* Unannounced periods of no communication for longer than 4 months
* Consequences of being inactive include:
* Involuntary removal or demotion
* Being asked to move to Emeritus status

## Involuntary Removal or Demotion

Involuntary removal/demotion of a contributor happens when responsibilities and requirements aren't being met. This may include repeated patterns of inactivity, extended period of inactivity, a period of failing to meet the requirements of your role, and/or a violation of the Code of Conduct. This process is important because it protects the community and its deliverables while also opens up opportunities for new contributors to step in.

Involuntary removal or demotion is handled through a vote by a majority of the current Maintainers of the relevant Subproject, or in some cases a majority of all Maintainers for OCM.

## Stepping Down/Emeritus Process
If and when contributors' commitment levels change, contributors can consider stepping down (moving down the contributor ladder) vs moving to emeritus status (completely stepping away from the project).

Contact the Maintainers about changing to Emeritus status, or reducing your contributor level.
Loading