community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format
Date Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:43:04 GMT
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
>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message