Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFG6u8FJqqqpOdQKRB4T1tbNO2oCsWr4CLsgit1-upNc+yUQfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D30F34AB.805E7%mattmann@apache.org>
	<2CF85773-AFF3-4AD8-99B1-CDC84FCCDF52@gmail.com>
	<D31004A1.8093C%chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<C7DD99FD-BA68-42A6-8DAF-C42CCFA2BA7E@gmail.com>
	<D3101E60.809CF%chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1458230628650.83509@netapp.com>
	<DF1F7DB5-344B-4EFC-BAAE-042608A0DC26@jaguNET.com>
	<CAGQtxvZ-=5kcqycnJ6hJkKTwNxHD=s4U5jwDb2c+7aYX9go6dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8Hfe9c4VK9bjecogXU1Ah_UOkCTH5aQd6A_hr-yfSTO8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOGrYkPQ1QZRce9dDGJ=gBz4+2OGqe+V-eHD789i-Ry=1KFR9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFG6u8FJqqqpOdQKRB4T1tbNO2oCsWr4CLsgit1-upNc+yUQfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:08:41 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAOGrYkP4t=9367RrNa7C0a=yZrZTy-39j99WEEHo95tk3s2sHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
 request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
From: Ian Rae <irae@cloudops.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cf80258407a052e69ead0

--001a113cf80258407a052e69ead0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good to know that we have the right people talking with the right people.
For the reasons I outlined, I'm confident we will sort this out because
everyone's interests should be aligned on this and I'm sure ASF understands
that in the age of infrastructure-as-code the ability to test myriad
permutations of infrastructure in an automated fashion, in a way that is
integrated efficiently into the developer workflow, is critical to the
viability of a project and not simply a "nice to have".

Thanks!

Ian

On Saturday, 19 March 2016, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ian Rae <irae@cloudops.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > Thanks for this context, I found it very helpful. We have an
> > interesting situation where no large companies are involved, and
> > really this is all about the needs of open source users. As you know
> > Apache CloudStack is highly user driven, and is perhaps thankfully off
> > the radar of the large industry players who have a tendency to subvert
> > community interests in the interest of short term gain (and good
> > governance comes in handy at such times, so we all understand the
> > value of CloudStack being part of the ASF in that sense). Apache
> > CloudStack also has some sophisticated reads related to CI/CD that are
> > perhaps not common, and therefore require special consideration.
> >
> > I don=E2=80=99t know the Apache Foundation well enough to understand wh=
ether
> > the large government style bureaucracy including poor communication is
> > a normal thing, or whether the fact that there aren=E2=80=99t big playe=
rs with
> > sophisticated lobbying capabilities involved is the reason the
> > community=E2=80=99s needs aren=E2=80=99t being addressed (not that I wo=
uld even know
> > if the ASF is susceptible to that).
> >
> > Trying to understand the cause behind the symptoms aside, the health
> > and success of the Apache CloudStack project should be in the
> > interests of both the ASF and CloudStack users and contributors. The
> > community values the governance of the ASF and the ASF should value an
> > engaged and motivated community, so why we are mired in such innuendo
> > is beyond me (conspiracy theories!). Unless some of us are actually
> > not here to build great open source software in the interest of users.
> >
> > So this appears to be the kind of time when leadership combined with
> > clarity of thought and communication are important to avoid
> > conversation devolving into simply =E2=80=9Cpeople being wrong on the
> > internet=E2=80=9D. I think I understand that the PMC leads the communit=
y. Who
> > represents the ASF leadership on this topic? I think they should be
> > engaged on this issue.
>
> At the ASF, leadership is generally bottoms up.  To the extent that
> you need access to a 'top", no less than three current ASF board
> members have directly participated in this thread:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/
>
> Whether I remain a Director or not (there are elections coming up this
> week), feel free to reach out to me directly.  And I'm confident that
> each and every one of the current Directors would make exactly this
> same offer.
>
> > Ian
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.co=
m
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> >>>> on.
> >>>
> >>> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning
> to
> >>> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?
> >>
> >> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
> >> working to clean that up.
> >>
> >> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
> >> when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
> >> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
> >> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
> >> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
> >> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
> >> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
> >> different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
> >> come to the ASF".
> >>
> >> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
> >> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
> >> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
> >> burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
> >> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
> >> (cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
> >> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
> >> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
> >> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
> >> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.
> >>
> >> I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
> >> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
> >> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
> >> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
> >> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.
> >>
> >> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
> >> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian Rae
> > CEO | PDG
> > c: 514.944.4008
> >
> > CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
> > www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6
>


--=20
Ian Rae
CEO | PDG
c: 514.944.4008

CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

--001a113cf80258407a052e69ead0--