587 lines
18 KiB
Text
587 lines
18 KiB
Text
# Docker maintainers file
|
|
#
|
|
# This file describes who runs the Docker project and how.
|
|
# This is a living document - if you see something out of date or missing,
|
|
# speak up!
|
|
#
|
|
# It is structured to be consumable by both humans and programs.
|
|
# To extract its contents programmatically, use any TOML-compliant
|
|
# parser.
|
|
|
|
[Rules]
|
|
|
|
[Rules.maintainers]
|
|
|
|
title = "What is a maintainer?"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
There are different types of maintainers, with different responsibilities, but
|
|
all maintainers have 3 things in common:
|
|
|
|
1) They share responsibility in the project's success.
|
|
2) They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the project.
|
|
3) They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what
|
|
is the most interesting or fun.
|
|
|
|
Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to appreciate.
|
|
It's easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced feature. It's harder
|
|
to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady improvement in stability,
|
|
or the reliability of a release process. But those things distinguish a good
|
|
project from a great one.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.bdfl]
|
|
|
|
title = "The Benevolent dictator for life (BDFL)"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
Docker follows the timeless, highly efficient and totally unfair system
|
|
known as [Benevolent dictator for
|
|
life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_for_Life), with
|
|
yours truly, Solomon Hykes, in the role of BDFL. This means that all
|
|
decisions are made, by default, by Solomon. Since making every decision
|
|
myself would be highly un-scalable, in practice decisions are spread
|
|
across multiple maintainers.
|
|
|
|
Ideally, the BDFL role is like the Queen of England: awesome crown, but not
|
|
an actual operational role day-to-day. The real job of a BDFL is to NEVER GO AWAY.
|
|
Every other rule can change, perhaps drastically so, but the BDFL will always
|
|
be there, preserving the philosophy and principles of the project, and keeping
|
|
ultimate authority over its fate. This gives us great flexibility in experimenting
|
|
with various governance models, knowing that we can always press the "reset" button
|
|
without fear of fragmentation or deadlock. See the US congress for a counter-example.
|
|
|
|
BDFL daily routine:
|
|
|
|
* Is the project governance stuck in a deadlock or irreversibly fragmented?
|
|
* If yes: refactor the project governance
|
|
* Are there issues or conflicts escalated by core?
|
|
* If yes: resolve them
|
|
* Go back to polishing that crown.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.decisions]
|
|
|
|
title = "How are decisions made?"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
Short answer: EVERYTHING IS A PULL REQUEST.
|
|
|
|
Docker 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, road map, and APIs. *If it's
|
|
part of the project, it's in the repo. If 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 Docker, 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: Merge or refuse the pull request. Who does this depends on the nature
|
|
of the pull request and which areas of the project it affects. See *review flow*
|
|
for details.
|
|
|
|
Because Docker is such a large and active project, it's important for everyone to know
|
|
who is responsible for deciding what. That is determined by a precise set of rules.
|
|
|
|
* For every *decision* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way,
|
|
who should *decide*.
|
|
|
|
* For every *problem* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way,
|
|
who should be responsible for *fixing* it.
|
|
|
|
* For every *question* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way,
|
|
who should be expected to have the *answer*.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.review]
|
|
|
|
title = "Review flow"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
Pull requests should be processed according to the following flow:
|
|
|
|
* For each subsystem affected by the change, the maintainers of the subsystem must approve or refuse it.
|
|
It is the responsibility of the subsystem maintainers to process patches affecting them in a timely
|
|
manner.
|
|
|
|
* If the change affects areas of the code which are not part of a subsystem,
|
|
or if subsystem maintainers are unable to reach a timely decision, it must be approved by
|
|
the core maintainers.
|
|
|
|
* If the change affects the UI or public APIs, or if it represents a major change in architecture,
|
|
the architects must approve or refuse it.
|
|
|
|
* If the change affects the operations of the project, it must be approved or rejected by
|
|
the relevant operators.
|
|
|
|
* If the change affects the governance, philosophy, goals or principles of the project,
|
|
it must be approved by BDFL.
