| # distribution/reference Project Governance | |
| Distribution [Code of Conduct](./CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md) can be found here. | |
| For specific guidance on practical contribution steps please | |
| see our [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) guide. | |
| ## Maintainership | |
| 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. | |
| ## Reviewers | |
| A reviewer is a core role within the project. | |
| They share in reviewing issues and pull requests and their LGTM counts towards the | |
| required LGTM count to merge a code change into the project. | |
| Reviewers are part of the organization but do not have write access. | |
| Becoming a reviewer is a core aspect in the journey to becoming a maintainer. | |
| ## Adding maintainers | |
| Maintainers are first and foremost contributors that have shown they are | |
| committed to the long term success of a 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 three 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. | |
| Periodically, the existing maintainers curate a list of contributors that have | |
| shown regular activity on the project over the prior months. From this list, | |
| maintainer candidates are selected and proposed in a pull request or a | |
| maintainers communication channel. | |
| After a candidate has been announced to the maintainers, the existing | |
| maintainers are given five business days to discuss the candidate, raise | |
| objections and cast their vote. Votes may take place on the communication | |
| channel or via pull request comment. Candidates must be approved by at least 66% | |
| of the current maintainers by adding their vote on the mailing list. The | |
| reviewer role has the same process but only requires 33% of current maintainers. | |
| Only maintainers of the repository that the candidate is proposed for are | |
| allowed to vote. | |
| If a candidate is approved, a maintainer will contact the candidate to invite | |
| the candidate to open a pull request that adds the contributor to the | |
| MAINTAINERS file. The voting process may take place inside a pull request if a | |
| maintainer has already discussed the candidacy with the candidate and a | |
| maintainer is willing to be a sponsor by opening the pull request. The candidate | |
| becomes a maintainer once the pull request is merged. | |
| ## Stepping down policy | |
| Life priorities, interests, and passions can change. If you're a maintainer but | |
| feel you must remove yourself from the list, inform other maintainers that you | |
| intend to step down, and if possible, help find someone to pick up your work. | |
| At the very least, ensure your work can be continued where you left off. | |
| After you've informed other maintainers, create a pull request to remove | |
| yourself from the MAINTAINERS file. | |
| ## Removal of inactive maintainers | |
| Similar to the procedure for adding new maintainers, existing maintainers can | |
| be removed from the list if they do not show significant activity on the | |
| project. Periodically, the maintainers review the list of maintainers and their | |
| activity over the last three months. | |
| If a maintainer has shown insufficient activity over this period, a neutral | |
| person will contact the maintainer to ask if they want to continue being | |
| a maintainer. If the maintainer decides to step down as a maintainer, they | |
| open a pull request to be removed from the MAINTAINERS file. | |
| If the maintainer wants to remain a maintainer, but is unable to perform the | |
| required duties they can be removed with a vote of at least 66% of the current | |
| maintainers. In this case, maintainers should first propose the change to | |
| maintainers via the maintainers communication channel, then open a pull request | |
| for voting. The voting period is five business days. The voting pull request | |
| should not come as a surpise to any maintainer and any discussion related to | |
| performance must not be discussed on the pull request. | |
| ## How are decisions made? | |
| Docker distribution 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 distribution, 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. | |
| ## Helping contributors with the DCO | |
| The [DCO or `Sign your work`](./CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work) | |
| requirement is not intended as a roadblock or speed bump. | |
| Some 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 substantially | |
| change the existing contribution - i.e., a spelling change. | |
| When you add someone's DCO, please also add your own to keep a log. | |
| ## 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. | |
| ## Conflict Resolution | |
| If you have a technical dispute that you feel has reached an impasse with a | |
| subset of the community, any contributor may open an issue, specifically | |
| calling for a resolution vote of the current core maintainers to resolve the | |
| dispute. The same voting quorums required (2/3) for adding and removing | |
| maintainers will apply to conflict resolution. |