[Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer


Maria Basmanova
 

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong


rongrong100@...
 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:
https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/12743
https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13384

Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:
https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13661

Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!
Rongrong


On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong


Maria Basmanova
 

I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

 

-Masha

 

From: Rongrong <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM
To: Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...>
Cc: James Sun <jamessun@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:

https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/12743
https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13384

Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:

https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13661

Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!

Rongrong

 

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong


Ariel Weisberg
 

Hi,

This vote didn't achieve quorum and is non-binding. Please read the TSC bylaws https://github.com/prestodb/tsc/blob/6fd035ab15d9eb33603e3add99afa290681a0183/CHARTER.md

Electronic votes require 100% participation from the TSC:
"c. Except as provided in Section 8.c. and 9.a, decisions by vote at a meeting requires a majority vote of those in attendance, provided a quorum is met. Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting requires a majority vote of all voting members of the TSC."

Additionally according to 3.a.i:
"i. When there are less than six Related Company Groups represented on the TSC, no one Related Company Group will submit more than one vote when a TSC decision requires a vote."
I see that Facebook has submitted several votes. People need to be aware that Facebook can only submit one binding vote on any issue.

It seems we have already publicly represented this vote as concluded:

The vote hasn't even been agreed upon as concluded in this mailing list thread in addition to not having followed the bylaws.

It's critical that we move forward as a community not a collection of individuals. We have to wait for consensus and follow the agreed upon practices for decisions making.

There is a TSC meeting today at 12PM Eastern, 9AM Pacific. I encourage people to attend so we can achieve quorum and have a discussion and vote on this issue.

Regards,
Ariel

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Maria Basmanova wrote:

I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

 

-Masha

 

From: Rongrong <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM
To: Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...>
Cc: James Sun <jamessun@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:


Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:


Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!

Rongrong

 

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong




Brian Warner <bwarner@...>
 

Hi all,

We can discuss some best practices around this at the TSC meeting today.  I can offer up some suggestions based upon how we run votes in other projects, both in-person and via email.  To be honest, the biggest thing is staying organized so the votes are taken and recorded consistently.  Gale and I can help with this part.

Best,
Brian

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:01 AM Ariel Weisberg <ariel@...> wrote:
Hi,

This vote didn't achieve quorum and is non-binding. Please read the TSC bylaws https://github.com/prestodb/tsc/blob/6fd035ab15d9eb33603e3add99afa290681a0183/CHARTER.md

Electronic votes require 100% participation from the TSC:
"c. Except as provided in Section 8.c. and 9.a, decisions by vote at a meeting requires a majority vote of those in attendance, provided a quorum is met. Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting requires a majority vote of all voting members of the TSC."

Additionally according to 3.a.i:
"i. When there are less than six Related Company Groups represented on the TSC, no one Related Company Group will submit more than one vote when a TSC decision requires a vote."
I see that Facebook has submitted several votes. People need to be aware that Facebook can only submit one binding vote on any issue.

It seems we have already publicly represented this vote as concluded:

The vote hasn't even been agreed upon as concluded in this mailing list thread in addition to not having followed the bylaws.

It's critical that we move forward as a community not a collection of individuals. We have to wait for consensus and follow the agreed upon practices for decisions making.

There is a TSC meeting today at 12PM Eastern, 9AM Pacific. I encourage people to attend so we can achieve quorum and have a discussion and vote on this issue.

Regards,
Ariel

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Maria Basmanova wrote:

I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

 

-Masha

 

From: Rongrong <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM
To: Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...>
Cc: James Sun <jamessun@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:


Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:


Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!

Rongrong

 

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong





--

Brian Warner
The Linux Foundation
+1 724 301-6171


Ariel Weisberg
 

Hi,

3.a.i changed since I last read it and I didn't notice. Full participation is not required anymore!

Sorry!
Ariel

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Ariel Weisberg wrote:
Hi,

This vote didn't achieve quorum and is non-binding. Please read the TSC bylaws https://github.com/prestodb/tsc/blob/6fd035ab15d9eb33603e3add99afa290681a0183/CHARTER.md

Electronic votes require 100% participation from the TSC:
"c. Except as provided in Section 8.c. and 9.a, decisions by vote at a meeting requires a majority vote of those in attendance, provided a quorum is met. Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting requires a majority vote of all voting members of the TSC."

Additionally according to 3.a.i:
"i. When there are less than six Related Company Groups represented on the TSC, no one Related Company Group will submit more than one vote when a TSC decision requires a vote."
I see that Facebook has submitted several votes. People need to be aware that Facebook can only submit one binding vote on any issue.

It seems we have already publicly represented this vote as concluded:

The vote hasn't even been agreed upon as concluded in this mailing list thread in addition to not having followed the bylaws.

It's critical that we move forward as a community not a collection of individuals. We have to wait for consensus and follow the agreed upon practices for decisions making.

There is a TSC meeting today at 12PM Eastern, 9AM Pacific. I encourage people to attend so we can achieve quorum and have a discussion and vote on this issue.

Regards,
Ariel

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Maria Basmanova wrote:

I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

 

-Masha

 

From: Rongrong <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM
To: Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...>
Cc: James Sun <jamessun@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:



Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:





Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!

Rongrong

 

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 


I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).




Thanks!
Rongrong






rongrong100@...
 

> I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value.

I mostly agree with this, which is why when James proposed to add Leiqing earlier I pointed out that he mostly only worked on verifier, which might not be of enough scope. I changed my mind and decided to nominate him because I think there's still great value in this. Leiqing is the expert on verifier and the new benchmark work is very much related to verifier. His code review is of high quality and I rarely found myself needing to add additional comments. So at least in these sub-systems, he "had a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval". If we have an area committership model I'd nominate him as the area committer for these limited scopes. I don't see any value in having to insert me, or any other committer in these reviews to merge code. None of the committers know every subsystems in the code base, and we trust them to say "I'm not the right person to review, please ask xxx instead". And I trust Leiqing to do the same on other subjects he's not familiar with.

> Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

I agree with this point. Except that I saw evidence. When you said you "don't see evidence of that", do you mean that you haven't worked with him thus haven't seen his work, or that you've seen evidence that he didn't meet the bar?

Overall what I want to achieve with this nomination is the experts in the subsystems could have some autonomy on the subsystems they build. If committer is not the right way to do it, please propose different solutions. I don't want to be the artificial gate keeper because I don't see myself adding any value to the process. If someone else want to volunteer for doing all final reviews on verifier / benchmark runner, please go ahead.

Thanks!
Rongrong


On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 4:01 AM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.

 

-Masha

 

From: Rongrong <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:27 PM
To: Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...>
Cc: James Sun <jamessun@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example PRs:

https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/12743
https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13384

Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:

https://github.com/prestodb/presto/pull/13661

Does this resolve your concerns?

Thanks!

Rongrong

 

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:

My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not a requirement?

 

-Masha

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "jamessun@..." <jamessun@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 4:05 PM
To: "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>, "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [Potential Spoof] Re: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.

 

From: <presto-tsc@...> on behalf of "rongrong100@..." <rongrong100@...>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: "presto-tsc@..." <presto-tsc@...>
Subject: [presto-tsc] Nominating Leiqing as new committer

 

I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:

129 commits  20,597 ++  10,766 --

Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).


Thanks!
Rongrong