Introduce triage system by aryangorwade · Pull Request #3126 · NVIDIA/gpu-operator

aryangorwade · 2026-10-27T00:45:10Z

Description

This PR implements a triage system adapted from the one mentioned in #572. Commit-by-commit summary of changes made:

Change	Description
Add AI usage guidance	Adds an AI Guidance section to `CONTRIBUTING.md` listing when maintainers may close contributions without review. Tells agents in `AGENTS.md` not to write issue or PR descriptions or replies to maintainers.
Add issue triage workflow	Documents the issue-first workflow, labels, triage criteria, and claim template in `CONTRIBUTING.md`. Adds Motivation and "work on this issue" fields to the issue templates and an issue link to the PR template. Turns template guidance into HTML comments so it doesn't appear in posted issues. Updates `GOVERNANCE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, and `README.md` to match.
Move questions to GitHub Discussions and Slack	Removes the question issue template. Points questions to Discussions and the community Slack from the new-issue page, `README.md`, and `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
Close needs-more-info issues after 30 days	Adds a stale rule that closes `needs-more-info` issues after 30 days without activity. Exempts `accepted` issues from the 90-day rule.
Label new issues for triage	Adds a workflow that labels new issues `needs-triage` when they arrive without a state label.
Apply triage automation only to new issues and PRs	Skips issues and PRs created before the policy start date, so existing ones keep today's behavior.
Add /assign command for accepted issues	Lets maintainers assign `accepted` issues by commenting `/assign @user`, replacing any previous non-maintainer assignee.
Add workflow ensuring one state label per issue	This workflow removes the old state label when a maintainer applies a new one.

Checklist

No secrets, sensitive information, or unrelated changes
Lint checks passing (make lint)

cdesiniotis · 2026-10-27T03:41:06Z

Not directly related to this PR -- I feel like this file could use a rehaul. The first 4 sections, Introduction, Architecture, License, and Artifacts don't directly relate to the contribution process and probably should live in a different document. It makes our actual contribution process more difficult to find for readers (they have to scroll down fairly far on this page to get to the meat of it).

@NVIDIA/gpu-operator-dev thoughts? I would be in favor of removing this content and jumping straight to the contribution process / AI usage guidelines.

Thoughts on moving main's CONTRIBUTING.md's architecture and artifacts section to the README and deleting the rest of the old sections (apart from Signing your work)?

I don't find the architecture or artifacts sections too helpful to be honest. I would be fine removing all of the sections. Our product documentation should suffice, which lists all of our artifacts and the operands we support. If we want to write actual architectural documents, they could live in the docs/ folder.

I'm in favor of keeping these sections somewhere in the codebase. AI agents (and humans) don't always check official docs external to a codebase (even if linked in /docs). Including a brief overview like this one in /docs would be helpful.

cdesiniotis · 2026-10-27T04:48:49Z

+            const hasWriteAccess = async (username) => {
+              try {
+                const { data } = await github.rest.repos.getCollaboratorPermissionLevel({ owner, repo, username });
+                return ['admin', 'maintain', 'write'].includes(data.permission);
+              } catch (error) {
+                if (error.status === 404) {
+                  return false;
+                }
+                throw error;
+              }
+            };
+
+            if (['OWNER', 'MEMBER'].includes(pr.author_association) || await hasWriteAccess(author)) {
+              return;
+            }
+            // A maintainer reopening a closed pull request overrides the check.
+            if (context.payload.action === 'reopened' && await hasWriteAccess(context.payload.sender.login)) {
+              return;
+            }


Could this code block be replaced by the below if statement attached to the job itself?

if: >- !contains(fromJSON('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.pull_request.author_association)

I believe this would prevent the job from running when any user with write access to the repo opens or reopens a PR.

