TSC policies and procedures: TSC membership criteria
brianwarner opened this issue · comments
In the original PR which updated TSC policies and procedures, we had an open discussion on TSC membership criteria. The topic was "Should TSC members be required to be Presto committers?"
There were discussions on this in one of the TSC calls, and also on PR #28.
Let's continue the discussion here, and then roll changes into the new version once we have consensus.
cc/ @zhenxiao
In the TSC meeting today we discussed the pros and cons of requiring TSC members to be committers. We reached general consensus that if TSC members were not committers, there should be clearly articulated expectations for eligibility criteria, as well as a clear and straightforward template for candidates to complete when nominated.
The consensus was that the TSC should ensure that candidates are engaged members of the community while also recognizing that engagement may take many forms, some of which may not necessarily result in committership.
Rebecca, Zhenxiao, and I took an action to draft some initial principles.
cc/ @rschlussel, @zhenxiao
@brianwarner @zhenxiao @rschlussel Any updates on this one?
sorry for the late reply. I still think having in-depth technical understanding of Presto is a requirement for a Presto TSC member. I would suggest the following 4 conditions:
- active in code review for past 1 year
- proposed 2+ big feature design, and drive these features implemented and merged
- expertise in 1+ specific areas, e.g. optimizer, one connector
- active in code commits for past 1 year
Just my 2 cents. Would love to see others thoughts
As a followup from today's meeting, I took an action to draft up a candidate self-nomination form that incorporates these as guiding principles, to be reviewed by the TSC.