[python-committers] RFC: Process to become a core developer
victor.stinner at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 13:01:50 EST 2017
I'm working on a process to describe how a contributor becomes a core
developer. The purpose is to be transparent, list "requirements" and
responsabilities to the contributor, and have written rules to help to
take a fair decision.
This document is a draft. I chose to post it on python-committers. I
expect that we would have to iterate on it multiple times until we can
reach a consensus to agree on the process.
While the process has many details, it must be seen more as a
guideline than strict rules.
Note: I'm trying to avoid gender to be inclusive when mentioning a
contributor by using "they" or "their". I'm not sure that it's correct
in english, since english is not my first language. Is "they"
acceptable to identify a single contributor, or is it restricted to
the plural form (contributors)?
== Introduction ==
The overall goal is to get more active developers working on Python to
better scale horizontally: get more reviews to get better changes. The
code quality is expected to be enhanced: more eyes on reviews should
help to catch bugs earlier. Another less important goal is to speed up
the Python development
IMHO the current blocker issue is that it is too hard to become a core
developer. While becoming a core developer is not required to
contribute, in my experience, core developers feel more involved and
better recognized for their work. Core developer first means becoming
responsible of a change: maintain the code/documentation and handle
any potential regression. Long term commitment and good quality
reviews are also expected from core developers.
The blocker issue can be explained by the very high step that should
be climed at once to become a core developer. The contributor
responsibilities changes at once from "no power" to "can do anything
on any part of the project". A promotion is decided with a vote. If a
voter doesn't know the contributor, it can be very stressful to take a
decision. Building a trust relationship takes time and is not
currently formalized by a process. This process is trying to address
I propose to formalize a process to promote a contributor from the
early newcomer step to the final core developer step. The process is
made of multiple steps to help the contributor to estimate their own
progress. Mentoring becomes required by the process and is a major
part of the whole process. While the process explains how to "clim"
steps, going backward now becomes part of the process, it is not seen
as a failure but as a normal and expected change under certain
conditions. The final vote to promote a contributor as a core
developer is expected to become more natural and simpler. The voters
are expected to know better the future candidate.
== Process Steps ==
I propose the following steps to become a core developer:
* Step 0: Newcomer
* Step 1: Contributor
* Step 2: Bug triage permission
* Step 3: Mentoree.
* Step 4: Core developer
== Step 0: Newcomer ==
The first step is to start as a newcomer. Usually, newcomers are
following the Python development without actively contributing.
== Step 1: Contributor ==
I consider that newcomers become automatically contributors as soon as
they post their first comment on the bug tracker, comment on a pull
request, or a pull request.
Their is no manual validation, nor additional privilege. It's just a
thin distinction with a newcomer.
At this step, it becomes interesting to start reading the Python
== Step 2: Bug Triage Permission ==
Once a contributor becomes active enough, a core developer can propose
to give the bug triage permission to the contributor. The contributors
may ask themself to give this permission. The level of activity is not
strictly defined, since it depends on the kind of contributions and
their quality. The core developer is responsabile to estimate this.
There is no formal vote to give the bug triage permission. The core
developer becomes responsible of the promotion. In practice, core
developers are free to discuss together ;-)
Getting the bug triage permission gives more responsabilities to the
contributor: the bug tracker should not be misused to not lost useful
information. Taking a decision on an issue requires a certain level of
knowledege of the Python development.
I propose that the contributor gets a mentor during one month. The
role of the mentor is to answer to any question of the mentoree, and
help them to take decisions if needed. The mentor is not expected to
watch closely what the contributor does on the bug tracker.
If the contributor misuses the bug tracker, the mentor (or another
core developer) should help the contributor to adjust their behaviour.
If the contributor continue to abuse the bug tracker or misbehaves,
the permission is removed and the contributor moves back to the
This step is the opportunity to know each other, begin to create a
Required skills for the contributor:
* Be active on the Python project: bug tracker, pull requests and/or
mailing lists like python-ideas and python-dev. There is no minimum
number of contributions: it's not a matter of quantity, but more a
matter of quality and the kind of contributions.
* Be nice, police and respectful.
* Know what they are talking about, and explain their reasoning well.
Skills which are nice to have, but not required:
* Know how to triage bugs. If the contributor doesn't know that, I
consider that the role of the mentor is to explain this (using the
* Read the Python Developer Guide.
This step is also a first milestone to measure the contrbutor
involvment in the Python project, to later be able to estimate their
== Step 3: Getting a mentor ==
Python project is big and has a long history. Contributors need a
referrer to guide them in this wild and dangerous (!) project, and in
the development workflow.
The role of the mentor is to answer to contributors questions and
review their work. The role is not to become the single gatekeeper
merging all contributions of one specific contributor. It's perfectly
fine if the mentor is unable to review a pull request, just help to
find an appropriate reviewer in this case.
This step is a second opportunity to build a trust relationship, maybe
already started at the previous step with the same mentor.
Required contributor skills:
* Be active on the Python project: I would like to say "still" be
active on the Python project, which is another proof of the
contributor commitement in the project
* Sign the CLA: at some point, getting changes merged into Git becomes
mandatory, and so the CLA must be signed.
* Find a mentor.
Required mentor skills:
* Be a core contributor.
* Be available at least during one whole month.
* Follow the contributor: must get an update at least once a week,
especially if the contributor doesn't show up.
Obviously, it's better if the contributor interest areas match with
the mentor interest areas ;-)
(... Maybe later we may change the process to allow non-core
developers to become mentors, but I'm not sure about of this yet ...)
If the contributor becomes unavailable, it's fine, it's just a small
step backward, until they become available again.
If the mentor becomes unavailable, maybe a different mentor can
continue the process, otherwise the contributor goes back to the
== Step 4: Core Developer ==
Once the mentor or another core developer consider that the
contributor is mature enough to be promoted, a vote is organized on
the python-committers mailing list. The contributor skills and
contributions should be listed. Usually, any negative vote becomes a
veto which blocks the promotion.
While a few votes were negative in the past, I hope that this new
formalized process would make the vote more natural and limit the
"risk" of negative votes.
Requirements to become a core developer:
* Be nice and respectful
* Long term commitement
* Know the CPython workflow
* Know the CPython lifecycle
* Know the Python C API specific issues, for contributors working on the C code
* Good quality patches
I described these requirements in detail at:
Becoming a core developer involves getting more responsabilities:
* The core developer becomes the "owner" of a merged change: maintain
the code and handle any potential regression
* Review pull requests
* Triage bugs
The newly promoted core developer will followed by a mentor during one
month until they become confortable enough. Obviously, the mentoring
can be extended if needed.
If the result of the promotion vote is negative, it's ok, move back to
the previous step, and retry later. Usually the vote can be retried 6
months later, time spent to address lacking skills (maybe with a
Hum, it seems like the contributor has been promoted: congratulations
and welcome aboard!
More information about the python-committers