|
|
|
|
* A pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding label
|
|
that needs to be applied. `Rules.review.states` contains the list of states with possible targets
|
|
for each.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
# Triage
|
|
[Rules.review.states.nolabel]
|
|
|
|
# Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by adding
|
|
# the correct labels (e.g. `1-design-review`) potentially skipping some steps
|
|
# depending on the kind of pull request. Use common sense for judging.
|
|
#
|
|
# Checking for DCO should be done at this stage.
|
|
#
|
|
# If an owner, responsible for closing or merging, can be assigned to the PR,
|
|
# the better.
|
|
|
|
close = "unresponsive contributor without DCO"
|
|
3-docs-review = "Non-proposal documentation-only change"
|
|
2-code-review = "trivial bugfix"
|
|
1-design-review = "general case"
|
|
|
|
# Design review
|
|
[Rules.review.states.1-design-review]
|
|
|
|
# Maintainers are expected to comment on the design of the pull request.
|
|
# Review of documentation is expected only in the context of design validation,
|
|
# not for stylistic changes.
|
|
#
|
|
# Ideally, documentation should reflect the expected behavior of the code.
|
|
# No code review should take place in this step.
|
|
#
|
|
# Once design is approved, this label should be removed and the next label
|
|
# added.
|
|
|
|
close = "design rejected"
|
|
3-docs-review = "proposals with only documentation changes"
|
|
2-code-review = "general case"
|
|
|
|
# Code review
|
|
[Rules.review.states.2-code-review]
|
|
|
|
# Maintainers are expected to review the code and ensure that it is good
|
|
# quality and in accordance with the documentation.
|
|
#
|
|
# If documentation is absent but expected, maintainers should ask for documentation.
|
|
#
|
|
# All tests should pass.
|
|
#
|
|
# Once code is approved according to the rules of the subsystem, this label
|
|
# should be removed and the next label added.
|
|
|
|
close = ""
|
|
1-design-review = "raises design concerns"
|
|
4-merge = "trivial change not impacting documentation"
|
|
3-docs-review = "general case"
|
|
|
|
# Docs review
|
|
[Rules.review.states.3-docs-review]
|
|
|
|
# Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context,
|
|
# ensuring consistency throughout the entire documentation. They should ask
|
|
# for any editorial change that makes the documentation more consistent and
|
|
# easier to understand.
|
|
#
|
|
# Once documentation is approved, this label should be removed and the next
|
|
# label added.
|
|
|
|
close = ""
|
|
2-code-review = "requires more code changes"
|
|
1-design-review = "raises design concerns"
|
|
4-merge = "general case"
|
|
|
|
# Merge
|
|
[Rules.review.states.4-merge]
|
|
|
|
# Maintainers are expected to merge this pull request as soon as possible.
|
|
# They can ask for a rebase, or carry the pull request themselves.
|
|
# These should be the easy PRs to merge.
|
|
|
|
close = "carry PR"
|
|
merge = ""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.DCO]
|
|
|
|
title = "Helping contributors with the DCO"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
The [DCO or `Sign your work`](
|
|
https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work)
|
|
requirement is not intended as a roadblock or speed bump.
|
|
|
|
Some Docker contributors are not as familiar with `git`, or have used a web based
|
|
editor, and thus asking them to `git commit --amend -s` is not the best way forward.
|
|
|
|
In this case, maintainers can update the commits based on clause (c) of the DCO. The
|
|
most trivial way for a contributor to allow the maintainer to do this, is to add
|
|
a DCO signature in a Pull Requests's comment, or a maintainer can simply note that
|
|
the change is sufficiently trivial that it does not substantivly change the existing
|
|
contribution - i.e., a spelling change.
|
|
|
|
When you add someone's DCO, please also add your own to keep a log.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.holiday]
|
|
|
|
title = "I'm a maintainer, and I'm going on holiday"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
Please let your co-maintainers and other contributors know by raising a pull
|
|
request that comments out your `MAINTAINERS` file entry using a `#`.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules."no direct push"]
|
|
|
|
title = "I'm a maintainer. Should I make pull requests too?"
|
|
|
|
text = """
|
|
Yes. Nobody should ever push to master directly. All changes should be
|
|
made through a pull request.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
[Rules.meta]
|
|
|
|
title = "How is this process changed?"
|
|
|
|
text = "Just like everything else: by making a pull request :)"
|
|
|
|
# Current project organization
|
|
[Org]
|
|
|
|
bdfl = "shykes"
|
|
|
|
# The chief architect is responsible for the overall integrity of the technical architecture
|
|
# across all subsystems, and the consistency of APIs and UI.
|
|
#
|
|
# Changes to UI, public APIs and overall architecture (for example a plugin system) must
|
|
# be approved by the chief architect.
|
|
"Chief Architect" = "shykes"
