Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
596 lines (431 loc) · 22.4 KB

ROLES.md

File metadata and controls

596 lines (431 loc) · 22.4 KB
Raw

This document describes the set of roles individuals might have within the Cloud Foundry community, the requirements of each role, and the privileges that each role grants.

See also notes on roles.

Scope of Technical Contributions

The roles below frequently refer to code and to the community codebase. That codebase encompasses not only the source code that constitutes the system components in the community, but also other artifacts such as documentation, specifications, and technical proposals.

By PR below, we mean any proposed change to one of these artifacts via the natural proposal mechanism for that medium (for example, pull request in GitHub, or suggested change in Google Docs). Code review refers to the process of reviewing a proposed change, providing feedback on it, and advocating to accept or to reject it.

Role Summary

The following table lists the roles we use within the Cloud Foundry community. The table describes:

  • General responsibilities expected by individuals in each role
  • Requirements necessary to join or stay in a given role
  • How the role manifests in terms of permissions and privileges.

Keep in mind that responsibility follows a delegation model. The community delegates to the TOC, who in turn delegates to working groups and their leads. Working groups can establish sub-working groups. Working groups delegate change approval to Approvers.

Role Responsibilities Requirements Privileges Scope
(everyone) None None

Can submit PRs and issues

Can join CF Slack workspace

Can take part in community discussions

 GitHub Organization
Member

Adheres to code of conduct

Signed CLA (only for PRs)

Can get PRs accepted

 GitHub Organization
Contributor Inherits from Member Role
Regular active contributor in the community

Has made multiple contributions to the project

Member of the GitHub cloudfoundry (and possibly the cloudfoundry-incubator) orgs

Member of the Cloud Foundry Slack workspace

 GitHub Organization
Reviewer Inherits from Contributor Role

For 1+ repos in an area:

Provide reviews of PRs

Active contributor who wishes to formally work toward the approver role

Be assigned to review PRs

 GitHub Directory
Approver Inherits from Reviewer Role

For 1+ repos in an area:

Triage PRs and issues

Approve and merge contributions from other members

Perform small maintenance tasks, such as debugging test failures

 Highly experienced and active reviewer and contributor to an area Entry in one or more OWNERS files in GitHub, and write permissions on one or more repos allowing PRs to be merged GitHub Directory
Working Group Technical Lead Inherits from Approver Role

Set priorities for a functional area and approve proposals

Triage incoming issues, set milestones, repo labels

Roadmap alignment with top-level backlog

Mentor new contributors, project members, and approvers

Responsible for technical health of their functional area

 Sponsored by the technical oversight committee as documented here Write permissions on one or more repos allowing issues to be manipulated Working Group
Working Group Execution Lead Inherits from Contributor Role

Run their working group: Meetings, notes, roadmap, report

Responsible for the holistic health of the working group

Work organization, planning, high-level execution

Triage incoming issues, set milestones, repo labels

Ensure all required skills are present within the working group

Mentor new contributors, project members, and approvers

 Sponsored by the technical oversight committee as documented here Write permissions on one or more repos allowing issues to be manipulated Working Group
Scribe Inherits from Member Role

Ensure important information is represented in working group notes

Post WG recordings to team drive

 Sponsored by a working group execution or technical lead. Write permissions to team drive and team calendar Working Group

Member

A member is an occasional community contributor. They should adhere to the code of conduct, and work towards becoming contributors as their involvement increases.

Requirements

  • Signs CLA
  • Files PRs for changes and is responsive to feedback on their PRs.

Contributor

Includes everything from Member

Established community contributor are expected to demonstrate their adherence to the principles in this document, familiarity with project organization, roles, policies, procedures, conventions, etc., and technical and/or writing ability.

Contributors are continuously active making contributions the community. They can have issues and PRs assigned to them, participate in working group meetings, and pre-submit tests are automatically run for their PRs. Contributors are expected to remain active in the community.

All contributors are encouraged to help with community code review, although each PR must be reviewed by an official Approver.

