[AGREEMENT] pat-s application to "Mergers" team #305

pat-s commented 2025年06月29日 10:57:00 +02:00

Application

I propose to become part of the Mergers team.

1. If you agree, please simply add a 👍 to this issue.
2. If you disagree or have reservations, please write them in a comment below and I will do my best to address them.

This application follows the Forgejo decision making process (accepted after 2 weeks, unless concerns are raised).

Pledge

I pledge to act in accordance with the code of conduct, and all other rules and processes agreed via the Forgejo decision making process.

If there is an agreement for me to be a member of the team, I will consider applying again a year later.

Background

I like contributing to Forgejo.
I have been a (previous) member of the maintainers team in Gitea.
I run a public Forgejo instance (CodeFloe).

Contributions:

• Forgejo PRs
• Forgejo Issues
• Forgejo docs
• Forgejo reviewed

Previous elections

No response

### Application I propose to become part of the `Mergers` team. 1. If you agree, please simply add a 👍 to this issue. 2. If you disagree or have reservations, please write them in a comment below and I will do my best to address them. This application follows the Forgejo [decision making process](https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/governance/src/branch/main/DECISION-MAKING.md) (accepted after 2 weeks, unless concerns are raised). ### Pledge I pledge to act in accordance with the [code of conduct](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/code-of-conduct/), and all other rules and processes agreed via the Forgejo [decision making process](https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/governance/src/branch/main/DECISION-MAKING.md). If there is an agreement for me to be a member of the team, I will consider applying again a year later. ### Background I like contributing to Forgejo. I have been a (previous) member of the maintainers team in Gitea. I run a public Forgejo instance (CodeFloe). Contributions: - [Forgejo PRs](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=&state=all&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=61943&archived=false) - [Forgejo Issues](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=open&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=61943) - [Forgejo docs](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls?q=&type=all&sort=&state=all&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=61943&archived=false) - [Forgejo reviewed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=reviewed_by&sort=&state=all&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=0&archived=false) ### Previous elections _No response_

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 11:30:11 +02:00

@pat-s I appreciate your work but I feel it is a little too early.

I tried to find a rational reasoning to justify that feeling but could not find any. You really have all the good qualities. I will think about it over the next few days and hear what others have to say. It is just a gut feeling and maybe I'm wrong.

A few more months of activity in Forgejo, fixing bugs and reviewing pull requests will definitely convince me to approve.

Side note: could you please link your contributions in the Background section? They are easy to find but it helps.

@pat-s I appreciate your work but I feel it is a little too early. I tried to find a rational reasoning to justify that feeling but could not find any. You really have all the good qualities. I will think about it over the next few days and hear what others have to say. It is just a gut feeling and maybe I'm wrong. A few more months of activity in Forgejo, fixing bugs and reviewing pull requests will definitely convince me to approve. Side note: could you please link your contributions in the **Background** section? They are easy to find but it helps.

pat-s commented 2025年06月29日 11:51:53 +02:00

I tried to find a rational reasoning to justify that feeling but could not find any.

I've linked all my direct contributions to Forgejo repos.
@earl-warren As a general note, it likely would be easier for both sides if there would be a number of minimum contributions which one needs before applying. I thought mine are already enough - otherwise I would have waited.

Besides the linked direct contributions, I am a known member of Codeberg. I am with the Core team for several years now and maintaining the CI service there as well as the general Ansible-based infrastructure. I've helped to sustain pages server by cleaning up a lot and impementing a semi-automated dependency update structure and deployment approach.