|
|
|
|
# The Chief Operator is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the project including:
|
|
# - facilitating communications amongst all the contributors;
|
|
# - tracking release schedules;
|
|
# - managing the relationship with downstream distributions and upstream dependencies;
|
|
# - helping new contributors to get involved and become successful contributors and maintainers
|
|
#
|
|
# The role is also responsible for managing and measuring the success of the overall project
|
|
# and ensuring it is governed properly working in concert with the Docker Governance Advisory Board (DGAB).
|
|
"Chief Operator" = "spf13"
|
|
|
|
[Org.Operators]
|
|
|
|
# The operators make sure the trains run on time. They are responsible for overall operations
|
|
# of the project. This includes facilitating communication between all the participants; helping
|
|
# newcomers get involved and become successful contributors and maintainers; tracking the schedule
|
|
# of releases; managing the relationship with downstream distributions and upstream dependencies;
|
|
# define measures of success for the project and measure progress; Devise and implement tools and
|
|
# processes which make contributors and maintainers happier and more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Org.Operators.security]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"erw"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Operators."monthly meetings"]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"sven",
|
|
"tianon"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Operators.infrastructure]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"jfrazelle",
|
|
"crosbymichael"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
# The chief maintainer is responsible for all aspects of quality for the project including
|
|
# code reviews, usability, stability, security, performance, etc.
|
|
# The most important function of the chief maintainer is to lead by example. On the first
|
|
# day of a new maintainer, the best advice should be "follow the C.M.'s example and you'll
|
|
# be fine".
|
|
"Chief Maintainer" = "crosbymichael"
|
|
|
|
[Org."Core maintainers"]
|
|
|
|
# The Core maintainers are the ghostbusters of the project: when there's a problem others
|
|
# can't solve, they show up and fix it with bizarre devices and weaponry.
|
|
# They have final say on technical implementation and coding style.
|
|
# They are ultimately responsible for quality in all its forms: usability polish,
|
|
# bugfixes, performance, stability, etc. When ownership can cleanly be passed to
|
|
# a subsystem, they are responsible for doing so and holding the
|
|
# subsystem maintainers accountable. If ownership is unclear, they are the de facto owners.
|
|
|
|
# For each release (including minor releases), a "release captain" is assigned from the
|
|
# pool of core maintainers. Rotation is encouraged across all maintainers, to ensure
|
|
# the release process is clear and up-to-date.
|
|
#
|
|
# It is common for core maintainers to "branch out" to join or start a subsystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"unclejack",
|
|
"crosbymichael",
|
|
"erikh",
|
|
"icecrime",
|
|
"jfrazelle",
|
|
"lk4d4",
|
|
"tibor",
|
|
"vbatts",
|
|
"vieux",
|
|
"vish"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystems]