When reviewing, contributors should focus on code quality and correctness, including testing and factoring. Contributors might also review for more holistic issues, but this is not a requirement.

Requirements

  • Has made multiple contributions to the project or community. Contributions might include, but are not limited to:

    • Authoring and reviewing PRs on GitHub.

    • Filing and commenting on issues on GitHub.

    • Contributing to working group or community discussions.

  • Subscribed to [email protected].

  • Actively contributing to 1 or more areas.

Responsibilities and privileges

  • Responsive to issues and PRs assigned to them.

  • Active maintainer of code they have contributed (unless responsibility is explicitly transferred).

    • Code is well tested.

    • Tests consistently pass.

    • Addresses bugs or issues discovered after code is accepted.

Contributors who frequently contribute code are expected to proactively perform code reviews and work towards becoming an approver for the area that they are active in.

Reviewer

Includes everything from Contributor

A reviewer is an active contributor who wishes to formally work toward the approver role.

Reviewers can submit reviews of PRs within a Working Group Area. They may also have PRs within a working group assigned to them.

Requirements

  • Actively contributing to the relevant Working Group Area(s).

Responsibilities and privileges

  • Reviewing assigned PRs within the Working Group Area

Approver

Includes everything from Reviewer

Approvers are able to both review and approve code contributions. While code review is focused on code quality and correctness, approval is focused on holistic acceptance of a contribution including: backward / forward compatibility, adhering to API and flag conventions, subtle performance and correctness issues, interactions with other parts of the system, etc. Approver status is scoped to a subset of the working group's codebases.

Requirements

Last ammended by RFC-0006 Approver Requirements

The following apply to the part of the codebase for which one would be an approver in an OWNERS file:

  • Reviewer of the codebase for at least 3 months.

  • Have completed at least 20 of the following

    • Submitted a substantial PR

    • Reviewed a substantial PR

    • Submitted a substantial Issue

    • Reviewed a substantial Issue

    • Involved in technical discussion. This includes, but is not limited to, being involved in technical decision making in proposals or resolving interrupts in slack.

    • One path for getting the necessary reviews is to add yourself to the reviewers section of the OWNERS file. Note that this does not give you any additional privileges. By having yourself listed in this section in OWNERS file means that you will get PRs assigned to you for code review. Getting added to reviewers section is at the discretion of an approver after enough evidence of quality contributions.

    • A substantial PR is anything that changes the logic of the code or introduces a complex amount of documentation. The following are examples of substantial PRs: bug fixes, features, large docs changes like creating a new debugging document or new architecture diagram. The following are examples of non-substantial PRs: dependabot PRs or small docs changes like fixing typos or reorganizing content.

    • A substantial Issue is anything that requires knowledge of the codebase. The following are examples of substantial Issues: feature requests, bug write ups, debugging help requests. The following are examples of non-substantial Issues: minor doc change requests.

    • A technical discussion is a thread on slack or in GitHub that requires knowledge of the codebase. The following are examples of technical discussions that will be considered: resolving interrupts in slack, or commenting on proposals. Technical discussions are counted per-thread, not per-message.

    • The WG lead has final say if an issue, PR, or discussion is considered substantial.

The contributions-for-user.sh script can be used to help gather information from GitHub related to Issues, PRs, and code contributions. It requires the gh CLI, and for users to authenticate with credentials allowing Gist creation:

./working-groups/contributions-for-user.sh <github username> <working group name>
  • Nominated by a WG lead (with no objections from other leads).

Responsibilities and privileges

The following apply to the part of the codebase for which one would be an approver in an OWNERS file:

  • Approver status can be a precondition to accepting large code contributions.

  • Demonstrate sound technical judgment.

  • Responsible for project quality control via code reviews.

    • Focus on holistic acceptance of contribution such as dependencies with other features, backward / forward compatibility, API and flag definitions, etc.

  • Expected to be responsive to review requests as per community expectations.

  • Shares burden of executing smaller maintenance tasks in the working group

  • Mentor new contributors and project members.