On top, I am the Helm chart maintainer for Gitea and there as well a many-years contributor/known member. Not sure how the evaluation is done in the end, if it solely relies on the PR review counts in forgejo/* repos, then these points can of course be discarded. I don't have any issues in adding more reviews/PR, they will come anyhow over time, but this links back to the previous section already ;-)

> I tried to find a rational reasoning to justify that feeling but could not find any. I've linked all my direct contributions to Forgejo repos. @earl-warren As a general note, it likely would be easier for both sides if there would be a number of minimum contributions which one needs before applying. I thought mine are already enough - otherwise I would have waited. Besides the linked direct contributions, I am a known member of Codeberg. I am with the Core team for several years now and maintaining the CI service there as well as the general [Ansible-based infrastructure](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-Infrastructure/ansible-configuration). I've helped to sustain [pages server](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/commits/branch/main) by cleaning up a lot and impementing a semi-automated dependency update structure and deployment approach. On top, I am the Helm chart maintainer for Gitea and there as well a many-years contributor/known member. Not sure how the evaluation is done in the end, if it solely relies on the PR review counts in `forgejo/*` repos, then these points can of course be discarded. I don't have any issues in adding more reviews/PR, they will come anyhow over time, but this links back to the previous section already ;-)

oliverpool commented 2025年06月29日 15:57:37 +02:00

I think that your technical abilities are more than enough.

However I think that another important aspect is the "philosophical alignment". For instance Forgejo has been trying to improve the test situation, which the merger-team is expected to encourage.

A concrete concern could be your latest (closed) PR where you apparently didn’t put much effort to ease the review (unhelpful PR description, commits saying "more tests" without any test).

I think that your technical abilities are more than enough. However I think that another important aspect is the "philosophical alignment". For instance Forgejo has been trying to improve the test situation, which the merger-team is expected to encourage. A concrete concern could be your latest (closed) PR where you apparently didn’t put much effort to ease the review (unhelpful PR description, commits saying "more tests" without any test).

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 17:12:30 +02:00

... it likely would be easier for both sides if there would be a number of minimum contributions which one needs before applying

You did not miss anything: there is no formal technical threshold and it is fine for anyone to apply. I think in recent cases it happened because a contributor approved and reviewed many pull requests over a long period of time and could not merge although their review was good enough in the eyes of other reviewers who ended up merging on their behalf. Of course "many" and "long period" are entirely subjective but, speaking for myself, it translates into me thinking that I have nothing else to add to their review so many times that I end up asking if they would like to apply.

This is why I suggested to wait a few more month, I suppose. But again, I'll sleep on it and wait for others to weigh in.

> ... it likely would be easier for both sides if there would be a number of minimum contributions which one needs before applying You did not miss anything: there is no formal technical threshold and it is fine for anyone to apply. I think in recent cases it happened because a contributor approved and reviewed many pull requests over a long period of time and could not merge although their review was good enough in the eyes of other reviewers who ended up merging on their behalf. Of course "many" and "long period" are entirely subjective but, speaking for myself, it translates into me thinking that I have nothing else to add to their review so many times that I end up asking if they would like to apply. This is why I suggested to wait a few more month, I suppose. But again, I'll sleep on it and wait for others to weigh in.

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 18:22:12 +02:00

The review link shows my own reviews. This is a limitation of Forgejo though, nothing you can do about it really.

The [review link](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls?q=&type=reviewed_by&sort=&state=all&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=0&archived=false) shows my own reviews. This is a limitation of Forgejo though, nothing you can do about it really.

pat-s commented 2025年06月29日 18:22:25 +02:00

A concrete concern could be your latest (closed) PR where you apparently didn’t put much effort to ease the review (unhelpful PR description, commits saying "more tests" without any test).

If this is really a deal-breaker or a concern, I have to say that I am also concerned. While I surely was not happy about it, I also apologized for the lack of effort I put into the PR description as I can understand that concern. The topic per se is discussed in another issue.

To be fully frank and open about this: if this single PR, in which the main point was the non-curated, lengthy PR description generated by an AI, is becoming a (continuous) concern about me as a general person (and it seems so as I am somewhat surprised this is now also being brought up here - but fair enough, concerns should be raised) and my general "philosophical alignment" or rather potential "nonalignment", I will have to strongly think about if I am at the right place overall (regardless of the outcome and opinions of the AI debate overall).

