cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ilya musayev <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CloudStack Quality Process
Date Sat, 06 Dec 2014 01:57:54 GMT
I'd like to attend,  i will be commuting during the meeting hours 
getting to work - my connection will be choppy but i can listen in.
On 12/5/14, 2:20 PM, Pierre-Luc Dion wrote:
> GTM if voice required although, wouldn't make more sense to use
> #cloudstack-meeting as it keep record of discussions and is the regular
> channel? either way, I will be in on 10 Dec 16 UTC
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: williamstevens@gmail.com [mailto:williamstevens@gmail.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Will Stevens
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:41 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Cc: Steve Wilson
>>> Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process
>>>
>>> I am speaking as a committer who has limited insight into the 'correct'
>> way to do
>>> this via Apache (so be gentle).  :)
>>>
>>> I like the idea of a wiki page to help get everyone on the same page and
>> to track
>>> the consensus as we move forward...
>>>
>>> I also agree that it is hard to come to a consensus on the list because
>> it is really
>>> hard to have a constructive conversation on here in a timely manner
>> where the
>>> different voices can be heard.
>>>
>>> I think it would be interesting to schedule sessions/meetings on the
>> list so any
>>> interested party can join.  These sessions/meetings would happen in a
>> format
>>> like IRC where the transcript of the session can be later posted to the
>> list as well
>>> as a summary of the transcript so it can be reviewed by any member who
>> could
>>> not make the meeting.  This way we keep all of the actual conversation
>> in the
>>> list, but we also make it easier to actually have a 'conversation' at
>> the same time.
>>> It is hard to beat real time when working through this sort of stuff.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense to others?  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>>
>>> *Will STEVENS*
>>> Lead Developer
>>>
>>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw
>>> @CloudOps_
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
>>> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wearing my PMC hat and with past experience on these discussions we
>>>> have not made much progress on mailing list despite agreeing on the
>>>> goals and have locked horns. One possibility after reading Chip's
>>>> email and concerns I see is that, we create a wiki outlining the
>>>> problem space, possible
>>>> solution(s) and their specific pros and cons and have people
>> collaborate.
>>>> Once a general consensus is there and wiki is stable we can bring it
>>>> back to the mailing list for final approval. This is open as well as
>>>> requires participant a higher degree of commitment to collaborate and
>>>> will be more structured.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Animesh
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>> <chipchilders@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Speaking with my PMC hat on, but not as someone that has the time
>>>>>> to help with this process)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love the idea of moving forward with resolving some of the
>>>>>> quality process / tooling / etc... challenges that we face as a
>>>>>> project and community. I also love the idea that companies getting
>>>>>> commercial value from this project are talking (as companies)
>>>>>> about how to best support the project through either directing
>>>>>> their employees to work on this problem, allowing those interested
>>>>>> the time to do so, and / or offering (as Citrix did) required
>>>>>> hardware/software resources to make improvements for the common
>>>>>> good.  Importantly, I like that the companies involved are
>>>>>> mutually agreeing that this is for the common good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I have a concern about the outline below, specifically
>>>>>> in how the definition of approach and eventual execution are
>> handled.
>>>>>> The proposal of taking this off-list until there is a "proposal to
>>>> ratify"
>>>>>> is what I'd like to see changed. I would fully expect that a
>>>>>> fleshed out proposal hitting the list would be met with more
>>>>>> discussion than you would like (and perhaps even met with
>> frustration).
>>>>>> What has worked well for us in the past, where there is a need to
>>>>>> have those interested in "doing work" to be able to focus on that
>>>>>> work, has been to start with a call for interested parties (as you
>>>>>> did). Then, using a combination of threads on this list and "live"
>>>>>> meetings, make progress on defining the requirements and approach
>>> incrementally.
>>>>>> Execution of any work should similarly be open and shared on this
>> list.