  • Approve code contributions for acceptance.

  • Triage new issues and PRs.

Working Group Leadership Roles

We differentiate here between two key roles, WG Execution Lead and WG Technical Lead. In small working groups, often these roles will be performed by one person; in larger working groups it might be best to have different individuals performing these roles. There is no 'formula': it is up to the working group leadership to determine what is best for their working group.

Working Group Technical Lead

Includes everything from Approver

Working group technical leads, or just 'tech leads', are approvers of an entire area that have demonstrated good judgement and responsibility. Tech leads accept design proposals and approve design decisions for their area of ownership, and are responsible for the overall technical health of their functional area.

Requirements

Getting to be a tech lead of an existing working group:

  • Recognized as having expertise in the group's subject matter.

  • Approver for a relevant part of the codebase for at least 3 months.

  • Member for at least 6 months.

  • Primary reviewer for 20 substantial PRs.

  • Reviewed or merged at least 50 PRs.

  • Sponsored by the technical oversight committee.

Additional requirements for leads of a new working group:

  • Originally authored or contributed major functionality to the group's area.

Responsibilities and privileges

The following apply to the area / component for which one would be an owner.

  • Design/proposal approval authority over the area / component, though escalation to the technical oversight committee is possible.

  • Technical review of feature tracks.

  • Perform issue triage on GitHub.

  • Apply/remove/create/delete GitHub labels and milestones.

  • Write access to repo (assign issues/PRs, add/remove labels and milestones, edit issues and PRs, edit wiki, create/delete labels and milestones).

  • Capable of directly applying lgtm + approve labels for any PR.

    • Expected to respect OWNERS files approvals and use standard procedure for merging code.

  • Expected to work to holistically maintain the health of the project through:

    • Reviewing PRs.

    • Fixing bugs.

    • Identifying needed enhancements / areas for improvement / etc.

    • Execute pay-down of technical debt.

  • Mentoring and guiding approvers, members, and new contributors.

Working Group Execution Lead

Includes everything from Contributor

Working group execution leads, or just 'execution leads', are responsible for the overall health and execution of the working group itself. Execution leads work with tech leads to ensure that the working group is making progress toward its goals, is aligned with the project roadmap, etc. The execution lead may also be the tech lead in a smaller working group, but they are distinct roles.

Requirements

  • Participant in the working group for at least 3 months, for example as scribe or approver.

  • Recognized as having expertise in the group's subject matter.

  • Sponsored by the technical oversight committee.

Responsibilities and privileges

  • Run their working group according to community-wide process.

    • Meetings. Prepare the agenda and run the regular working group meetings.

    • Notes. Ensure that meeting notes are kept up to date. Provide a link to the recorded meeting in the notes. The lead may delegate note-taking duties to the scribe.

    • Roadmap. Establish and maintain a roadmap for the working group outlining the areas of focus for the working group over the next 6 months.

    • Report. Report current status to the TOC meeting every 6 weeks.

  • Holistic responsibility for their working group's feature tracks: tracking, health, and execution.

  • Perform issue triage on GitHub.

  • Apply/remove/create/delete GitHub labels and milestones.

  • Write access to repo (assign issues/PRs, add/remove labels and milestones, edit project, issues, and PRs, edit wiki, create/delete labels and milestones).

  • Expected to work to holistically maintain the health of the working through:

    • Being a good role model

    • Be an advocate for the working group inside and outside of the community

    • Foster a welcoming and collegial environment

    • Mentoring and guiding approvers, members, and new contributors.

Scribe

Includes everything from Member

One of the most underrated roles in open source projects is the role of note taker. The importance and value of this role is frequently overlooked and underestimated. Since one of the core project values is transparency, we have an explicit scribe role to recognize these types of contributions. Working group scribes assist the Working Group leads with the mechanical processes around Working Group meetings.

Requirements

  • Participant in the working group for at least 1 month.

  • Pattern of attendance and note-taking during working group meetings and one-offs.

