github.com/wlan0/docker@v1.5.0/MAINTAINERS (about) 1 # Docker maintainers file 2 # 3 # This file describes who runs the Docker project and how. 4 # This is a living document - if you see something out of date or missing, 5 # speak up! 6 # 7 # It is structured to be consumable by both humans and programs. 8 # To extract its contents programmatically, use any TOML-compliant 9 # parser. 10 11 [Rules] 12 13 [Rules.maintainers] 14 15 title = "What is a maintainer?" 16 17 text = """ 18 There are different types of maintainers, with different responsibilities, but 19 all maintainers have 3 things in common: 20 21 1) They share responsibility in the project's success. 22 2) They have made a long-term, recurring time investment to improve the project. 23 3) They spend that time doing whatever needs to be done, not necessarily what 24 is the most interesting or fun. 25 26 Maintainers are often under-appreciated, because their work is harder to appreciate. 27 It's easy to appreciate a really cool and technically advanced feature. It's harder 28 to appreciate the absence of bugs, the slow but steady improvement in stability, 29 or the reliability of a release process. But those things distinguish a good 30 project from a great one. 31 """ 32 33 [Rules.bdfl] 34 35 title = "The Benevolent dictator for life (BDFL)" 36 37 text = """ 38 Docker follows the timeless, highly efficient and totally unfair system 39 known as [Benevolent dictator for 40 life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_for_Life), with 41 yours truly, Solomon Hykes, in the role of BDFL. This means that all 42 decisions are made, by default, by Solomon. Since making every decision 43 myself would be highly un-scalable, in practice decisions are spread 44 across multiple maintainers. 45 46 Ideally, the BDFL role is like the Queen of England: awesome crown, but not 47 an actual operational role day-to-day. The real job of a BDFL is to NEVER GO AWAY. 48 Every other rule can change, perhaps drastically so, but the BDFL will always 49 be there, preserving the philosophy and principles of the project, and keeping 50 ultimate authority over its fate. This gives us great flexibility in experimenting 51 with various governance models, knowing that we can always press the "reset" button 52 without fear of fragmentation or deadlock. See the US congress for a counter-example. 53 54 BDFL daily routine: 55 56 * Is the project governance stuck in a deadlock or irreversibly fragmented? 57 * If yes: refactor the project governance 58 * Are there issues or conflicts escalated by core? 59 * If yes: resolve them 60 * Go back to polishing that crown. 61 """ 62 63 [Rules.decisions] 64 65 title = "How are decisions made?" 66 67 text = """ 68 Short answer: EVERYTHING IS A PULL REQUEST. 69 70 Docker is an open-source project with an open design philosophy. This 71 means that the repository is the source of truth for EVERY aspect of the 72 project, including its philosophy, design, road map, and APIs. *If it's 73 part of the project, it's in the repo. If it's in the repo, it's part of 74 the project.* 75 76 As a result, all decisions can be expressed as changes to the 77 repository. An implementation change is a change to the source code. An 78 API change is a change to the API specification. A philosophy change is 79 a change to the philosophy manifesto, and so on. 80 81 All decisions affecting Docker, big and small, follow the same 3 steps: 82 83 * Step 1: Open a pull request. Anyone can do this. 84 85 * Step 2: Discuss the pull request. Anyone can do this. 86 87 * Step 3: Merge or refuse the pull request. Who does this depends on the nature 88 of the pull request and which areas of the project it affects. See *review flow* 89 for details. 90 91 Because Docker is such a large and active project, it's important for everyone to know 92 who is responsible for deciding what. That is determined by a precise set of rules. 