Let's say someone made all of their commits from 2015-07-04 to 2015-10-04 (and when I say "commits" I mean committing or authoring in git terms). That means they committed over a span of less than 3 months over the entire history of the cpython repo and that the last commit was more than 2 years ago. In that instance I'm suggesting we drop the person as chances are they were probably a GSoC student or a sprinter who tried things out but quickly walked away.

Can the definition of "commit" include "merging other people's PRs", not just their own PR?

Thanks. ᐧ

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 18:53, Brett Cannon brett@python.org wrote:

...

...

Did not commit/author beyond a 3 month time span from first commit/authorship to last commit/authorship and their last commit was more than two years ago (helps cover people we don't have good records for in terms of sprints or GSoC who never got involved)

Hmm... I may be a bit dense, but I don't understand that sentence :-S

Let's say someone made all of their commits from 2015-07-04 to 2015-10-04 (and when I say "commits" I mean committing or authoring in git terms). That means they committed over a span of less than 3 months over the entire history of the cpython repo and that the last commit was more than 2 years ago. In that instance I'm suggesting we drop the person as chances are they were probably a GSoC student or a sprinter who tried things out but quickly walked away.

Or put another way, I'm arguing that if you spent less than 3 months making commits to cpython over two years ago you were probably not someone who got promoted to being a core developer through the normal promotion process.

I may fall under this category, as I don't actually commit much to the cpython repo. But I would very much like to continue being considered as a "core developer". As I understand it, my saying so here should be sufficient for that to happen (I will say so again when the actual lists come out, if it turns out I'm right). If there's anything else that I'd need to do in order to stay on the list, can it be clarified what that is?

Paul

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:00 AM Antoine Pitrou antoine@python.org wrote:

...

So, how do we pull together a clean-enough list of historical core developers? Here is my idea of criteria of people to be on the list (based on the developer log and the git log):

• Was not a GSoC student (clarification to follow for those who fall into this category and are actually active)

I think you should replace "are actually active" with "have been actually active after their GSoC project" (without necessary being active *now*). Example with Alexandre, who's been the pickle maintainer during several years but is inactive now:

Oh, I'm not inactive (at least not by the definition in PEP 13 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0013/#id18.) I was part of the initial active core team members who were grandfathered in from the "Python core" team on GitHub, and nobody asked me to declare myself as inactive (yet!) But outside of the PEP 13 definition, yeah, it is true that I am not actively contributing right now. (I still read the mailing lists and still keep an eye on the pickle module though.) I would be sad to see my membership invalidated because I became a committer through GSoC.

And BTW, PEP 13 defined the initial inactive members as anyone who has been a committer in the past. PEP 13 didn't qualify the membership on what process the person went through become a committer (e.g., by a vote, for GSoC, or for sprints). Brett, are you planning to propose an amendment to PEP 13 to change that?

-- Alexandre

Alexandre Vassalotti wrote:

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:00 AM Antoine Pitrou antoine@python.org... wrote:

...

So, how do we pull together a clean-enough list of historical core developers? Here is my idea of criteria of people to be on the list (based on the developer log and the git log):

Was not a GSoC student (clarification to follow for those who fall into this category and are actually active)

I think you should replace "are actually active" with "have been actually active after their GSoC project" (without necessary being active now). Example with Alexandre, who's been the pickle maintainer during several years but is inactive now: Oh, I'm not inactive (at least not by the definition in PEP 13 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0013/#id18....)

To clarify and try to prevent this from coming up again: what I'm talking about has nothing to do with active/inactive at this moment or in terms of PEP 13 (I purposely didn't use those terms in my initial email).

I was part of the initial active core team members who were grandfathered in from the "Python core" team on GitHub, and nobody asked me to declare myself as inactive (yet!) But outside of the PEP 13 definition, yeah, it is true that I am not actively contributing right now. (I still read the mailing lists and still keep an eye on the pickle module though.) I would be sad to see my membership invalidated because I became a committer through GSoC.

You're fine. As I said, if you speak up you've probably done enough to warrant being considered more than a GSoC student. :)

This is for people who were GSoC students who only participated within the confines of their project and then walked away or committed twice, 12 months apart for whatever reason (and that is a real-life example, BTW). You stuck around and so I don't think anyone would argue you weren't a core dev. :)

Please don't get hung up on how you came into becoming a core dev as much as whether you continued participating at some point in Python's history. (Remember, this isn't about _now_, it's about _ever_.)

And BTW, PEP 13 defined the initial inactive members as anyone who has been a committer in the past. PEP 13 didn't qualify the membership on what process the person went through become a committer (e.g., by a vote, for GSoC, or for sprints). Brett, are you planning to propose an amendment to PEP 13 to change that?

The list of folks "who [have] been a committer in the past" isn't even known beyond the spelunking I've done so it's already a hand-wavy definition to begin with. We also talked about trying to clean this list up prior to voting on governance models but no one had the time or patience to try and discuss it, probably due to fears of being accused of possible disenfranchisement. But if people want PEP 13 to be updated to say "the folks on this list kept over _here_ are core team members and here is how we created that list" then I can do that when we are done with this discussion.