  • Sponsored by a working group execution or technical lead.

Responsibilities and privileges

  • Attend working group meetings and one-offs whenever possible.

  • Ensure that important information from meetings makes it into the WG notes.

  • Post WG recordings to the team drive.

Promotion and Revocation

Last ammended by RFC-0008 Role Change Process

Promotion to Contributor

  • When a person meets the criteria to be a Contributor as defined in Contributor Role, they may submit a PR adding themselves to contributors.yml.

  • Two existing Contributors, Reviewers, or Approvers must attest that they meet the criteria by reviewing the PR.

  • An existing Contributor, Reviewer, or Approver may submit the promotion request on behalf of someone else, but they may not serve as a reviewer.

  • A Working Group Lead from any Working Group will merge or close the PR, based on the results of the review and their discretion.

  • TOC members may bypass the review process and merge the PR at their discretion.

Promotion to Reviewer or Approver

  • When a person meets the criteria to be a Reviewer or Approver for a Working Group Area as defined in Reviewer Role or Approver Role respectively, they may submit a PR to the appropriate Working Group Charter that adds themselves to the team's yaml definition under the appropriate Area.

  • Two existing Approvers for that Working Group Area must attest that they meet the criteria by reviewing the PR.

  • For Working Group Areas with fewer than 4 Approvers, a single Approver review is sufficient.

  • An existing Approver may submit the promotion request on behalf of someone else, but they may not serve as a reviewer.

  • A Working Group Lead for that Working Group will merge or close the PR, based on the results of the review and their discretion.

  • TOC members may bypass the review process and merge the PR at their discretion.

Revoking Contributor Role

  • People with the Contributor role may submit a PR to revoke their role by removing the appropriate entry from contributors.yml.

  • An existing Contributor, Reviewer, or Approver may submit the revocation request on behalf of someone else, but the person whose role is being revoked must be given two weeks to refute the revocation.

  • A Working Group Lead from any Working Group will merge or close the PR, at their discretion and without review.

  • TOC members may merge the PR at their discretion.

Revoking Reviewer or Approver Role

  • People with a Reviewer or Approver role may submit a PR to revoke their role by removing the appropriate entry from the yaml definition in their Working Group's charter.

  • An existing Approver may submit the revocation request on behalf of someone else, but the person whose role is being revoked must be given two weeks to refute the revocation.

  • A Working Group Lead for that Working Group will merge or close the PR, at their discretion and without review.

  • TOC members may merge the PR at their discretion.

Notes

Within this section "manager" refers to a member who is an Execution Lead, Tech Lead, Approver or Scribe. (this is different from a WG or Organization Member).

  • Initial managers are defined at the founding of the WG as part of the acceptance of that WG.
  • Managers SHOULD remain active and responsive in their Roles.
  • Managers MUST be community members to be eligible to hold a leadership role within a SIG.
  • Managers taking an extended leave of 1 or more months SHOULD coordinate with other managers to ensure the role is adequately staffed during the leave.
  • Managers going on leave for 1-3 months MAY work with other managers to suggest a replacement using the normal process
  • Managers of a role SHOULD remove any other managers that have not communicated a leave of absence and either cannot be reached for more than 1 month or are not fulfilling their documented responsibilities for more than 1 month.
    • This MAY be done through a super-majority vote of managers, or if there are not enough active managers to get a super-majority of votes cast, then removal MAY occur through exception process to the TOC. The PR removing the manager should be open for at least 72 hours.
    • Prior to voting to remove a manager, leads SHOULD reach out to the affected manager and see if they need to take a leave.
  • Membership disagreements MAY be escalated to the WG leads. WG lead membership disagreements MAY be escalated to the TOC.
  • Managers MAY decide to step down at anytime and nominate a replacement who will be approved through the regular process for that role.

It is the hope of the steering committee that effective communication will make the use of these rules something that happens under exceptional circumstances only. In circumstances where it is unavoidable, these are presented so that the process is clear.

The initial content of this page is from the work of the Knative community under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.