93 94 * For every *decision* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way, 95 who should *decide*. 96 97 * For every *problem* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way, 98 who should be responsible for *fixing* it. 99 100 * For every *question* in the project, the rules should designate, in a deterministic way, 101 who should be expected to have the *answer*. 102 """ 103 104 [Rules.review] 105 106 title = "Review flow" 107 108 text = """ 109 Pull requests should be processed according to the following flow: 110 111 * For each subsystem affected by the change, the maintainers of the subsystem must approve or refuse it. 112 It is the responsibility of the subsystem maintainers to process patches affecting them in a timely 113 manner. 114 115 * If the change affects areas of the code which are not part of a subsystem, 116 or if subsystem maintainers are unable to reach a timely decision, it must be approved by 117 the core maintainers. 118 119 * If the change affects the UI or public APIs, or if it represents a major change in architecture, 120 the architects must approve or refuse it. 121 122 * If the change affects the operations of the project, it must be approved or rejected by 123 the relevant operators. 124 125 * If the change affects the governance, philosophy, goals or principles of the project, 126 it must be approved by BDFL. 127 128 * A pull request can be in 1 of 5 distinct states, for each of which there is a corresponding label 129 that needs to be applied. `Rules.review.states` contains the list of states with possible targets 130 for each. 131 """ 132 133 # Triage 134 [Rules.review.states.0-triage] 135 136 # Maintainers are expected to triage new incoming pull requests by removing 137 # the `0-triage` label and adding the correct labels (e.g. `1-design-review`) 138 # potentially skipping some steps depending on the kind of pull request. 139 # Use common sense for judging. 140 # 141 # Checking for DCO should be done at this stage. 142 # 143 # If an owner, responsible for closing or merging, can be assigned to the PR, 144 # the better. 145 146 close = "e.g. unresponsive contributor without DCO" 147 3-docs-review = "non-proposal documentation-only change" 148 2-code-review = "e.g. trivial bugfix" 149 1-design-review = "general case" 150 151 # Design review 152 [Rules.review.states.1-design-review] 153 154 # Maintainers are expected to comment on the design of the pull request. 155 # Review of documentation is expected only in the context of design validation, 156 # not for stylistic changes. 157 # 158 # Ideally, documentation should reflect the expected behavior of the code. 159 # No code review should take place in this step. 160 # 161 # Once design is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this label 162 # and add the next one. 163 164 close = "design rejected" 165 3-docs-review = "proposals with only documentation changes" 166 2-code-review = "general case" 167 168 # Code review 169 [Rules.review.states.2-code-review] 170 171 # Maintainers are expected to review the code and ensure that it is good 172 # quality and in accordance with the documentation in the PR. 173 # 174 # If documentation is absent but expected, maintainers should ask for documentation. 175 # 176 # All tests should pass. 177 # 178 # Once code is approved according to the rules of the subsystem, a maintainer 179 # should make sure to remove this label and add the next one. 180 181 close = "" 182 1-design-review = "raises design concerns" 183 4-merge = "trivial change not impacting documentation" 184 3-docs-review = "general case" 185 186 # Docs review 187 [Rules.review.states.3-docs-review] 188 189 # Maintainers are expected to review the documentation in its bigger context, 190 # ensuring consistency, completeness, validity, and breadth of coverage across 191 # all extent and new documentation. 192 # 193 # They should ask for any editorial change that makes the documentation more 194 # consistent and easier to understand. 