Proposal: Reduce the Entropy of TiKV Community Governance

The main discussion happens on tikv/community. Please reply on the issue.

Below is a brief of the proposal.

What is the problem our community meet?

  • Most of our repositories have no clear owners; for example, it is hard to say who has review or commit permission of mur3 by our governance and community information.
  • Special Interest Group benefits domain-specific discussion, but sucks when coupled with governance; for example, it is hard to say a contributor contributing to TiKV security belongs to which SIG. It is to be blamed for that many of our committer level contributors (e.g., @innerr) don’t become committers really.
  • We have no active exit mechanism with which we take down review or commit permission of member abuses. And thus our community is a bit closed to involve new member, and break down members into SIGs even in one repository for limiting permission which sucks.

What is proposed to do?

  • Break down the review and commit permission group into projects, one projects could own one or more repositories.
  • Associate every repository with one and one and only one project.
  • Define the project governance to include explicit exit mechanism, and community governance to build new project.

Details about actions

See on the main discussion.

Where do current things go?

See on the main discussion.