|
|
|
|
# As the project grows, it gets separated into well-defined subsystems. Each subsystem
|
|
# has a dedicated group of maintainers, which are dedicated to that subsytem and responsible
|
|
# for its quality.
|
|
# This "cellular division" is the primary mechanism for scaling maintenance of the project as it grows.
|
|
#
|
|
# The maintainers of each subsytem are responsible for:
|
|
#
|
|
# 1. Exposing a clear road map for improving their subsystem.
|
|
# 2. Deliver prompt feedback and decisions on pull requests affecting their subsystem.
|
|
# 3. Be available to anyone with questions, bug reports, criticism etc.
|
|
# on their component. This includes IRC, GitHub requests and the mailing
|
|
# list.
|
|
# 4. Make sure their subsystem respects the philosophy, design and
|
|
# road map of the project.
|
|
#
|
|
# #### How to review patches to your subsystem
|
|
#
|
|
# Accepting pull requests:
|
|
#
|
|
# - If the pull request appears to be ready to merge, give it a `LGTM`, which
|
|
# stands for "Looks Good To Me".
|
|
# - If the pull request has some small problems that need to be changed, make
|
|
# a comment adressing the issues.
|
|
# - If the changes needed to a PR are small, you can add a "LGTM once the
|
|
# following comments are adressed..." this will reduce needless back and
|
|
# forth.
|
|
# - If the PR only needs a few changes before being merged, any MAINTAINER can
|
|
# make a replacement PR that incorporates the existing commits and fixes the
|
|
# problems before a fast track merge.
|
|
#
|
|
# Closing pull requests:
|
|
#
|
|
# - If a PR appears to be abandoned, after having attempted to contact the
|
|
# original contributor, then a replacement PR may be made. Once the
|
|
# replacement PR is made, any contributor may close the original one.
|
|
# - If you are not sure if the pull request implements a good feature or you
|
|
# do not understand the purpose of the PR, ask the contributor to provide
|
|
# more documentation. If the contributor is not able to adequately explain
|
|
# the purpose of the PR, the PR may be closed by any MAINTAINER.
|
|
# - If a MAINTAINER feels that the pull request is sufficiently architecturally
|
|
# flawed, or if the pull request needs significantly more design discussion
|
|
# before being considered, the MAINTAINER should close the pull request with
|
|
# a short explanation of what discussion still needs to be had. It is
|
|
# important not to leave such pull requests open, as this will waste both the
|
|
# MAINTAINER's time and the contributor's time. It is not good to string a
|
|
# contributor on for weeks or months, having them make many changes to a PR
|
|
# that will eventually be rejected.
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystems.Documentation]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"fredlf",
|
|
"james",
|
|
"sven",
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystems.libcontainer]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"crosbymichael",
|
|
"vmarmol",
|
|
"mpatel",
|
|
"jnagal",
|
|
"lk4d4"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystems.registry]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"dmp42",
|
|
"vbatts",
|
|
"joffrey",
|
|
"samalba"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystems."build tools"]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"shykes",
|
|
"tianon"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystem."remote api"]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"vieux"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystem.swarm]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"aluzzardi",
|
|
"vieux"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystem.machine]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"bfirsh",
|
|
"ehazlett"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystem.compose]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"aanand"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
[Org.Subsystem.builder]
|
|
|
|
people = [
|
|
"erikh",
|
|
"tibor",
|
|
"duglin"
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
[people]
|
|
|
|
# A reference list of all people associated with the project.
|
|
# All other sections should refer to people by their canonical key
|
|
# in the people section.
|
|
|
|
# ADD YOURSELF HERE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER
|
|
|
|
[people.aanand]
|
|
Name = "Aanand Prasad"
|
|
Email = "aanand@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "aanand"
|
|
|
|
[people.aluzzardi]
|
|
Name = "Andrea Luzzardi"
|
|
Email = "aluzzardi@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "aluzzardi"
|
|
|
|
[people.bfirsh]
|
|
Name = "Ben Firshman"
|
|
Email = "ben@firshman.co.uk"
|
|
GitHub = "bfirsh"
|
|
|
|
[people.crosbymichael]
|
|
Name = "Michael Crosby"
|
|
Email = "crosbymichael@gmail.com"
|
|
GitHub = "crosbymichael"
|
|
|
|
[people.duglin]
|
|
Name = "Doug Davis"
|
|
Email = "dug@us.ibm.com"
|
|
GitHub = "duglin"
|
|
|
|
[people.ehazlett]
|
|
Name = "Evan Hazlett"
|
|
Email = "ejhazlett@gmail.com"
|
|
GitHub = "ehazlett"
|
|
|
|
[people.erikh]
|
|
Name = "Erik Hollensbe"
|
|
Email = "erik@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "erikh"
|
|
|
|
[people.erw]
|
|
Name = "Eric Windisch"
|
|
Email = "eric@windisch.us"
|
|
GitHub = "ewindisch"
|
|
|
|
[people.icecrime]
|
|
Name = "Arnaud Porterie"
|
|
Email = "arnaud@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "icecrime"
|
|
|
|
[people.jfrazelle]
|
|
Name = "Jessie Frazelle"
|
|
Email = "jess@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "jfrazelle"
|
|
|
|
[people.lk4d4]
|
|
Name = "Alexander Morozov"
|
|
Email = "lk4d4@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "lk4d4"
|
|
|
|
[people.shykes]
|
|
Name = "Solomon Hykes"
|
|
Email = "solomon@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "shykes"
|
|
|
|
[people.spf13]
|
|
Name = "Steve Francia"
|
|
Email = "steve.francia@gmail.com"
|
|
GitHub = "spf13"
|
|
|
|
[people.sven]
|
|
Name = "Sven Dowideit"
|
|
Email = "SvenDowideit@home.org.au"
|
|
GitHub = "SvenDowideit"
|
|
|
|
[people.tianon]
|
|
Name = "Tianon Gravi"
|
|
Email = "admwiggin@gmail.com"
|
|
GitHub = "tianon"
|
|
|
|
[people.tibor]
|
|
Name = "Tibor Vass"
|
|
Email = "tibor@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "tiborvass"
|
|
|
|
[people.vbatts]
|
|
Name = "Vincent Batts"
|
|
Email = "vbatts@redhat.com"
|
|
GitHub = "vbatts"
|
|
|
|
[people.vieux]
|
|
Name = "Victor Vieux"
|
|
Email = "vieux@docker.com"
|
|
GitHub = "vieux"
|
|
|
|
[people.vmarmol]
|
|
Name = "Victor Marmol"
|
|
Email = "vmarmol@google.com"
|
|
GitHub = "vmarmol"
|
|
|
|
[people.jnagal]
|
|
Name = "Rohit Jnagal"
|
|
Email = "jnagal@google.com"
|
|
GitHub = "rjnagal"
|
|
|
|
[people.mpatel]
|
|
Name = "Mrunal Patel"
|
|
Email = "mpatel@redhat.com"
|
|
GitHub = "mrunalp"
|
|
|
|
[people.unclejack]
|
|
Name = "Cristian Staretu"
|
|
Email = "cristian.staretu@gmail.com"
|
|
GitHub = "unclejack"
|
|
|
|
[people.vish]
|
|
Name = "Vishnu Kannan"
|
|
Email = "vishnuk@google.com"
|
|
GitHub = "vishh"
|