Global Reviewer Request

[evannjw]

Hi,

I'm looking to be added as a reviewer with global reviewer permissions along with @HKSenior. @jloutsenhizer is currently the only member of our org with global reviewer permissions. We also would like members of our partner orgs to become reviewers themselves to streamline the review process. Our partners will be contributing to multiple countries and it would be ideal if they were also global reviewers -- I can provide a list of partners also if it's possible. Let me know if anything needs to be done for this to happen.

Thanks,
Evann

[jloutsenhizer]

@jpmckinney Is there a process around this? I've seen mention about a 2 month waiting period in some other issues.

We'd also like @azuser considered as apart of this as well

[jpmckinney]

Our governance document is https://github.com/opencivicdata/docs.opencivicdata.org/blob/master/proposals/0008.rst (which updates https://github.com/opencivicdata/docs.opencivicdata.org/blob/master/proposals/0002.rst)

Once you've had a chance to read it, you should have a better idea of next steps, but we can work things out in this thread. (It's been a while since I've read it, but as I remember we did a decent job of it.)

[evannjw]

Looking through the governance doc, it pretty clearly outlines the process of becoming a committer for a given country, but I don't see a process for gaining global committer status. This is the only reference to global committer that I could find. https://github.com/opencivicdata/docs.opencivicdata.org/blob/master/proposals/0008.rst#:~:text=A%20small%20subset,unless%20otherwise%20specified.

@jpmckinney Do you have an idea of steps we can take to gain global committer status?

[jpmckinney]

Ah, you're right. Let's start with a list of people: name, organization, GitHub username, and any specific countries or regions if they are not expected to be fully global.

We can then look at past contributions and discuss whether anyone can just be directly added to https://github.com/orgs/opencivicdata/teams/division-id-curators

Otherwise, a person should generally demonstrate that they can prepare good PRs / do good reviews before becoming a maintainer (like in any other project).

That list currently has:

• jamesturk (original owner)
• jloutsenhizer (Google)
• jdmgoogle (was Google)
• rsimoes (Center for Tech and Civic Life)
• djbridges (was Center for Tech and Civic Life, but no longer, so maybe remove) https://www.techandciviclife.org/a-farewell-note-from-ctcl-co-founder-donny-bridges/
• myself

We should probably add a rule about global committers being from different organizations, if it is only global committers reviewing a given PR.

---

We have several owners, which probably also needs to be refreshed: https://github.com/orgs/opencivicdata/people?query=role%3Aowner

• jamesturk (as above)
• djbridges (as above)
• fgregg (DataMade)
• hancush (DataMade)
• mileswwatkins (was Sunlight Foundation)
• paultag (was Sunlight Foundation) https://www.linkedin.com/in/paultag/
• rshorey (was Sunlight Foundation) http://rachelshorey.com
• myself

The people who were formerly from Sunlight and CTCL haven't contributed within at least several years, so I have now removed djbridges, mileswwatkins, paultag, rshorey as this seems fairly uncontroversial.

We can maybe have rules about:

• Contributing (issues, reviews, commits) within 2 years
• If organizational affiliation changes, expressing continued interest in the project

Otherwise, access is revoked.

The key thing about owners is ensuring there are always at least two who are responsive to email/notifications in case some owner-only action needs to be taken.

[jloutsenhizer]

Thanks for doing this review of this. An update, @jdmgoogle is no longer affiliated with Google. I don't know whether or not he wants to continue participating in PRs/reviews.

My interpretation of this rule form the genreal contribution process:

No two members of the same organization may be involved in the acceptance of a pull request.`

Indicates to me that a second review/approver from another organization is required. Or were you thinking of something different for an additional rule?

Also for the purpose of keeping mapping of people to organizations straight. @evannjw @HKSenior and @azuser are all affiliated with Google.

[evannjw]

Can we start the list with @evannjw, @HKSenior, and @azuser? All affiliated with Google and all looking to get global permissions. @azuser do you know the github usernames partners would want to get reviewer permissions for?

[jpmckinney]

Indicates to me that a second review/approver from another organization is required. Or were you thinking of something different for an additional rule?

Ah, thanks - I couldn't find that rule when browsing quickly, but that's all I meant.

---

Outside me and jloutsenhizer, the other global committers aren't active (jamesturk and rsimoes). Typically I would recommend some sort of broad consensus, but that is likely to drag this out, so we'll just go with jloutsenhizer's nominations and my agreement. Once we get partners involved, the process can be a bit more robust.

• azuser opened many PRs, most of which have no/limited suggested changes, so added
• hksenior reviewed many PRs, including suggested changes after which I had no further suggestions, so added
• @evannjw: your commits aren't merged yet, and your PR reviews haven't involved many suggested changes yet, so in terms of governance I would typically wait a bit longer, but this is not a strong opinion

[jloutsenhizer]

Did the addition of @HKSenior to the reviewers list go through? I was going through some PRs to assign reviews and noticed I could assign @azuser, but github wouldn't let me assign @HKSenior

[jpmckinney]

@HKSenior didn't accept the invitation. I've sent a new one.

[HKSenior]

Apologies, my emails were misconfigured. I accepted the invite, thanks @jpmckinney.