You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Whenever we receive a PR for a tap/target that has no maintainers, we announce this to the contributor.
If no maintainers, perhaps we post the MR into a Slack channel somewhere to request community review. Known past contributors get flagged by name.
If no one from the community responds in a timely manner, we can offer that person to become a contributor if they have a history of contributing to Meltano and/or other open source projects. (We can use their GitHub history to help in this evaluation process.)
Any successfully-merged MR automatically promotes that person to "contributor", perhaps also to maintainer if they've consented in step 3 and no other maintainers exist.
As I've worked recently in tap-athena and target-athena, and other repos, I think we need to be more direct in our asks of community contributors. Everyone seems reluctant to take on responsibility so I think it is work considering pairing that responsibility with the review process itself - when they are most incentivized to agree (and get their manager's buy-in).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In addition to expectations to get an existing connector added we should have some sort of review process for connectors built new from within MeltanoLabs, related to #2. After expectations are met we can remove the beta/experimental/under development flag from that repo.
#4 addresses the majority of this issue. I'm going to close it and create a new issue specifically for permissions which wasn't explicitly addressed yet.
We should detail:
Proposals from @aaronsteers:
As I've worked recently in tap-athena and target-athena, and other repos, I think we need to be more direct in our asks of community contributors. Everyone seems reluctant to take on responsibility so I think it is work considering pairing that responsibility with the review process itself - when they are most incentivized to agree (and get their manager's buy-in).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: