1.. _project_roles:
2
3TSC Project Roles
4*****************
5
6Main Roles
7##########
8
9TSC projects generally will involve *Maintainers*, *Collaborators*, and
10*Contributors*:
11
12**Maintainer**: lead Collaborators on an area identified by the TSC (e.g.
13Architecture, code subsystems, etc.). Maintainers shall also serve as the
14area’s representative on the TSC as needed. Maintainers may become voting
15members of the TSC under the guidelines stated in the project Charter.
16
17**Collaborator**: A highly involved Contributor in one or more areas.
18May become a Maintainer with approval of existing TSC voting members.
19
20**Contributor**: anyone in the community that contributes code or
21documentation to the project. Contributors may become Collaborators
22by approval of the existing Collaborators and Maintainers of the
23particular code base areas or subsystems.
24
25
26.. _contributor:
27
28Contributor
29+++++++++++
30
31A *Contributor* is a developer who wishes to contribute to the project,
32at any level.
33
34Contributors are granted the following rights and responsibilities:
35
36* Right to contribute code, documentation, translations, artwork, etc.
37* Right to report defects (bugs) and suggestions for enhancement.
38* Right to participate in the process of reviewing contributions by others.
39* Right to initiate and participate in discussions in any communication
40  methods.
41* Right to approach any member of the community with matters they believe
42  to be important.
43* Right to participate in the feature development process.
44* Responsibility to abide by decisions, once made. They are welcome to
45  provide new, relevant information to reopen decisions.
46* Responsibility for issues and bugs introduced by one’s own contributions.
47* Responsibility to respect the rules of the community.
48* Responsibility to provide constructive advice whenever participating in
49  discussions and in the review of contributions.
50* Responsibility to follow the project’s code of conduct
51  (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
52
53Contributors are initially only given `Read
54<https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/managing-access-to-your-organizations-repositories/repository-permission-levels-for-an-organization>`_
55access to the Zephyr GitHub repository. Specifically, at the Read access level,
56Contributors are not allowed to assign reviewers to their own pull requests. An
57automated process will assign reviewers. You may also share the pull request on
58the `Zephyr devel mailing list <https://lists.zephyrproject.org/g/devel>`_ or on
59the `Zephyr Discord Server <https://chat.zephyrproject.org>`_.
60
61Contributors who show dedication and skill are granted the Triage permission
62level to the Zephyr GitHub repository.
63
64You may nominate yourself, or another GitHub user, for promotion to the Triage
65permission level by creating a GitHub issue, using the :github:`nomination
66template <new?assignees=&labels=Role+Nomination&template=006_nomination.md&title=>`.
67
68Contributors granted the Triage permission level are permitted to add reviewers
69to a pull request and can be added as a reviewer by other GitHub users.
70Contributor change requests or approval on pull requests are not counted with
71respect to accepting and merging a pull request. However, Contributors comments
72and requested changes should still be considered by the pull request author.
73
74Collaborator
75++++++++++++
76
77A *Collaborator* is a Contributor who is also responsible for the maintenance
78of Zephyr source code. Their opinions weigh more when decisions are made, in a
79fully meritocratic fashion.
80
81Collaborators have the following rights and responsibilities,
82in addition to those listed for Contributors:
83
84* Right to set goals for the short and medium terms for the project being
85  maintained, alongside the Maintainer.
86* Responsibility to participate in the feature development process.
87* Responsibility to review relevant code changes within reasonable time.
88* Responsibility to ensure the quality of the code to expected levels.
89* Responsibility to participate in community discussions.
90* Responsibility to mentor new contributors when appropriate
91* Responsibility to participate in the quality verification and release
92  process, when those happen.
93
94Contributors are promoted to the Collaborator role by adding the GitHub user
95name to one or more ``collaborators`` sections of the :ref:`maintainers_file` in
96the Zephyr repository.
97
98Collaborator change requests on pull requests should
99be addressed by the original submitter. In cases where the changes requested do
100not follow the :ref:`expectations <reviewer-expectations>` and the guidelines
101of the project or in cases of disagreement, it is the responsibility of the
102assignee to advance the review process and resolve any disagreements.
103
104Collaborator approval of pull requests are counted toward the minimum required
105approvals needed to merge a PR. Other criteria for merging may apply.
106
107Maintainer
108++++++++++
109
110A *Maintainer* is a Collaborator who is also responsible for knowing,
111directing and anticipating the needs of a given zephyr source code area.
112
113Maintainers have the following rights and responsibilities,
114in addition to those listed for Contributors and Collaborators:
115
116* Right to set the overall architecture of the relevant subsystems or areas
117  of involvement.
118* Right to make decisions in the relevant subsystems or areas of involvement,
119  in conjunction with the collaborators and submitters.
120  See :ref:`pr_technical_escalation`.
121* Responsibility to convey the direction of the relevant subsystem or areas to
122  the TSC
123* Responsibility to ensure all contributions of the project have been reviewed
124  within reasonable time.
125* Responsibility to enforce the code of conduct.
126* Responsibility to triage static analysis issues in their code area.