Yeah, it makes more sense to allow anyone in the NVIDIA org/with write access and not just gpu-operator-dev to open PRs. We should also exempt bots like dependabot from this:

if: >- github.event.pull_request.user.type != 'Bot' && !contains(fromJSON('["OWNER","MEMBER"]'), github.event.pull_request.author_association)

The only problem I can see is that if maintainers reopen a PR that was closed by this bot which references an unapproved issue. This is a very narrow case though and probably is not that relevant; it should not be happening in the first place. ~~Added this.~~

Thoughts on replacing the current logic (which runs the if statements in the script), with the below?

if: >- github.event.pull_request.user.type != 'Bot' && !contains(fromJSON('["OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR"]'), github.event.pull_request.author_association)

"OWNER","MEMBER","COLLABORATOR" cover everyone with write access to the repo. Another benefit of this approach is that is avoids the extra GitHub API call in hasWriteAccess()

Missed actually applying this. I've applied it now.

@cdesiniotis @aryangorwade I have a question with the suggestion to use the user type, if users have their membership set as private (I checked mine and it seems to be private), then the code that calls this I think needs to be authenticated as an NVIDIA org member to view private membership otherwise it marks the author as CONTRIBUTOR. I checked the following

PR author With my login Without login (anonymous)

kvalliyurnatt MEMBER CONTRIBUTOR

tariq1890 MEMBER CONTRIBUTOR

aryangorwade MEMBER CONTRIBUTOR

This is what I called curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/NVIDIA/gpu-operator/pulls/3145 | jq .author_association

Do we know whatever calls the code in github actions will have the right permissions to see private memberships ?

@kvalliyurnatt good catch. We could consider providing the script an authenticated token but that still would not work.

TLDR: We could just check the author's repo permission (write/maintain/admin access). Downside is other members of NVIDIA org that do not have such access will have their PRs closed. Is this approach worth it?

An other option is to check NVIDIA org: GET /orgs/NVIDIA/members/{user}. We'd have to set up a GitHub app in the org settings and configure it on our repos, and then generate. private key and a workflow. This is a decent amount of work for what seems like a simple problem.

We could fetch the PR again with an NVIDIA member's token but this would need one of our tokens. Not a big fan of this one.

@NVIDIA/gpu-operator-dev Thoughts on gating PRs only to members with write access for now (our team)? To get the triage PR in as soon as possible? Using a GitHub app to gate access to NVIDIA org members is a better but more complex solution we can look into implementing right after we get this change in.

I think to not block the PR, I would be okay with it.

coderabbitai · 2026-10-27T20:14:42Z

Walkthrough

The pull-request changes update contribution guidance and issue templates, add workflows for issue triage and assignment, and introduce a pull-request eligibility check based on linked accepted issues. The stale workflow now exempts accepted issues and applies a separate schedule to issues labeled needs-more-info. Contact guidance now points questions to GitHub Discussions and community Slack.

Priority: Normal

Merge Risk: Low · up to a145f

This change adds contribution-intake automation. Merging is low risk, but the accepted-issue handling in the stale workflow and the gatekeeper's one-time check could behave unexpectedly in edge cases, so maintainers should be aware of them or address them soon.

- [ ] Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

abrarshivani · 2026-11-03T22:49:19Z

+
+1. **Open an issue.** Use the bug report template to report a defect, or the feature request template to propose new behavior or a [major change](GOVERNANCE.md#core-decisions). Indicate if you want to work on the issue. Each new issue gets the `needs-triage` label.
+2. **Wait for triage.** A maintainer reviews the issue against the [triage criteria](#triage-criteria). The maintainer then labels the issue `accepted`, `needs-more-info`, or closes it.
+3. **Claim the issue.** When an issue is `accepted`, comment on it expressing interest and summarizing your proposed solution. Issue authors have priority if they indicate they would like to work on it. Other claims are first-come, first-served. A maintainer discusses your plan with you and assigns the issue to you when the plan is ready.


Should we define when to unassign inactive contributors? For example, follow up after 2 weeks of inactivity and unassign if there's no response, keeping the issue open for others to pick up.

tariq1890 · 2026-11-03T22:51:07Z

+**Motivation**
+<!-- A clear and concise description of your motivation: is this a real issue you ran into while using the product? -->
+
+**Would you like to work on this issue?**


Instead of a yes/no. Can we make it a checkbox? The message would look something like

Suggested change

**Would you like to work on this issue?**

**Check here if you would look like to work on this issue**

tariq1890 · 2026-11-03T22:51:32Z

+<!-- A clear and concise description of your motivation: e.g. would this feature greatly help your use-case, and why? -->

-<!-- A clear and concise description of the feature request. Please outline the motivation for the proposal. Is your feature request related to a specific problem? e.g., *"I'm working on X and would like Y to be possible"*. If this is related to another GitHub issue, please link it here too. -->
+**Would you like to work on this issue?**


same as previous.

devin-ai-integration

Devin Review found 1 new potential issue.

