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 B5C7F187CA for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49985 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 16:27:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-community-dev-archive@community.apache.org Received: (qmail 49690 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 16:27:10 -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 49678 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2015 16:27:10 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:27:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 97B0AC0FC5 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:27:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-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 (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YnX9vvWyE9A0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:26:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id DDA21439D5 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so63145460iow.1 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UwbNc1qgetZNQIsH/CL4vrTjZaPqe+L6vcY47bq0kuk=; b=Fj+0TS44aD33UzsEDQR8zPCbbrfcO+mCYfX7t06VLgLfFIHHNuGZEONUitXjkKGaJA x56vGkYP4ghxg+e4Ntd0608mgj0rUIwYF2XWRcv2RMMmNc/0Kw0CJb3gkAaiamIURlnC iFr6Rupi95Q8zBCKNAz5KReZmfBWYnDkI1Pa4Qzezs3f2lxcJ3gK6F3+AIsy7TSaySrS /s5jALns3uKLnqbqZKerHrbR0vDGXIpDusGc5aKdlmNUboRk6u8iYbVZjoeU67hQV7en OG5azeNqw2R9T8xTeIczCTS+yKUvblFGZFfh0puje9eNPgQznig+Gj0OHcBpFyCppeZW bbuA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.8.31 with SMTP id 31mr12465284ioi.34.1445444814510; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.171.129 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <56213FE0.5080009@rcbowen.com> <4064173.zJHRxZPbYq@herve-desktop> <4606062.upZOIfjGNv@herve-desktop> <5626A2AD.50206@rcbowen.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:26:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format From: sebb To: dev@community.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 af= ter >>> 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 informati= on 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 do= n't >>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someo= ne >>> 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 (wh= at >>> 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 me= mbers. >> >> 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 wrot= e: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 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 informati= on: >>>>>>>>>> I thought >>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not al= ways >>>>>>>>>> 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 th= an >>>>>>>> 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 i= n >>>>>>> the past quarter >>>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruitin= g >>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats). >>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the repor= ter >>>>>>> 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 s= o >>>>>> 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.t= xt >>>>>>> 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 l= ink >>>>>>> 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 u= nix >>>>> 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 wa= s >>>>> 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 t= o >>>>> the board. >>>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relat= e >>>>> 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 wou= ld >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 membe= rs >>>>>>>>>>>> listed in >>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first sec= tion >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so d= oes >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template. >>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section= . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 1= 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 commi= ttee >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.t= xt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=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 inf= o is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppo= se >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepanc= y. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LD= AP) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 u= nix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current commit= ter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> base. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with ne= w >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 membershi= p. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rath= er >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 t= he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes t= o >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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=3DC3=3DA7ois Maury a= t Mon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group membe= rs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 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 Ap= r 30 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 1= 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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