195 # 196 # Once documentation is approved, a maintainer should make sure to remove this 197 # label and add the next one. 198 199 close = "" 200 2-code-review = "requires more code changes" 201 1-design-review = "raises design concerns" 202 4-merge = "general case" 203 204 # Merge 205 [Rules.review.states.4-merge] 206 207 # Maintainers are expected to merge this pull request as soon as possible. 208 # They can ask for a rebase, or carry the pull request themselves. 209 # These should be the easy PRs to merge. 210 211 close = "carry PR" 212 merge = "" 213 214 [Rules.DCO] 215 216 title = "Helping contributors with the DCO" 217 218 text = """ 219 The [DCO or `Sign your work`]( 220 https://github.com/docker/docker/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work) 221 requirement is not intended as a roadblock or speed bump. 222 223 Some Docker contributors are not as familiar with `git`, or have used a web based 224 editor, and thus asking them to `git commit --amend -s` is not the best way forward. 225 226 In this case, maintainers can update the commits based on clause (c) of the DCO. The 227 most trivial way for a contributor to allow the maintainer to do this, is to add 228 a DCO signature in a Pull Requests's comment, or a maintainer can simply note that 229 the change is sufficiently trivial that it does not substantivly change the existing 230 contribution - i.e., a spelling change. 231 232 When you add someone's DCO, please also add your own to keep a log. 233 """ 234 235 [Rules.holiday] 236 237 title = "I'm a maintainer, and I'm going on holiday" 238 239 text = """ 240 Please let your co-maintainers and other contributors know by raising a pull 241 request that comments out your `MAINTAINERS` file entry using a `#`. 242 """ 243 244 [Rules."no direct push"] 245 246 title = "I'm a maintainer. Should I make pull requests too?" 247 248 text = """ 249 Yes. Nobody should ever push to master directly. All changes should be 250 made through a pull request. 251 """ 252 253 [Rules.meta] 254 255 title = "How is this process changed?" 256 257 text = "Just like everything else: by making a pull request :)" 258 259 # Current project organization 260 [Org] 261 262 bdfl = "shykes" 263 264 # The chief architect is responsible for the overall integrity of the technical architecture 265 # across all subsystems, and the consistency of APIs and UI. 266 # 267 # Changes to UI, public APIs and overall architecture (for example a plugin system) must 268 # be approved by the chief architect. 269 "Chief Architect" = "shykes" 270 271 # The Chief Operator is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the project including: 272 # - facilitating communications amongst all the contributors; 273 # - tracking release schedules; 274 # - managing the relationship with downstream distributions and upstream dependencies; 275 # - helping new contributors to get involved and become successful contributors and maintainers 276 # 277 # The role is also responsible for managing and measuring the success of the overall project 278 # and ensuring it is governed properly working in concert with the Docker Governance Advisory Board (DGAB). 279 "Chief Operator" = "spf13" 280 281 [Org.Operators] 282 283 # The operators make sure the trains run on time. They are responsible for overall operations 284 # of the project. This includes facilitating communication between all the participants; helping 285 # newcomers get involved and become successful contributors and maintainers; tracking the schedule 286 # of releases; managing the relationship with downstream distributions and upstream dependencies; 287 # define measures of success for the project and measure progress; Devise and implement tools and 288 # processes which make contributors and maintainers happier and more efficient. 