🐛 1 issue in files not directly in the diff

🐛 Unapproved pull requests remain open

External authors can open pull requests without an assigned, accepted issue because PR Gatekeeper no longer runs. No remaining workflow closes these pull requests.

abrarshivani · 2026-11-03T22:59:08Z

 NVIDIA is willing to work with partners for adding platform support for the GPU Operator. The GPU Operator is open-source and permissively licensed under the Apache 2.0 license with only minimal requirements for source code [contributions](#signing).

-To file feature requests, bugs, or questions, submit an issue at https://github.com/NVIDIA/gpu-operator/issues
+To file feature requests or bugs, submit an issue at https://github.com/NVIDIA/gpu-operator/issues. For questions, start a discussion at https://github.com/NVIDIA/gpu-operator/discussions or ask in the `#gpu-operator` channel in our community Slack at https://inviter.co/dsx-ai-factory.


Should we link SECURITY.md here so contributors know where to report security vulnerabilities instead of opening public issues?

Signed-off-by: Aryan Gorwade <gorwadearyan@gmail.com>

aryangorwade self-assigned this Oct 27, 2026

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

aryangorwade commented Oct 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/workflows/pr-gatekeeper.yaml Resolved

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch 2 times, most recently from 8952f7c to a145f3a Compare October 27, 2026 01:27

cdesiniotis reviewed Oct 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

aryangorwade marked this pull request as ready for review October 27, 2026 20:07

aryangorwade requested a review from a team as a code owner October 27, 2026 20:07

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch from a145f3a to 6fe37ba Compare October 28, 2026 00:37

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch 3 times, most recently from c7d1b2b to 6f4445d Compare October 29, 2026 17:07

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch from 6f4445d to 1da5668 Compare October 29, 2026 17:25

abrarshivani reviewed Oct 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

tariq1890 reviewed Oct 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml Resolved

Comment thread .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread README.md Resolved

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch from e183c2d to 1f6946e Compare November 2, 2026 21:44

cdesiniotis reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

Comment thread CONTRIBUTING.md Resolved

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch 5 times, most recently from 0d2f269 to 404d5d8 Compare November 3, 2026 21:52

abrarshivani reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch from 404d5d8 to 7ef11aa Compare November 3, 2026 22:51

tariq1890 reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

devin-ai-integration Bot reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

abrarshivani reviewed Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch 2 times, most recently from dfa9480 to f93bea1 Compare November 3, 2026 23:19

tariq1890 approved these changes Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

cdesiniotis approved these changes Nov 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Introduce triage system

a49a712

Signed-off-by: Aryan Gorwade <gorwadearyan@gmail.com>

aryangorwade force-pushed the external-contributor-policy branch from f93bea1 to a49a712 Compare November 3, 2026 23:54

aryangorwade enabled auto-merge November 4, 2026 00:00

aryangorwade disabled auto-merge November 4, 2026 01:08

aryangorwade enabled auto-merge November 4, 2026 02:56

aryangorwade merged commit 774a957 into NVIDIA:main Nov 4, 2026
85 of 94 checks passed

PR author	With my login	Without login (anonymous)
kvalliyurnatt	MEMBER	CONTRIBUTOR
tariq1890	MEMBER	CONTRIBUTOR
aryangorwade	MEMBER	CONTRIBUTOR

	Would you like to work on this issue?
	Check here if you would look like to work on this issue

Conversation

aryangorwade commented Oct 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Checklist

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aryangorwade Oct 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aryangorwade Nov 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aryangorwade Oct 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aryangorwade Nov 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aryangorwade Nov 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tariq1890 Nov 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

devin-ai-integration Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aryangorwade commented Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aryangorwade Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aryangorwade Nov 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aryangorwade Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aryangorwade Nov 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

aryangorwade Nov 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

tariq1890 Nov 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading