community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format
Date Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:52:38 GMT
Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.

Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
Show the last PMC addition and date.
Show the last committer addition and date.

That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
stops being useful due to too much information.

I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.


On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
>> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>>
>> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
>
> What else should it be called?
> It's not the same as the PMC.
>
>> there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two sections, and I don't
>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someone
>> should be notified, and fix it, but I don't really care to see that in the
>> report.
>>
>> Ideally, what I'd want to see is:
>>
>>
>> Community Roster Changes
>> =======================
>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>
>>
>> ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was (what
>> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.
>>
>> The current output looks like:
>>
>> ================
>> PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
>> → Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>> → Currently 43 PMC members.
>>
>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>
>> PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>> → Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>> → No new committers in the last 3 months.
>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>> ================
>>
>
> Remember that those sections are aimed at the PMC, not the board.
>
>> I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC.
>
> AIUI the idea was to show the latest PMC addition even if there were
> no changes in the last 3 months.
> The 2nd mention ("Latest addition") could be suppressed if there are
> recent changes (I've fixed that in the proposed version)
>
> The 3rd mention of Stefan is not about him being added to the PMC, it
> is about him being added to the LDAP group (though that distinction is
> lost in the current version).
>
>> I'm told twice that
>> there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers.
>
> The reason the current version shows duplication is because "committee
> group" was replaced by "PMC".
> This is confusing, because PMC != committee group.
>
>> And in the
>> earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is used, which
>> always makes me do a double-take.
>
> The original made it clear that the second count was about LDAP group members.
>
> Would it help to name it "LDAP committee group"?
>
>> Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.
>
> Not fully.
>
> You have not explained why you also made changes to the report template section.
>
> To make things clearer, please could you say what you think about the
> proposed version [1] of the report template?
>
> Is the report template section in that version clear?
> If not, what do you think is not clear? And how could it be improved?
>
> As to the earlier two sections, the reason I think they should be
> separate is that they relate to separate items that the PMC has to
> maintain.
> The committee-info.txt file and the LDAP committee group lists serve
> different purposes.
> The former is the official list of the PMC, the latter grants karma
> for PMC members.
> I can imagine non-PMC members being granted karma for PMC resources.
>
> I've made some more changes to the proposed version [1]
> These remove the unnecessary duplication of names in the "Latest
> addition" lines.
> Also I hope the difference between PMC  and LDAP is now clearer.
> If not, please say what is still unclear and how it can be improved.
>
> [1] https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information,
please just
>>>>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another
information:
>>>>>>>>> I thought
>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even
if not always
>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer
commit)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the
board, as
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case,
the
>>>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster
tool's
>>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more
than
>>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences
are.
>>>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group
in
>>>>>> the past quarter
>>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to
link
>>>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>>>
>>>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>>>
>>>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>>>
>>>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>>>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>>>
>>>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>>>
>>>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>>>
>>>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it
>>>> contains).
>>>>
>>>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix
>>>> group.
>>>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>>>> revert to its original title.
>>>>
>>>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>>>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>>>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Report template
>>>>
>>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>>>> the original cause of this thread.
>>>>
>>>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>>>
>>>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>>>> relevant to the board.
>>>>
>>>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>>>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>>>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>>>> the board.
>>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>>>> of the reporter page:
>>>>
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>>>> change by Rich
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>>>> should look like
>>>>
>>>> There is also:
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>>>
>>>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>>>> report template.
>>>
>>>
>>> This has now been implemented.
>>>
>>>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>>>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>>>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>>>> interested in committer changes.
>>>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>>>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> This should now display OK.
>>>
>>>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so
it
>>>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.boutemy@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last
3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at
Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group"
is looked at would
>>>>>>>>>>> be useful
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers
group or PMC
>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count
as PMC members
>>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added
in the first section
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the
board, so does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous
LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit
:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last
3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at
Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun
Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer
on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members.
(*)
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing
than the previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> version which
>>>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last
3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at
Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee
group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee
group on Sun Oct 11
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer
on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason
for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last
3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at
Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been
added to
>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the
PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <herve.boutemy@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in
2 forms: committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership
is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl)
is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN
and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members,
since all (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case,
and it's important not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only
in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl)
generally grants
>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g.
Commons and Subversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand
if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and
warning if LDAP PMC info is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done
by Whimsy, but I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if
there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain
that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before
the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary
to explain that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an
LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with
committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the
group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people
are dropped from the unix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing
on the current committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally
are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth
reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16
sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08,
Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody
objects to ambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP
committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct
(although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text
to show LDAP committee rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not
analyse the actual PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output
shows them as distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information
is not really relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the
report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely
wrong to imply that changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing
on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20
PM, Rich Bowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rbowen@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge
that the LDAP membership and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in
certain weird edge cases, for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report,
I find the current formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC
members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members
added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition
was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers
and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee
group members added in the last 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers
added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition
was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of
that there's 26 committers, and 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions
were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing
is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever.
Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to
me reformatting this a little, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
- @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/
- @apachecon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Mime
View raw message