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 16:42:47 GMT
I hadn't realized that the template section was different from the top
part.  Sorry for not scrolling down.

Current:
==========================
## PMC changes (from committee-info.txt):

 - Currently 40 PMC members.
 - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
 - Last PMC addition was Paul Nicolucci on Tue Jul 14 2015

## Committer base changes:

 - Currently 76 committers.
 - No new committers added in the last 3 months
 - Last committer addition was Thomas Andraschko at Thu Jul 02 2015
==========================


Improved (mostly using Rich's wording):

==========================
## Community Roster Changes

PMC established: 02/2006 (assumed actual date: 2006-02-27)
→ Currently 76 committers and 40 PMC members.
→ Last PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Paul Nicolucci)
→ Latest committer addition: Thu Jul 02 2015 (Thomas Andraschko)
==========================

I'm ambivalent about the "No new" lines, so having those after the
actual date would be fine if it makes the board member's job easier.
I have no interest in knowing it comes from "commitee-info".
However, I can live with the latest current incarnation without
feeling like I need to post-process it.  Thanks!






On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 exactly what the proposed version includes in the "report
> template section"
>
>> 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.
>
> Which is what the earlier sections in the page show.
>
>> 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.
>
> Agreed, and the proposed version I hope has got the correct balance.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, the original (and current) version of the report template had too
> much info.
>
> It has been tidied up in the proposed version.
>
>>
>> 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