| ## Introduction |
| |
| Dear maintainer. Thank you for investing the time and energy to help |
| make runc as useful as possible. Maintaining a project is difficult, |
| sometimes unrewarding work. Sure, you will get to contribute cool |
| features to the project. But most of your time will be spent reviewing, |
| cleaning up, documenting, answering questions, justifying design |
| decisions - while everyone has all the fun! But remember - the quality |
| of the maintainers work is what distinguishes the good projects from the |
| great. So please be proud of your work, even the unglamourous parts, |
| and encourage a culture of appreciation and respect for *every* aspect |
| of improving the project - not just the hot new features. |
| |
| This document is a manual for maintainers old and new. It explains what |
| is expected of maintainers, how they should work, and what tools are |
| available to them. |
| |
| This is a living document - if you see something out of date or missing, |
| speak up! |
| |
| ## What are a maintainer's responsibility? |
| |
| It is every maintainer's responsibility to: |
| |
| * 1) Expose a clear roadmap for improving their component. |
| * 2) Deliver prompt feedback and decisions on pull requests. |
| * 3) Be available to anyone with questions, bug reports, criticism etc. |
| on their component. This includes IRC and GitHub issues and pull requests. |
| * 4) Make sure their component respects the philosophy, design and |
| roadmap of the project. |
| |
| ## How are decisions made? |
| |
| Short answer: with pull requests to the runc repository. |
| |
| runc is an open-source project with an open design philosophy. This |
| means that the repository is the source of truth for EVERY aspect of the |
| project, including its philosophy, design, roadmap and APIs. *If it's |
| part of the project, it's in the repo. It's in the repo, it's part of |
| the project.* |
| |
| As a result, all decisions can be expressed as changes to the |
| repository. An implementation change is a change to the source code. An |
| API change is a change to the API specification. A philosophy change is |
| a change to the philosophy manifesto. And so on. |
| |
| All decisions affecting runc, big and small, follow the same 3 steps: |
| |
| * Step 1: Open a pull request. Anyone can do this. |
| |
| * Step 2: Discuss the pull request. Anyone can do this. |
| |
| * Step 3: Accept (`LGTM`) or refuse a pull request. The relevant maintainers do |
| this (see below "Who decides what?") |
| |
| ### I'm a maintainer, should I make pull requests too? |
| |
| Yes. Nobody should ever push to master directly. All changes should be |
| made through a pull request. |
| |
| ## Who decides what? |
| |
| All decisions are pull requests, and the relevant maintainers make |
| decisions by accepting or refusing the pull request. Review and acceptance |
| by anyone is denoted by adding a comment in the pull request: `LGTM`. |
| However, only currently listed `MAINTAINERS` are counted towards the required |
| two LGTMs. |
| |
| Overall the maintainer system works because of mutual respect across the |
| maintainers of the project. The maintainers trust one another to make decisions |
| in the best interests of the project. Sometimes maintainers can disagree and |
| this is part of a healthy project to represent the point of views of various people. |
| In the case where maintainers cannot find agreement on a specific change the |
| role of a Chief Maintainer comes into play. |
| |
| The Chief Maintainer for the project is responsible for overall architecture |
| of the project to maintain conceptual integrity. Large decisions and |
| architecture changes should be reviewed by the chief maintainer. |
| The current chief maintainer for the project is Michael Crosby (@crosbymichael). |
| |
| Even though the maintainer system is built on trust, if there is a conflict |
| with the chief maintainer on a decision, their decision can be challenged |
| and brought to the technical oversight board if two-thirds of the |
| maintainers vote for an appeal. It is expected that this would be a |
| very exceptional event. |
| |
| |
| ### How are maintainers added? |
| |
| The best maintainers have a vested interest in the project. Maintainers |
| are first and foremost contributors that have shown they are committed to |
| the long term success of the project. Contributors wanting to become |
| maintainers are expected to be deeply involved in contributing code, |
| pull request review, and triage of issues in the project for more than two months. |
| |
| Just contributing does not make you a maintainer, it is about building trust |
| with the current maintainers of the project and being a person that they can |
| depend on and trust to make decisions in the best interest of the project. The |
| final vote to add a new maintainer should be approved by over 66% of the current |
| maintainers with the chief maintainer having veto power. In case of a veto, |
| conflict resolution rules expressed above apply. The voting period is |
| five business days on the Pull Request to add the new maintainer. |
| |
| |
| ### What is expected of maintainers? |
| |
| Part of a healthy project is to have active maintainers to support the community |
| in contributions and perform tasks to keep the project running. Maintainers are |
| expected to be able to respond in a timely manner if their help is required on specific |
| issues where they are pinged. Being a maintainer is a time consuming commitment and should |
| not be taken lightly. |
| |
| When a maintainer is unable to perform the required duties they can be removed with |
| a vote by 66% of the current maintainers with the chief maintainer having veto power. |
| The voting period is ten business days. Issues related to a maintainer's performance should |
| be discussed with them among the other maintainers so that they are not surprised by |
| a pull request removing them. |
| |
| |
| |