cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: CloudStack Quality Process
Date Sat, 06 Dec 2014 00:04:12 GMT
Done 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pdion@cloudops.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:57 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process
> 
> Let's fixed the time off the ML: http://doodle.com/xhp57mymv7hyim55
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > having said so, I propose to set a date for our first (irc/goto)
> > > meeting; wednesday 10 december 16:00 UTC?
> > [Animesh]  Can we push it out by 1 hour to 17:00 UTC, the current time
> > falls out on my time for dropping kids to school. If it does not work
> > for others I can join @14:00 UTC (6:00 AM PST)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Will Stevens
> > > <wstevens@cloudops.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> >
Mime
View raw message