It must be possible that contributors are allowed to have their own views which do not necessarily align with all rules of the project while still honoring and respecting them in daily practice (which I have never even closely doubted to not adhere to).
Otherwise, this is not a community with rules but rather a cult which requires a "philosophical alignment" test of every contributor and if there isn't a 100% match, one is out.

And no, I don't think I am making this bigger as it needs to be as eventually this has been brought up in this issue as a concern of being accepted in a team that has merge permissions.
In this context, this concern then clearly refers to the fear of me potentially merging/approving something or performing other actions that might potentially not be in line with the projects "philosophy", as technical skills have been ruled out already.
Given that there have already been upvotes on this comment, I am actually considering to withdraw my application.
If there are primarily people supporting this concern and none exist on the flip-side, I am just (officially) not welcome.

---

You did not miss anything: there is no formal technical threshold and it is fine for anyone to apply. I think in recent cases it happened because a contributor approved and reviewed many pull requests over a long period of time and could not merge although their review was good enough in the eyes of other reviewers who ended up merging on their behalf. Of course "many" and "long period" are entirely subjective but, speaking for myself, it translates into me thinking that I have nothing else to add to their review so many times that I end up asking if they would like to apply.

Fully understand that point and I am also OK with it. The count-based method (or even weighted over time) would just make it easier to escape the subjective field for both sides, at least for that particular point. But given the other comment that was raised, this point become somewhat secondary now (at least to me).

> A concrete concern could be your latest (closed) PR where you apparently didn’t put much effort to ease the review (unhelpful PR description, commits saying "more tests" without any test). If this is really a deal-breaker or a concern, I have to say that I am also concerned. While I surely was not happy about it, I also [apologized for the lack of effort I put into the PR description](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/366#issuecomment-5611658) as I can understand that concern. The topic per se is discussed in another issue. To be fully frank and open about this: if this single PR, in which the main point was the non-curated, lengthy PR description generated by an AI, is becoming a (continuous) concern about me as a general person (and it seems so as I am somewhat surprised this is now also being brought up here - but fair enough, concerns should be raised) and my general "philosophical alignment" or rather potential "nonalignment", I will have to strongly think about if I am at the right place overall (regardless of the outcome and opinions of the AI debate overall). It must be possible that contributors are allowed to have their own views which do not necessarily align with **all** rules of the project while still honoring and respecting them in daily practice (which I have never even closely doubted to not adhere to). Otherwise, this is not a community with rules but rather a cult which requires a "philosophical alignment" test of every contributor and if there isn't a 100% match, one is out. And no, I don't think I am making this bigger as it needs to be as eventually this has been brought up in this issue as a concern of being accepted in a team that has merge permissions. In this context, this concern then clearly refers to the fear of me potentially merging/approving something or performing other actions that might potentially not be in line with the projects "philosophy", as technical skills have been ruled out already. Given that there have already been upvotes on this comment, I am actually considering to withdraw my application. If there are primarily people supporting this concern and none exist on the flip-side, I am just (officially) not welcome. --- > You did not miss anything: there is no formal technical threshold and it is fine for anyone to apply. I think in recent cases it happened because a contributor approved and reviewed many pull requests over a long period of time and could not merge although their review was good enough in the eyes of other reviewers who ended up merging on their behalf. Of course "many" and "long period" are entirely subjective but, speaking for myself, it translates into me thinking that I have nothing else to add to their review so many times that I end up asking if they would like to apply. Fully understand that point and I am also OK with it. The count-based method (or even weighted over time) would just make it easier to escape the subjective field for both sides, at least for that particular point. But given the other comment that was raised, this point become somewhat secondary now (at least to me).

fnetX commented 2025年06月29日 18:38:08 +02:00

Given that there have already been upvotes on this comment, I am actually considering to withdraw my application.

