Define specification sponsor and seed with spec approvers #2070
Conversation
|
cc @open-telemetry/technical-committee |
jack-berg
requested review from
alolita,
austinlparker,
danielgblanco,
dyladan,
jpkrohling,
mtwo,
svrnm,
tedsuo and
trask
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good.
Also confirming that I am still interested in continuing. (As I was part of spec-metric-approvers, and hence part of the seed list for spec sponsor)
This PR seeds the spec sponsor pool with the existing spec approvers, but this is a good opportunity to check in with the current spec approvers to make sure they're aligned with the privileges / responsibilities and are still interested / able to contribute to the project.
|
Would like to see more approvals from @open-telemetry/technical-committee who would be responsible for nominating / approving spec sponsors. Please review / comment when you can. |
|
nit:
Shouldn't each "sponsor-to-be" acknowledge that they want to be a sponsor (e.g. by asking for an approval)? |
@kumoroku @lzchen - can you let us know if you want to be included in the new specification sponsor role or not? (update: I've also just pinged them on Slack) @cijothomas @djaglowski @tedsuo @MrAlias - have approved already @Oberon00 has confirmed being moved to the new role @iNikem has confirmed being moving to emeritus @zenmoto - was moved to emeritus recently (#2117), so can probably be removed from specification sponsor list |
…ommunity into rework-spec-approver
…to rework-spec-approver
|
@trask Hi, tentatively, I'm fine with being moved to the new role so you can go ahead with this PR. I will need to figure out internally if I actually have the time to do any meaningful work for the OTel spec. It's possible that I ask for being moved to emeritus later. |
I am not currently active in OpenTelemetry project. At the present time it does not make sense to include me in spec sponsors. |
Hey I am currently overloaded with other responsibilities and most likely will not have time to commit to be a sponsor but am definitely interested in the future if my situation changes! Also am willing to contribute more to specs to earn a sponsorship role in the future if need be. |
|
@open-telemetry/governance-committee I think this is ready to merge. Thanks! |
Co-authored-by: Daniel Jaglowski <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Daniel Jaglowski <[email protected]>
Followup to open-telemetry/community#2070 Should be merged in lockstep with open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto#572 Upon merging, I will: - Rename [spec-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-approvers) to `spec-sponsors` - Add all [current sponsors](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/community-members.md#specifications-and-proto) to `spec-sponsors` - Delete [spec-metrics-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-metrics-approvers), [spec-trace-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-trace-approvers), [spec-logs-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-logs-approvers) Note, there are still references to spec approvers in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). As discussed in #3821 there are a variety of issues with the spec issue management process, including consistency. I'm not trying to solve all of them in this PR - rather, I want to make incremental progress and reflect a decision that was already made about the spec sponsor role. --------- Co-authored-by: Trask Stalnaker <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Pająk <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Cijo Thomas <[email protected]>
Followup to open-telemetry/community#2070 Should be merged in lockstep with open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto#572 Upon merging, I will: - Rename [spec-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-approvers) to `spec-sponsors` - Add all [current sponsors](https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/main/community-members.md#specifications-and-proto) to `spec-sponsors` - Delete [spec-metrics-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-metrics-approvers), [spec-trace-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-trace-approvers), [spec-logs-approvers](https://github.com/orgs/open-telemetry/teams/specs-logs-approvers) Note, there are still references to spec approvers in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md). As discussed in open-telemetry#3821 there are a variety of issues with the spec issue management process, including consistency. I'm not trying to solve all of them in this PR - rather, I want to make incremental progress and reflect a decision that was already made about the spec sponsor role. --------- Co-authored-by: Trask Stalnaker <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Robert Pająk <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Cijo Thomas <[email protected]>
Originally proposed in open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#3821, this PR formalizes the notion of a specification sponsor, which the TC and GC have been discussing for some time now.
A spec sponsor is a trusted collaborator of the TC. They are trusted to be assigned the type of complex specification issues that tend to require a fair bit of experience operating in the OpenTelemetry project. They can also sponsor issues such that other collaborators can drive the work under the help / guidance of the sponsor.
This idea should be thought of as an evolution and expansion of the role of a spec approver. It adds more privileges / responsibilities to that group and takes away the signal specific status. It allows us to grow the group of people who can contribute to the spec, and signal an additional level of trust in members.
This PR seeds the spec sponsor pool with the existing spec approvers, but this is a good opportunity to check in with the current spec approvers to make sure they're aligned with the privileges / responsibilities and are still interested / able to contribute to the project.