directory-kerby mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zheng, Kai" <>
Subject RE: state of KDC
Date Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:09:07 GMT

Thanks Emmanuel for the thoughts.

>> I tend to think that the balance between JIRA/MailingList is not easy to make. 
The problem is we seldom discuss specific questions deeply in JIRAs, thus we leave nothing
context specifics for new contributors in future. 

>>But I do think that ythe Mailing List get more attention than JIRAs.
As said above, this is because we don’t favor JIRAs, we are used to the ML. I'm not sure
it's all the good practice. 

Below just an example FYI. All the deep discussions can be tracked down here, from architecture,
design to implementation. When some new guy wants to learn about the effort, we just point
him/her there.


-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [] 
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: state of KDC

Le 03/07/15 10:34, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Zheng, Kai <> wrote:
>> Thanks Jiajia for sorting this out! It's helpful to learn about the 
>> new project. Maybe we should have such status update or lighter ones regularly?
> it is a good practice to let the team know before if you are planning 
> to add any new features or any _significant_ changes to the code base.

I agree. Now, there are two aspects here :
- about the reports : as a new project, and in order to keep the community informed about
what is going on, yes, it's a good idea to post a quick report (once a month ?)
- about the significant changes : I would strongly suggest they are discussed on the mailing
list beforehand. JIRA is not the best place for that, because there are a lot fo them and
it's hard to know which are related to minor issues and which are related to major refactoring
or feature edition.

I tend to think that the balance between JIRA/MailingList is not easy to make. But I do think
that ythe Mailing List get more attention than JIRAs. One good exemple is the getIdentities()
discussion, or the Cache discussion we have had lately. Those are the kind of threads that
is very valuable for all of us.

<about how The ASF works>
More than that, the ASF is all about consensus building : that mean discussion, and if a consensus
is made, then we go on. If no consensus appears, then we have two options (well, 3 but the
third one is not something you want to experiment ;-) :
o we vote, and depending on the result, we act. Kind of democratic, but it can lead to wrong
decisions... Vote is more a way to assess a consensus.
o we dismiss the proposal, and start thinking about alternatives. There is no one single way
to do things.

That are the two best ways to get things done withing hurting feelings.

Let's speak a bit about the third possibility :
o ego is hurt, people get angry, some call others names. At some point, the PMC has to take
a position, and it may escalate to the Board, commit access is suspended or revoked, war ensue,
atomic bombs are sent, the planet explode, the sun becomes a super nova, milky way collapse
into a giant black hole, we vasnish into a singularity... It could even get worse ;-)

More seriously, we are grown up adult (well, most of the time ;-), so we
*dont't* want to switch in Solution 3 mode.

That's the way we work !
</about how The ASF works>

Ok, it was just a funny way to explain that discussin is always good !

View raw message