There is currently one upvote, from me. And indeed, I also do have concerns regarding this application. The reason for this is that mergers are in a role to steer the direction of the project, and they receive a lot of trust from the community. The mergers team is not necessarily a team where a bottleneck needs to be lifted, at least not currently. Providing good reviews and helping new users is welcome and possible without being part of the mergers team.

The purpose of the mergers team is enforcing all guidelines and quality standards that have evolved within the project, whether agreed on explicitly (e.g. pull request requirement regarding tests, approvals etc) or implicitly (controversies resolved, respective teams have had the chance to do the review, people familiar with the code have approved, for larger features the need for user research / user testing and documentation has been discussed).

I believe the "mergers" team needs to consist of people that are not only trusted from a security standpoint (you have my full trust and support when considering this), but also need to be familiar with the workflows and people in the Forgejo project. And I'm not sure if this is fulfilled.

The "AI" debate is not a blocker per se. However, that and other recent conversations show that you might not yet be familiar with the workflows and concerns by people active in the Forgejo project. I am convinced you would have approached the topic differently if you knew the people involved better.

> Given that there have already been upvotes on this comment, I am actually considering to withdraw my application. There is currently one upvote, from me. And indeed, I also do have concerns regarding this application. The reason for this is that mergers are in a role to steer the direction of the project, and they receive a lot of trust from the community. The mergers team is not necessarily a team where a bottleneck needs to be lifted, at least not currently. Providing good reviews and helping new users is welcome and possible without being part of the mergers team. The purpose of the mergers team is enforcing all guidelines and quality standards that have evolved within the project, whether agreed on explicitly (e.g. pull request requirement regarding tests, approvals etc) or implicitly (controversies resolved, respective teams have had the chance to do the review, people familiar with the code have approved, for larger features the need for user research / user testing and documentation has been discussed). I believe the "mergers" team needs to consist of people that are not only trusted from a security standpoint (you have my full trust and support when considering this), but also need to be familiar with the workflows and people in the Forgejo project. And I'm not sure if this is fulfilled. The "AI" debate is not a blocker per se. However, that and other recent conversations show that you might not yet be familiar with the workflows and concerns by people active in the Forgejo project. I am convinced you would have approached the topic differently if you knew the people involved better.

fnetX commented 2025年06月29日 18:40:21 +02:00

As a summary: I also suggest that you

• take the role in the helm chart team
• continue the participation in reviews of code in the Forgejo project
• get to know the workflows, and the people
• if you are still interested by then, apply to become in the mergers team in a few months, as suggested by @earl-warren

As a summary: I also suggest that you * take the role in the helm chart team * continue the participation in reviews of code in the Forgejo project * get to know the workflows, and the people * if you are still interested by then, apply to become in the mergers team in a few months, as suggested by @earl-warren

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 18:45:19 +02:00

I browsed the PRs you made in Crow and was positively impressed by the effort in some of the pull requests (I did not browse them all 😁). crowci/crow#282/files (big because of the mocks but there also are extensive tests) in particular. I saw a frontend JavaScript PR with no tests but that's not my area of expertise. Frontend testing is not for the faint of heart.

This tells me all I need to know about how you approach testing and I trust you are fine about where Forgejo draws the line on this matter. As you surely noticed, as a reviewer/merger a lot of time is spent figuring how how to test the change as well as how to continuously improve the level of coverage to reduce the Forgejo technical debt.

It is not uncommon for a new contributor to be frustrated when a quick change manually tested to work must also get automated tests. And it falls on the reviewer / merger to patiently explain why this is imposed on them and guide them on a technical level.

