I would like to propose David Blasby as a committer to GeoNetwork.
He has made good contributions to the GeoNetwork user interface, metadata schemas and backend in the last year (https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pulls/davidblasby). He is working in the GeoCat team on a number of customized projects based on GeoNetwork for Canada, Germany, Netherlands and others.
I think the community will benefit from contributions developed by David.
with 3 months contributions, some commits (https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/commits?author=davidblasby) and no major feature or rework, I would say that it is a bit too early? In any case, all contributions from David have been good and he provided more contributions than a number of our quiet committers over the same period
Probably, David also made much more works on custom GeoNetwork forks - but that part of his work is not visible to the community.
In any case, I’m not against it on the long run as it is always good to get new people in and increase the size & knowledge of our limited developer community but I would wait a bit more.
I would like to propose David Blasby as a committer to GeoNetwork.
He has made good contributions to the GeoNetwork user interface, metadata schemas and backend in the last year (https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pulls/davidblasby). He is working in the GeoCat team on a number of customized projects based on GeoNetwork for Canada, Germany, Netherlands and others.
I think the community will benefit from contributions developed by David.
It’s great to see some new people contributing to geonetwork !
It’s true that David, even though looking promising, has no deep experience with Geonetwork yet. First commit 2 months ago, 11 commits …
Being commiter involves some responsibilities, getting enough background and knowledge on the solution to give technical direction, critical vision, best practices, to do convincing reviews etc…
With the PR system, anyone can contribute highly to the source code while not being commiter yet
I think we can evaluate this demand again in some months.
It’s a -1 for me ATM, sorry
BTW, I think that PSC discussion should only be sent to PSC members ?
Best
···
camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS
I checked previous mails for similar purposes and seem to be sent to the developer list. Apologies if it should be sent to PSC only, maybe this has changed and I was not aware of it.
In any case, it sounds fine to recheck the committer proposal in some months with more contributions from David to the project.
I have been taking a different approach with proposals, email discussions and PRs.
While I can hunt down co-workers (a few of which have commit access) for review; doing so misses out on knowledge sharing across organizations which I feel is important.
I would like to encourage committers to actively manage the pull request list (indeed I can see approved PRs from January and February that remain unmerged).
from what I’ve observed in GeoNetwork is that it has always been quite difficult to get feedbacks from who is “responsible” for PR, vote, … You could have a look to our history of CFV and our rule like “Proposals need to be available for review for at least two business days before a final decision can be made.” [1]. In Bolsena, some time ago, we even discussed the possibility for each PR to have a mandatory check by at least 2 persons from 2 different organizations, which would probably means that PRs will stay in the list forever. I also confess that I took from time to time a more dictatorship approach on some PR that had been hanging for weeks/months in the list - self merging them at some point…
But checking how things are going on so far, we can probably say:
we are making progress
and most of the PRs get reviewed/accepted in a relatively short period considering the limited list of active reviewers we have. We can probably say: Jose, Juan & me
We also noticed that we are all busy on many things and basically not that many people have dedicated time to take care of all this. From my side, when requesting a review to Jose, Juan, Olivier, usually there is a project funding the work and cover this time but even that is not enough in practice. So hunting for coworkers is probably easier regarding that aspect than across organizations. We also have the “issue” of people having their own priorities and concentrating on different branches/versions which dissipate energy (maybe a bit less true today) …
So I’m not sure how we can make progress on that? How to better share the review work? More or less strict rules? Define timeline for vote, PR review? Make a weekly PR review to assign work? At least we can add this to the coming remote Bolsena sprint agenda as it is usually or yearly review of PRs & issues?
To come back on the initial purpose of that thread, we clearly need new committers to help but it sounds also quite reasonable to welcome committers once major new feature or continuous improvement on a topic (Michel? ;)) has been achieved.
I have been taking a different approach with proposals, email discussions and PRs.
While I can hunt down co-workers (a few of which have commit access) for review; doing so misses out on knowledge sharing across organizations which I feel is important.
I would like to encourage committers to actively manage the pull request list (indeed I can see approved PRs from January and February that remain unmerged).
It’s great to see some new people contributing to geonetwork !
It’s true that David, even though looking promising, has no deep experience with Geonetwork yet. First commit 2 months ago, 11 commits …
Being commiter involves some responsibilities, getting enough background and knowledge on the solution to give technical direction, critical vision, best practices, to do convincing reviews etc…
With the PR system, anyone can contribute highly to the source code while not being commiter yet
I think we can evaluate this demand again in some months.
It’s a -1 for me ATM, sorry
BTW, I think that PSC discussion should only be sent to PSC members ?
with 3 months contributions, some commits (https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/commits?author=davidblasby) and no major feature or rework, I would say that it is a bit too early? In any case, all contributions from David have been good and he provided more contributions than a number of our quiet committers over the same period
Probably, David also made much more works on custom GeoNetwork forks - but that part of his work is not visible to the community.
In any case, I’m not against it on the long run as it is always good to get new people in and increase the size & knowledge of our limited developer community but I would wait a bit more.
I would like to propose David Blasby as a committer to GeoNetwork.
He has made good contributions to the GeoNetwork user interface, metadata schemas and backend in the last year (https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/pulls/davidblasby). He is working in the GeoCat team on a number of customized projects based on GeoNetwork for Canada, Germany, Netherlands and others.
I think the community will benefit from contributions developed by David.
I am also learning how to be effective. It is much easier to review several small targeted PRs, but many of the things I would like to accomplish are larger and because of submodules cut across several repositories.
I would like to share some of my build findings in the coming Bolsena sprint, I have been learning a fair bit and I think we can make the codebase easier to work with over time.