289 290 291 [Org.Operators.security] 292 293 people = [ 294 "erw" 295 ] 296 297 [Org.Operators."monthly meetings"] 298 299 people = [ 300 "sven", 301 "tianon" 302 ] 303 304 [Org.Operators.infrastructure] 305 306 people = [ 307 "jfrazelle", 308 "crosbymichael" 309 ] 310 311 # The chief maintainer is responsible for all aspects of quality for the project including 312 # code reviews, usability, stability, security, performance, etc. 313 # The most important function of the chief maintainer is to lead by example. On the first 314 # day of a new maintainer, the best advice should be "follow the C.M.'s example and you'll 315 # be fine". 316 "Chief Maintainer" = "crosbymichael" 317 318 [Org."Core maintainers"] 319 320 # The Core maintainers are the ghostbusters of the project: when there's a problem others 321 # can't solve, they show up and fix it with bizarre devices and weaponry. 322 # They have final say on technical implementation and coding style. 323 # They are ultimately responsible for quality in all its forms: usability polish, 324 # bugfixes, performance, stability, etc. When ownership can cleanly be passed to 325 # a subsystem, they are responsible for doing so and holding the 326 # subsystem maintainers accountable. If ownership is unclear, they are the de facto owners. 327 328 # For each release (including minor releases), a "release captain" is assigned from the 329 # pool of core maintainers. Rotation is encouraged across all maintainers, to ensure 330 # the release process is clear and up-to-date. 331 # 332 # It is common for core maintainers to "branch out" to join or start a subsystem. 333 334 335 336 people = [ 337 "unclejack", 338 "crosbymichael", 339 "erikh", 340 "icecrime", 341 "jfrazelle", 342 "lk4d4", 343 "tibor", 344 "vbatts", 345 "vieux", 346 "vish" 347 ] 348 349 350 [Org.Subsystems] 351 352 # As the project grows, it gets separated into well-defined subsystems. Each subsystem 353 # has a dedicated group of maintainers, which are dedicated to that subsytem and responsible 354 # for its quality. 355 # This "cellular division" is the primary mechanism for scaling maintenance of the project as it grows. 356 # 357 # The maintainers of each subsytem are responsible for: 358 # 359 # 1. Exposing a clear road map for improving their subsystem. 360 # 2. Deliver prompt feedback and decisions on pull requests affecting their subsystem. 361 # 3. Be available to anyone with questions, bug reports, criticism etc. 362 # on their component. This includes IRC, GitHub requests and the mailing 363 # list. 364 # 4. Make sure their subsystem respects the philosophy, design and 365 # road map of the project. 366 # 367 # #### How to review patches to your subsystem 368 # 369 # Accepting pull requests: 370 # 371 # - If the pull request appears to be ready to merge, give it a `LGTM`, which 372 # stands for "Looks Good To Me". 373 # - If the pull request has some small problems that need to be changed, make 374 # a comment adressing the issues. 375 # - If the changes needed to a PR are small, you can add a "LGTM once the 376 # following comments are adressed..." this will reduce needless back and 377 # forth. 378 # - If the PR only needs a few changes before being merged, any MAINTAINER can 379 # make a replacement PR that incorporates the existing commits and fixes the 380 # problems before a fast track merge. 381 # 382 # Closing pull requests: 383 # 384 # - If a PR appears to be abandoned, after having attempted to contact the 385 # original contributor, then a replacement PR may be made. Once the 386 # replacement PR is made, any contributor may close the original one. 387 # - If you are not sure if the pull request implements a good feature or you 388 # do not understand the purpose of the PR, ask the contributor to provide 389 # more documentation. If the contributor is not able to adequately explain 390 # the purpose of the PR, the PR may be closed by any MAINTAINER. 