I browsed the PRs you made in Crow and was positively impressed by the effort in some of the pull requests (I did not browse them all 😁). https://codeberg.org/crowci/crow/pulls/282/files (big because of the mocks but there also are extensive tests) in particular. I saw a frontend [JavaScript PR](https://codeberg.org/crowci/crow/pulls/284/files) with no tests but that's not my area of expertise. Frontend testing is not for the faint of heart. This tells me all I need to know about how you approach testing and I trust you are fine about where Forgejo draws the line on this matter. As you surely noticed, as a reviewer/merger a lot of time is spent figuring how how to test the change as well as how to continuously improve the level of coverage to reduce the Forgejo technical debt. It is not uncommon for a new contributor to be frustrated when a quick change manually tested to work must also get automated tests. And it falls on the reviewer / merger to patiently explain why this is imposed on them and guide them on a technical level.

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 19:03:24 +02:00

@pat-s I think Forgejo would immensely benefit from your involvement and I will do whatever I can to help you being onboarded and happy. Your skills and commitment to Free Software are extremely rare and could have a very significant impact on Forgejo's future.

I would go as far as to propose that your application to the merger team is granted immediately, despite the concerns I have. As @fnetX mentions, he trusts you. And I also implicitly trust you because I've followed your work for a long time. And we all agree you have very strong technical skills.

So instead of waiting a few months to somehow prove something (which is not a good feeling when entering a community IMHO), I propose that you are given merge privileges and I trust you to figure out for yourself how to fit in this role.

So I 👍 your application now and trust you to do good 😄

@pat-s I think Forgejo would immensely benefit from your involvement and I will do whatever I can to help you being onboarded and happy. Your skills and commitment to Free Software are extremely rare and could have a very significant impact on Forgejo's future. I would go as far as to propose that your application to the merger team is granted immediately, despite the concerns I have. As @fnetX mentions, he trusts you. And I also implicitly trust you because I've followed your work for a long time. And we all agree you have very strong technical skills. So instead of waiting a few months to somehow prove something (which is not a good feeling when entering a community IMHO), I propose that you are given merge privileges and I trust you to figure out for yourself how to fit in this role. So I 👍 your application now and trust you to do good 😄

pat-s commented 2025年06月29日 19:34:12 +02:00

I see that there is now a complicated situation, also because of me having opened this in a not-so-good moment, given the ongoing side discussions.
WRT to that: This was not on purpose (as it wouldn't have been smart anyway doing so), it was just on my todo list for weeks, hence I did it now.
I didn't expect the other discussion to get so prominent and fundamental, up to the point where it now seems to be at.
Never wanted to be an exemplum in any sort, but I guess that can't be undone anymore ;)

I see the concerns raised about me and can understand them on an objective level when zooming out and leaving all happenings and tensions behind.
Given that, I also think it would be wrong to now accept the team membership as this would potentially bring up more (internal) discussions, being it in the fore-or background. So to avoid further discussions and force people to "position" themselves, I'll close here for now and apologize for the non-optimal timing.
It is likely better for me to take a break for some time and see afterward where sentiments/arguments/motivations are.

(also ❤️ to @n0toose for chiming in in a diplomatic fashion and trying to actively smooth-en things)

I see that there is now a complicated situation, also because of me having opened this in a not-so-good moment, given the ongoing side discussions. WRT to that: This was not on purpose (as it wouldn't have been smart anyway doing so), it was just on my todo list for weeks, hence I did it now. I didn't expect the other discussion to get so prominent and fundamental, up to the point where it now seems to be at. Never wanted to be an exemplum in any sort, but I guess that can't be undone anymore ;) I see the concerns raised about me and can understand them on an objective level when zooming out and leaving all happenings and tensions behind. Given that, I also think it would be wrong to now accept the team membership as this would potentially bring up more (internal) discussions, being it in the fore-or background. So to avoid further discussions and force people to "position" themselves, I'll close here for now and apologize for the non-optimal timing. It is likely better for me to take a break for some time and see afterward where sentiments/arguments/motivations are. (also ❤️ to @n0toose for chiming in in a diplomatic fashion and trying to actively smooth-en things)

earl-warren commented 2025年06月29日 23:05:52 +02:00

@pat-s this is a wise move on your part. 🙏

@pat-s this is a wise move on your part. 🙏