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 Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:15:37 GMT
Based on Doodle. Meeting  is schedule for  Dec 10th, 17h00 UTC.  freenode:
#cloudstack-meeting unless someone have a GTM.

Regards,



On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:

> When do we call the result of the doodle? wait for wednesday?
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for listening to my concerns folks...  and I'll be rooting for
> those
> > of you that are "doing" to come up with some better practices for the
> > community to adopt!
> >
> > 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
> >> > >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message