Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format
To: dev@community.apache.org
References: <56213FE0.5080009@rcbowen.com> <4064173.zJHRxZPbYq@herve-desktop>
 <CAOGo0Va0ksBdyz9Tw1iQy-d5-_MqCO3qLWKDwDYUpP=+AnRxEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4606062.upZOIfjGNv@herve-desktop>
 <CAOGo0Vbe9221KZCwsTkr5cd5fB_EEmtE6M_aEo6pbNd8nPyzTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFG6u8FA0iRPLsMJg2ZH2YZGFmuktyXKUZUmP+OUgHkn+1YQAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VaiMkcFsSReof_iyN=+JVy1W-Uu0Q+72++g+5Xhj4DpzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFG6u8EYOCodpqKMvzfVG1+zvuKrrynbHnpFJG3Z2n4v-ZakLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VYgmEN_UaTOd=nwEFQ4TTih_9+T-w5y5i6vKC_cK+LTLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VZn2kgBc7tF6cR0zKma13c3aN0_0AXu-dBE7QmOMtg-7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com>
Message-ID: <5626A2AD.50206@rcbowen.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:23:09 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOGo0VZn2kgBc7tF6cR0zKma13c3aN0_0AXu-dBE7QmOMtg-7w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 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.
================


I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC. I'm told twice 
that there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers. And 
in the earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is 
used, which always makes me do a double-take.

Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.


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