cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com>
Subject Re: CloudStack Quality Process
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:56:49 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message