127  See :ref:`static_analysis`.
128
129Contributors or Collaborators are promoted to the Maintainer role by adding the
130GitHub user name to one or more ``maintainers`` sections of the
131:ref:`maintainers_file` in the Zephyr repository.
132
133Maintainer approval of pull requests are counted toward the minimum
134required approvals needed to merge a PR. Other criteria for merging may apply.
135
136Role Retirement
137###############
138
139* Individuals elected to the following Project roles, including, Maintainer,
140  Release Engineering Team member, Release Manager, but are no longer engaged
141  in the project as described by the rights and responsibilities of that role,
142  may be requested by the TSC to retire from the role they are elected.
143* Such a request needs to be raised as a motion in the TSC and be
144  approved by the TSC voting members.
145  By approval of the TSC the individual is considered to be retired
146  from the role they have been elected.
147* The above applies to elected TSC Project roles that may be defined
148  in addition.
149
150
151Teams and Supporting Activities
152###############################
153
154Assignee
155++++++++
156
157An *Assignee* is one of the maintainers of a subsystem or code being changed.
158Assignees are set either automatically based on the code being changed or set
159by the other Maintainers, the Release Engineering team can set an assignee when
160the latter is not possible.
161
162* Right to dismiss stale and unrelated reviews or reviews not following
163  :ref:`expectations <reviewer-expectations>` from reviewers and seek reviews
164  from additional maintainers, developers and contributors
165* Right to block pull requests from being merged until issues or changes
166  requested are addressed
167* Responsibility to re-assign a pull request if they are the original submitter
168  of the code
169* Responsibility to drive the pull request to a mergeable state
170* Solicit approvals from maintainers of the subsystems affected
171* Responsibility to drive the :ref:`pr_technical_escalation` process
172
173Static Analysis Audit Team
174++++++++++++++++++++++++++
175
176The Static Analysis Audit team works closely with the release engineering
177team to ensure that static analysis defects opened during a release
178cycle are properly addressed. The team has the following rights and
179responsibilities:
180
181* Right to revert any triage in a static analysis tool (e.g: Coverity)
182  that does not follow the project expectations.
183* Responsibility to inform code owners about improper classifications.
184* Responsibility to alert TSC if any issues are not adequately addressed by the
185  responsible code owners.
186
187Joining the Static Analysis Audit team
188
189* Contributors highly involved in the project with some expertise
190  in static analysis.
191
192
193.. _release-engineering-team:
194
195Release Engineering Team
196++++++++++++++++++++++++
197
198A team of active Maintainers involved in multiple areas.
199
200* The members of the Release Engineering team are expected to fill
201  the Release Manager role based on a defined cadence and selection process.
202* The cadence and selection process are defined by the Release Engineering
203  team and are approved by the TSC.
204* The team reports directly into the TSC.
205
206Release Engineering team has the following rights and responsibilities:
207
208* Right to merge code changes to the zephyr tree following the project rules.
209* Right to revert any changes that have broken the code base
210* Right to close any stale changes after <N> months of no activity
211* Responsibility to take directions from the TSC and follow them.
212* Responsibility to coordinate code merges with maintainers.
213* Responsibility to merge all contributions regardless of their
214  origin and area if they have been approved by the respective
215  maintainers and follow the merge criteria of a change.
216* Responsibility to keep the Zephyr code base in a working and passing state
217  (as per CI)
218
219Joining the Release Engineering team
220
221* Maintainers highly involved in the project may be nominated
222  by a TSC voting member to join the Release Engineering team.
223  Nominees may become members of the team by approval of the
224  existing TSC voting members.
225* To ensure a functional Release Engineering team the TSC shall
226  periodically review the team’s followed processes,
227  the appropriate size, and the membership
228  composition (ensure, for example, that team members are
229  geographically distributed across multiple locations and
230  time-zones).
231
232
233Release Manager
234+++++++++++++++
235
236A *Maintainer* responsible for driving a specific release to
237completion following the milestones and the roadmap of the
238project for this specific release.
239
240* TSC has to approve a release manager.
241
242A Release Manager is a member of the Release Engineering team and has
243the rights and responsibilities of that team in addition to
244the following:
245
246* Right to manage and coordinate all code merges after the
247  code freeze milestone (M3, see `program management overview <https://wiki.zephyrproject.org/Program-Management>`_.)
248* Responsibility to drive and coordinate the triaging process
249  for the release
250* Responsibility to create the release notes of the release
251* Responsibility to notify all stakeholders of the project,
252  including the community at large about the status of the
253  release in a timely manner.
254* Responsibility to coordinate with QA and validation and
255  verify changes either directly or through QA before major
256  changes and major milestones.