391 # - If a MAINTAINER feels that the pull request is sufficiently architecturally 392 # flawed, or if the pull request needs significantly more design discussion 393 # before being considered, the MAINTAINER should close the pull request with 394 # a short explanation of what discussion still needs to be had. It is 395 # important not to leave such pull requests open, as this will waste both the 396 # MAINTAINER's time and the contributor's time. It is not good to string a 397 # contributor on for weeks or months, having them make many changes to a PR 398 # that will eventually be rejected. 399 400 [Org.Subsystems.Documentation] 401 402 people = [ 403 "fredlf", 404 "james", 405 "sven", 406 ] 407 408 [Org.Subsystems.libcontainer] 409 410 people = [ 411 "crosbymichael", 412 "vmarmol", 413 "mpatel", 414 "jnagal", 415 "lk4d4" 416 ] 417 418 [Org.Subsystems.registry] 419 420 people = [ 421 "dmp42", 422 "vbatts", 423 "joffrey", 424 "samalba" 425 ] 426 427 [Org.Subsystems."build tools"] 428 429 people = [ 430 "shykes", 431 "tianon" 432 ] 433 434 [Org.Subsystem."remote api"] 435 436 people = [ 437 "vieux" 438 ] 439 440 [Org.Subsystem.swarm] 441 442 people = [ 443 "aluzzardi", 444 "vieux" 445 ] 446 447 [Org.Subsystem.machine] 448 449 people = [ 450 "bfirsh", 451 "ehazlett" 452 ] 453 454 [Org.Subsystem.compose] 455 456 people = [ 457 "aanand" 458 ] 459 460 [Org.Subsystem.builder] 461 462 people = [ 463 "erikh", 464 "tibor", 465 "duglin" 466 ] 467 468 469 [people] 470 471 # A reference list of all people associated with the project. 472 # All other sections should refer to people by their canonical key 473 # in the people section. 474 475 # ADD YOURSELF HERE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER 476 477 [people.aanand] 478 Name = "Aanand Prasad" 479 Email = "aanand@docker.com" 480 GitHub = "aanand" 481 482 [people.aluzzardi] 483 Name = "Andrea Luzzardi" 484 Email = "aluzzardi@docker.com" 485 GitHub = "aluzzardi" 486 487 [people.bfirsh] 488 Name = "Ben Firshman" 489 Email = "ben@firshman.co.uk" 490 GitHub = "bfirsh" 491 492 [people.crosbymichael] 493 Name = "Michael Crosby" 494 Email = "crosbymichael@gmail.com" 495 GitHub = "crosbymichael" 496 497 [people.duglin] 498 Name = "Doug Davis" 499 Email = "dug@us.ibm.com" 500 GitHub = "duglin" 501 502 [people.ehazlett] 503 Name = "Evan Hazlett" 504 Email = "ejhazlett@gmail.com" 505 GitHub = "ehazlett" 506 507 [people.erikh] 508 Name = "Erik Hollensbe" 509 Email = "erik@docker.com" 510 GitHub = "erikh" 511 512 [people.erw] 513 Name = "Eric Windisch" 514 Email = "eric@windisch.us" 515 GitHub = "ewindisch" 516 517 [people.icecrime] 518 Name = "Arnaud Porterie" 519 Email = "arnaud@docker.com" 520 GitHub = "icecrime" 521 522 [people.jfrazelle] 523 Name = "Jessie Frazelle" 524 Email = "jess@docker.com" 525 GitHub = "jfrazelle" 526 527 [people.lk4d4] 528 Name = "Alexander Morozov" 529 Email = "lk4d4@docker.com" 530 GitHub = "lk4d4" 531 532 [people.shykes] 533 Name = "Solomon Hykes" 534 Email = "solomon@docker.com" 535 GitHub = "shykes" 536 537 [people.spf13] 538 Name = "Steve Francia" 539 Email = "steve.francia@gmail.com" 540 GitHub = "spf13" 541 542 [people.sven] 543 Name = "Sven Dowideit" 544 Email = "SvenDowideit@home.org.au" 545 GitHub = "SvenDowideit" 546 547 [people.tianon] 548 Name = "Tianon Gravi" 549 Email = "admwiggin@gmail.com" 550 GitHub = "tianon" 551 552 [people.tibor] 553 Name = "Tibor Vass" 554 Email = "tibor@docker.com" 555 GitHub = "tiborvass" 556 557 [people.vbatts] 558 Name = "Vincent Batts" 559 Email = "vbatts@redhat.com" 560 GitHub = "vbatts" 561 562 [people.vieux] 563 Name = "Victor Vieux" 564 Email = "vieux@docker.com" 565 GitHub = "vieux" 566 567 [people.vmarmol] 568 Name = "Victor Marmol" 569 Email = "vmarmol@google.com" 570 GitHub = "vmarmol" 571 572 [people.jnagal] 573 Name = "Rohit Jnagal" 574 Email = "jnagal@google.com" 575 GitHub = "rjnagal" 576 577 [people.mpatel] 578 Name = "Mrunal Patel" 579 Email = "mpatel@redhat.com" 580 GitHub = "mrunalp" 581 582 [people.unclejack] 583 Name = "Cristian Staretu" 584 Email = "cristian.staretu@gmail.com" 585 GitHub = "unclejack" 586 587 [people.vish] 588 Name = "Vishnu Kannan" 589 Email = "vishnuk@google.com" 590 GitHub = "vishh"