>>>>>> Throughout that process, allowing comments and openings for
>>>>>> participants are critical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the things we learned about using "live" meetings to speed
>>>>>> up the consensus process in the past is to make sure that while
>>>>>> they are fantastic at allowing the participants to understand each
>>>>>> other, it's critical to remember that (1) there are no project
>>>>>> decisions made outside of the mailing lists and (2) that it's
>>>>>> important to have minutes or notes from those live meetings shared
>>>>>> with the community as
>>>> a
>>>>> whole.
>>>>>> Now a very real concern that some of us have is getting bogged
>>>>>> down in arguments based on opinion, especially the "drive by"
>>>>>> opinions. This issue (plus challenges with people violently
>>>>>> agreeing with each other, yet talking past each other), is what I
>>>>>> believe has held up meaningful progress. To deal with this, I
>>>>>> suggest we all remember that projects at the ASF are about
>>>>>> supporting those that "DO", while giving opportunity for
>>>>>> participation and comment from those that might not currently be
>>>>>> "DOING". But those that are doing the work, and collaborating to
>>>>>> reach a shared goal, shouldn't let a lack of 100% consensus on
>> every
>>> aspect hold back progress.
>>>>>> As someone who will not be "doing" anything for this effort, but
>>>>>> has an interest in maintaining this community's health and seeing
>>>>>> it continue to succeed, I hope my suggestions and comments are
>> helpful.
>>>>>> -chip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:12:27PM +0000, Steve Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was great to get to see a number of you at the recent CCC
in
>>>> Budapest.
>>>>> While I was there, I got to meet face to face with individuals
>>>>> working
>>>> for several
>>>>> companies that have a real stake in the commercial success of the
>>>> CloudStack
>>>>> project.
>>>>>>> After joining Citrix (and becoming involved in CloudStack) about
>>>>>>> a
>>>> year ago,
>>>>> I’ve come to believe that we need to do more to mature our quality
>>>> practices
>>>>> around this codebase.  We all like to say #cloudstackworks (and it’s
>>>> true), but
>>>>> this is a massive codebase that’s used in the most demanding
>>>> situations.  We
>>>>> have large telecommunications companies and enterprises who are
>>>>> betting
>>>> their
>>>>> businesses on this software.  It has to be great!
>>>>>>> There has been quite a bit of discussion on the mailing list
in
>>>> recent months
>>>>> about how we improve in this area.  There is plenty of passion, but
>>>>> we
>>>> haven’t
>>>>> made enough concrete progress as a community.  In my discussions
>>>>> with key contributors as CCC, there was general agreement that the
>>>>> DEV list isn’t
>>>> a good
>>>>> forum for hashing out these kinds of things.  Email is too
>>>>> low-bandwidth
>>>> and too
>>>>> impersonal.
>>>>>>> At CCC, I discussed with several people the idea that we
>>>>>>> commission a
>>>> small
>>>>> sub team to go hash out a proposal for how we handle the following
>>>>> topics within the ACS community (which can then be brought back to
>>>>> the larger community for ratification):
>>>>>>>    *   Continuous integration and test automation
>>>>>>>    *   Gating of commits
>>>>>>>    *   Overall commit workflow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are looking for volunteers to commit to being part of this
>> team.
>>>> This
>>>>> would imply a serious commitment.  We don’t want hangers on or
>> observers.
>>>>> This will entail real work and late night meetings.  We’re looking
>>>>> for
>>>> people who
>>>>> are serious contributors to the codebase.
>>>>>>>  From Citrix, David Nalley and Animesh Chaturvedi have booth
told
>>>>>>> me
>>>> they’re
>>>>> willing to commit to this project.  They’ve both managed ACS
>>>>> releases
>>>> and have
>>>>> a really good view into the current process — and I know both are
>>>> passionate
>>>>> about improving our process.  From my CCC discussions, I believe
>>>>> there
>>>> are
>>>>> individuals from Schuberg Philis, Shape Blue and Cloud Ops who are
>>>> willing to
>>>>> commit to this process.
>>>>>>> If you are willing to be part of this team to drive forward our
>>>> community,
>>>>> please reply here.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Wilson
>>>>>>> VP & Product Unit Manager
>>>>>>> Cloud Software
>>>>>>> Citrix
>>>>>>> @virtualsteve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan


Mime
View raw message