257
258Roles / Permissions
259+++++++++++++++++++
260
261.. table:: Project Roles vs GitHub Permissions
262    :widths: 20 20 10 10 10 10 10
263    :align: center
264
265    ================ =================== =========== ================ =========== =========== ============
266          ..             ..               **Admin**  **Merge Rights**   Member      Owner     Collaborator
267    ---------------- ------------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
268    Main Roles       Contributor                                                                 x
269    ---------------- ------------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
270        ..           Collaborator                                       x
271    ---------------- ------------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
272        ..           Maintainer                                         x
273    Supportive Roles QA/Validation                                      x                        x
274        ..           DevOps                   **x**
275        ..           System Admin             **x**                                      x
276        ..           Release Engineering      **x**      **x**          x
277
278    ================ =================== =========== ================ =========== =========== ============
279
280
281.. _maintainers_file:
282
283MAINTAINERS File
284################
285
286Generic guidelines for deciding and filling in the Maintainers' list
287
288* The :zephyr_file:`MAINTAINERS.yml` file shall replace the
289  :zephyr_file:`CODEOWNERS` file and will be used for both setting assignees and
290  reviewers.
291* We should keep the granularity of code maintainership at a manageable level
292* We should be looking for maintainers for areas of code that
293  are orphaned (i.e. without an explicit maintainer)
294
295  * Un-maintained areas should be indicated clearly in the MAINTAINERS file
296
297* All submitted pull requests should have an assignee
298* We Introduce an area/subsystem hierarchy to address the above point
299
300  * Parent-area maintainer should be acting as default substitute/fallback
301    assignee for un-maintained sub-areas
302  * Area maintainer gets precedence over parent-area maintainer
303
304* Pull requests may be re-assigned if this is needed or more appropriate
305
306  * Re-assigned by original assignee
307
308* In general, updates to the MAINTAINERS file should be
309  in a standalone commit alongside other changes introducing new files and
310  directories to the tree.
311* Major changes to the file, including the addition of new areas with new maintainers
312  should come in as standalone pull requests and require TSC review.
313* If additional review by the TSC is required, the maintainers of the file
314  should send the requested changes to the TSC and give members of the TSC two
315  (2) days to object to any of the changes to maintainership of areas or the
316  addition of new maintainers or areas.
317* Path, collaborator and name changes do not require a review by the TSC.
318* Addition of new areas without a maintainer do not require review by the TSC.
319* The MAINTAINERS file itself shall have a maintainer
320* Architectures, core components, sub-systems, samples, tests
321
322  * Each area shall have an explicit maintainer
323
324* Boards (incl relevant samples, tests), SoCs (incl DTS)
325  * May have a maintainer, shall have a higher-level platform maintainer
326* Drivers
327
328  * Shall have a driver-area (and API) maintainer
329  * Could have individual driver implementation
330    maintainers but preferably collaborator/contributors
331  * In the above case, platform-specific PRs may be
332    re-assigned to respective collaborator/contributor of driver
333    implementation
334
335
336Release Activity
337################
338
339    .. figure:: img/img_release_activity.png
340         :width: 663px
341         :align: center
342         :alt: Release Activity
343
344.. _merge_criteria:
345
346Merge Criteria
347++++++++++++++
348
349* Minimal of 2 approvals, including an approval by the designated assignee.
350* Pull requests should be reviewed by at least a maintainer or collaborator of
351  each affected area; Unless the changes to a given area are considered trivial
352  enough, in which case approvals by other affected subsystems
353  maintainers/collaborators would suffice.
354* Four eye principle on the organisation level. We already require at least 2
355  approvals (basic four eye principle), however, such reviews and approvals
356  might be unintentionally biased in the case where the submitter is from the
357  same organisation as the approvers. To allow for project wide review and
358  approvals, the merge criteria is extended with the guidelines below:
359
360  * Changes or additions to common and shared code shall have approvals from
361    different organisations (at least one approval from an
362    organisation different than the submitters').
363    Common and shared code is defined as anything that does not fall under
364    :file:`soc`, :file:`boards` and :file:`drivers/*/*`.
365  * Changes or additions to hardware support (driver, SoC, boards) shall at
366    least have the merger be from a different organisation. This applies only
367    to implementation of an API supporting vendor specific hardware and not the
368    APIs.
369  * Release engineers may make exceptions for areas with contributions primarily
370    coming from one organisation and where reviews from other organisations are
371    not possible, however, merges shall be completed by a person from a different
372    organisation. In such cases, the minimum review period of at least 2 days
373    shall be strictly followed to allow for additional reviews.
374  * Release engineers shall not merge code changes originating and reviewed
375    only by their own organisation. To be able to merge such changes, at least
376    one review shall be from a different organisation.
377
378* A minimum review period of 2 business days, 4 hours for trivial changes (see
379  :ref:`review_time`).
380* Hotfixes can be merged at any time after CI has passed and are excluded from
381  most of the conditions listed above.
382* All required checks are passing:
383
384  * Codeowners
385  * Device Tree
386  * Documentation
387  * Gitlint
388  * Identity/Emails
389  * Kconfig
390  * License checks
391  * Checkpatch (Coding Style)
392  * Pylint
393  * Integration Tests (Via twister) on emulation/simulation platforms
394  * Simulated Bluetooth Tests
395
396* Planned
397
398  * Footprint
399  * Code coverage
400  * Coding Guidelines
401  * Static Analysis (Coverity)
402  * Documentation coverage (APIs)
403