avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] formation of an Avalon PMC
Date Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:19:34 GMT


Hello Pete:

I read with interest you email.  I am pleased to see that you raised
questions concerning the level of representation and participation in
the vote.  This provided me with the incentive to do a more complete
analysis.  I am confident that you will find my conclusion interesting.

Peter Donald wrote:

 >On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:15, Stephen McConnell wrote:
 >
 >>To the Members of the Apache Board:
 >>===================================
 >>
 >>On the 20 September 2002, an open debate on the subject of
 >>reorganization was initiated within Apache under the reorg list.  This
 >>triggered subsequent discussions under the Jakarta Avalon sub-project,
 >>involving the active developer community, the Jakarta PMC, members of
 >>the Apache Board, and other interested parties.  On the 10 November a
 >>draft proposal concerning a recommendation to the Board for the
 >>formation of an Avalon PMC was posted and subsequent discussed.  This
 >>led to a vote by the Avalon committers on the 14 November, the result of
 >>which was as follows - yes 9, abstain 0, no 0.
 >>
 >
 >I would interpret the results remarkable different from that. A high
 >percentage of active contributors chose not to vote. Without much 
hassle I
 >can easily name 9 who participate in development of Avalon who have 
not voted
 >for your proposal.
 >

The vote captured the participation of a one-third of the registered
committers.  If we take into consideration that committers that have
actively opted into the PMC, and have not opposed the vote, and if we
compare that against the active committers based on Paul's review of
activity over the last 8 months (based on email frequency and volume),
we can conclude that the vote, the level of engagement, and the level of
support is significant and representative.

Consolidating Paul's most active and quality list for the
avalon-framework over the last 8 months, only 1 committer out of the 11
jakarta-avalon core chose not to engage in the process - which indicates
that for the framework, we achieved a 90% engagement in the discussions
and representation on the PMC, and a 54% participation of the framework
community to the vote (and if you had chosen to vote, that number would
have been 63%).

    Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Berin - opted in on the PMC
    Paul H - opted in on the PMC
    Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Stephen - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Eung-ju, did not register a vote
    Jeff - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Lief - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Leo Sutric, opted in on the PMC, voted +1

If we review the Excalibur sub-project  (including Fortress and Merlin,
combining volume and quality of email based on Paul's revised numbers),
the names are slightly different but the results are similar (reflecting
the strong commonality between the Excalibur development and the
framework). Again, 1 committer out of 12 chose not to participate to the
process, we see a 91% participation to the PMC and a 58% participation
to the vote.  Should you have chosen to register a vote, that number
would have been 66%.

    Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Paul H - opted in on the PMC
    Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
    Stephen - opted in on  the PMC, voted +1
    Carsten - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Marcus - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, voted +1
    Mircea, did not register a vote
    Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Nicola - opted in on the PMC, voted +1

If we look at the Phoenix/Cornerstone community with Avalon, we see a
community of approximately 8 people, 5 on the PMC, and 2 registering a
vote of support and no votes opposed.  In terms of representation on the
Avalon PMC, we see a majority of Phoenix/Cornerstone contributors on the
management committee.  We also see a disappointing numbers in terms of
community engagement to the voting process, perhaps representative of
the closed nature of the Phoenix/Cornerstone community to the
participation of the members of the broader Avalon community.

    Peter Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Paul  H - opted in on the PMC
    Pete Royal - opted on the PMC, voted +1
    Eung-ju, did not register a vote
    Lief - opted on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1
    Huw, did not register a vote
    Rana, did not register a vote

Finally, if you we look at the Avalon Apps activities (within which the
total number of messages is approximately equivalent to the Merlin
subproject in Excalibur according to Paul's undated numbers) we are
looking at the community most potentially threatened by reorganization.

    Paul H.- opted in on the PMC
    Stephen - opted in on  the PMC, voted +1
    Rana, did not register a vote
    Pete Royal - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Berin - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Pete Donald - opted in on the PMC, did not register a vote
    Eung-ju, did not register a vote
    Leo Simons - opted in on the PMC, voted +1
    Huw, did not register a vote
    Vinay, did not register a vote
    Jeff - opted on the PMC, voted +1

 From the above, we can see that from the active developer community of
11 people, 7 are proposed members of the PMC, representing 52% of the
community, and a level of vote participation of 36%.  Given the
"incubator" nature of the Avalon-Apps sub-project, I would suggest that
while the level of engagement to the voting process is the lowest of the
all of the Avalon sub-projects, the results are not surprising as the
content is the furthest form the core of Avalon.  However, please note
that the PMC representation remains at more than half of the active
community.

 >
 >Some of these people are the same ones who would be ejected from Avalon
 >according to the scope you decided on.
 >

I would like to respond on two points here.

Firstly, I think your usage of the word "eject" bay be inappropriate and
may lead to unnecessary concern.  We have already discussed across
several threads the question of reorganization. This subject has been
raised in the context of a consensus within Avalon for reorganization.
I think I have already stated that I personally see an obligation on the
members of the proposed PMC to facilitate and enable successful
migration of these projects, and in particular, leveraging the Apache
Commons and Apache Incubator communities in the process.

The second point is possibly a matter of incorrect grammar.  You
suggested that the scope was decided by myself.  This is incorrect.  A
more correct statement would be that the scope statement was "proposed"
by myself (and was subsequently debated).  No alternative scope
statement was proposed.  Messages were submitted to the list analyzing
the scope statement and the potential impact on the Avalon community.
Another message (from you) suggested that the scope was too broad.  At
the end of the discussion process, nobody had proposed an alternative
scope statement, however, there was consensus that the scope, while
representative of Avalon, needed further qualification.  This was
further discussed in terms of the need for a detailed charter.  Notes
reflecting this were included in the proposal posted to the board and
remain consistent with the proposed resolution.

 >Others have a different reason not to
 >vote. Many of those who did not vote had expressed dissatisfaction 
with what
 >you decided in the [PROPOSAL] thread.
 >

If I recall correctly there were approximately 0 no votes.  This seems
to suggest to me that a certain level of tolerance for change existed
amongst those members who chose not to vote.  After all, the
registration of a -1 vote is not all together a difficult thing to do.
All in all, we have witnessed a resounding YES buy the community to move
forward with a united Avalon.

 >However rather than try to reach
 >consensus with the group you chose to go with your own vision instead.
 >

Just a small note - the proposal was prepared as a result of discussion
here and on related Apache list within which Avalon was raised as an
example.  Many of the emails we in fact a result of comments and
observations that you raised.  Following this, discussion continued on
the Avalon list and subsequently resulted in the preparation of a
proposal.  The proposal was prepared in order to reflect what I viewed
to be the majority interest and would appear that majority of the active
Avalon committers have chosen to endorse that position.

 >
 >Thus the low level of involvement in the vote - even though it is a
 >significant issue for our evolution.
 >

Let me summarize the numbers for you concerning the level of participation:

    Area         Committers   PMC Engagement    Vote Engagement
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Total        31           11 (35%)          9 (29%)
    Framework    11           7  (90%)          6 (54%)
    Excalibur    12           11 (91%)          7 (58%)
    Phoenix/etc  8            5  (86%)          2 (25%)
    Apps         11           7  (52%)          4 (32%)

I'm not qualified to interpret these results, suffice to say that I'm
confident that a silent majority have expressed an opinion.

Cheers, Steve.


-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message