Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BACFE18871 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 94771 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 16:43:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 94497 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 16:43:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 94484 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2015 16:43:27 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:43:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 88E4C1A22D7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:43:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3a0Meh0bESw for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f46.google.com (mail-qg0-f46.google.com [209.85.192.46]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1A10A439B6 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so32523760qge.0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fsd0CKnmz5M2yVBOuuZ3wRuiCzms7BwIDDkWDOljLOs=; b=VOn8UdQcdnVENVmsTY2iR4RiVMHFF/O9ogE6C06EtAsNF+6JaZMBsN0804s8niAupS +S65wYPU0leNIov+YRCDkqib7w6UAPbNpfn+vZimfW1usshNlONMPMJg5bw4BEz6nrPY /qEc2Dr5q5OUzvrf680w38Rxr4lFqzuVhXKwyYHInpalrpvgHHWrZsy6plTftaRy5ToR 58R8n9H2eMa16S0PxqgDklf0K/JTVumTaghznIK2pNzG+Ov4zeRuwIFGK18Y5ml+UQ6K SYbxxVCHtMuBLkgNGOePzjUGKqC75Y3fxirKsU/k43o2qpJrp3GC6PBF16n+UP2rbszV XSxQ== X-Received: by 10.140.96.200 with SMTP id k66mr12471416qge.81.1445445786591; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.41.202 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:42:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <56213FE0.5080009@rcbowen.com> <4064173.zJHRxZPbYq@herve-desktop> <4606062.upZOIfjGNv@herve-desktop> <5626A2AD.50206@rcbowen.com> From: Mike Kienenberger Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:42:47 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format To: "dev@community.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I hadn't realized that the template section was different from the top part. Sorry for not scrolling down. Current: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ## 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 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Improved (mostly using Rich's wording): =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D ## Community Roster Changes PMC established: 02/2006 (assumed actual date: 2006-02-27) =E2=86=92 Currently 76 committers and 40 PMC members. =E2=86=92 Last PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Paul Nicolucci) =E2=86=92 Latest committer addition: Thu Jul 02 2015 (Thomas Andraschko) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D 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 wrote: > On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger 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 wrote: >>> On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen wrote: >>>> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation a= fter >>>> 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 informat= ion 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 d= on't >>>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, some= one >>>> 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 >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27) >>>> =E2=86=92 Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members. >>>> =E2=86=92 Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015 >>>> =E2=86=92 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 (w= hat >>>> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was. >>>> >>>> The current output looks like: >>>> >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>> PMC changes (From committee-info) =E2=86=91 Back to top >>>> Changes within the last 3 months: >>>> =E2=86=92 Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015 >>>> =E2=86=92 Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing) >>>> =E2=86=92 Currently 43 PMC members. >>>> >>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27) >>>> >>>> PMC changes (From LDAP) =E2=86=91 Back to top >>>> Changes within the last 3 months: >>>> =E2=86=92 Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015 >>>> =E2=86=92 Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing) >>>> =E2=86=92 No new committers in the last 3 months. >>>> =E2=86=92 Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu) >>>> =E2=86=92 Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members. >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>> >>> >>> 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 !=3D 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 m= embers. >>> >>> 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 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote= : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby wro= te: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Herv=C3=A9 BOUTEMY >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please jus= t >>>>>>>>>>> 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 informat= ion: >>>>>>>>>>> I thought >>>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not a= lways >>>>>>>>>>> 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 too= l's >>>>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more t= han >>>>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences ar= e. >>>>>>>>> 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 recruiti= ng >>>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats). >>>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the repo= rter >>>>>>>> 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 shoul= d >>>>>> 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 maintaine= d. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) Report template >>>>>> >>>>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI w= as >>>>>> 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 - no= t >>>>>> useful to the board; should be removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) grou= p >>>>>> - 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 rela= te >>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Herv=C3=A9 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Sam Ruby >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Herv=C3=A9 BOUTEMY >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 wo= uld >>>>>>>>>>>>> be useful >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group o= r 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 memb= ers >>>>>>>>>>>>> listed in >>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first se= ction >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 sectio= n. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Herv=C3=A9 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 comm= ittee >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Herv=C3=A9 BOUTEMY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.= txt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=3D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 in= fo is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I supp= ose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepan= cy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from L= DAP) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 projec= t 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 commi= tter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> base. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with n= ew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herv=C3=A9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 membersh= ip. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rat= her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 formattin= g >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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=3DC3=3DA7ois Maury = at Mon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group memb= ers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 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 A= pr 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, s= o >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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