forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.scher...@wyona.com>
Subject RE: future of Forrest Friday get togethers
Date Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:20:57 GMT
El lun, 26-06-2006 a las 21:45 +0800, Gav.... escribió:
> Replying to the original post, but I'll try and reply to other comments
> also.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@apache.org]
> > Sent: Monday, 26 June 2006 2:00 PM
> > To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> > Subject: future of Forrest Friday get togethers
> > 
> > (chair-hat=on ... no big deal, it means that the
> > views are not necessarily my personal opinion. They are
> > concerns that i am raising as the chair.)
> > 
> > When we started our Forrest Friday monthly IRC get togethers,
> > we tried to address the long-standing ASF concerns about
> > mailing lists being the primary communication.
> > 
> > We agreed to go ahead as an experiment, be careful
> > with its use, be sure to summarise proceedings,
> > commit the logs, enable the whole community to be
> > involved, make decisions on the mailing list.
> > 
> > One of our board reports [1] referred to the commencement
> > of these sessions. The board followed up to ensure that
> > there is wide community participation. We had a discussion
> > on the Forrest private pmc@ mailing list to address
> > some specific concerns. Those have subsequently been
> > raised on the dev@ list.
> > 
> > [1] The minutes are now public, so i can point the dev@
> > list to them:
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_1
> > 1_16.txt
> > 
> > Two of the concerns were:
> > 
> > ---------
> > A) Hard to match IRC handles with developers identities.
> > To ensure that participation and oversight is sufficient
> > we would need to at least be able to determine PMC members.
> > 
> > We have tried to deal with this by using better IDs.
> > Also some of the committers have applied for "IRC cloaks".
> > We need to follow up again to get that list registered.
> > 
> > ---------
> > B) We started out well with the Summaries, but were
> > becoming slack.
> > 
> > We did try to make an effort. This should not be left
> > to one person. The situation now feels worse to me.
> > 
> > ---------
> 
> Dirks summary of his notes says:-
> 
> 	"...General discussion item -> encourage/allow more of this IRC
>   	   but experiment with better ID's and summaries to mailing list
> 	   until we confirm wide community participation ?..."
> 
> So to me it seems the board is not against IRC as such, and will keep an
> Eye out to see if it works then maybe it can spread elsewhere.
> 
> To me as a dev community member it has worked (for me) and has been most
> Invaluable. 
> 
> Having real time chat sessions means that I can 'get in the zone' of
> something, ask a question, try it, come back, get some more feedback
> More or less straight away, ask some more etc... and I get something done,
> something more understood that day.
> 
> Sure, eventually after a few emails to and from the list over a few days I
> might end up with the same result. But each time I have to re-enter the zone
> of thought, try it out, email the list, wait a day or so, try it again.
> 
> So IRC for me is invaluable for some aspects of Forrest to get my head
> around with some real talk. It is by no means a replacement for the main
> mail lists - which would also benefit by the logs.

I see it like Gavin. I am normally not 100% online but trying as time
allows. Cooperating in real time via IRC can cut down the developing
time like we have seen in some occasions. 

Re the communication channel only being mail all conversion on our FF
are committed on a regular basis thanks to our channel operators. This
way I actually think a summary more luxury then obligation since one can
read all conversion in the log.

> 
> > 
> > It is now time to assess whether we want to continue.
> > I have been wanting to raise this issue for a while
> > The discussion at Incubator [2] spurred me.
> 
> I might answer that one too if the conversation looks like it might like my
> input.
> 
> > 
> > Is it successful for us at Apache Forrest?
> 
> So far I think yes. I agree with some of what Ross says re:XHTML2. In other
> words maybe we should not try to make major decisions on the future of some
> aspects of forrest via IRC and those that participate at the time. At the
> same time I do not think IRC sessions should just be narrowed down into code
> only and close some Issues. 

Yeah, the xhtml2 issue was IMO not grounded only on the FF but on a
general disagreement of the implementation (surly enforced by the FF).

> People have ideas and I've been to every forrest Friday and in every one
> someone has said 'I have an idea that might work for such and such, what do
> others think...' and then a new idea gets realised. Sometimes people need
> that immediate reaction to bounce ideas around and then come up with
> reactionary replies. This can not be easily achieved with the main
> communication of the lists.

It can but it cost time and the point being for IRC is that you can
instantly get feedback. 

> 
> > Does it enable the whole community to be involved?
> 
> I don't see why not. If you can install forrest you can install IRC on
> whatever platform you use. With the 24 hour period then everyones timezone
> is covered. If someone can't make it then the logs or summaries of logs and
> also the commits and continued discussion on the lists should ensure the
> rest are upto date and kept informed. The important thing here going back to
> what I said earlier is to ensure no 'big' decisions on the direction of
> forrest or parts of are decided on IRC, but continued on the list so
> everyone gets a say if they want.

Exactly.

> 
> > Can we address the concern about the summaries?
> 
> No single person should be responsible for the summaries as has been
> mentioned. Having more than one person at the same time working on a summary
> also has its problems. Now, where is that discussion on voluntary allocation
> of roles for certain things? This needs revisiting and come come in handy
> here. Someone, possibly different each time needs to shout up and say 'yep,
> I'll do it this time' then put it up on the website somewhere where it can
> be tinkered with later if needed. Summaries of past events should be up the
> site somewhere don't you think?

I am actually not sure about summaries, see above. It is all in the log
and a summary would IMO better fit as mail to the ml.

> 
> > Should we let it continue?
> 
> Yes. Some projects have blogs some have wikis, some use Jira others Bugzilla
> (or I like the new Scarab). A couple are now investigating IRC and we have
> it already. I would like to see it continue here as it is a great benefit to
> me personally and to forrest as a whole.
> 
> Ross has suggested and others have already given their thumbs up to trialing
> an alternative approach. 
> 
> 1. - Have shorter sessions, say 2 hours. With a much tighter set of
> objectives, for example, one or two related issues that need resolving or
> preparing for a release.
> 
> I am happy to have a tight set of objectives. In the past there has been a
> theme for forrest Friday which is general. Those participating were free to
> choose whatever they wanted to do to achieve outcomes which are good for
> their agendas/goals but also good for the community as a whole. It is also
> true that people participate in forrest project in general to the same
> agendas and goals. I believe the term widely used is 'its your itch, go
> scatch it'.
> 
> So, the problem here then is, if the objectives are set tighter, then it
> will appeal to a lesser audience, god knows that there are few enough
> attending the IRC sessions currently, we should encourage more participation
> not less. Hmm, a catch 22, as I agree that more focused objectives will be
> needed for shorted IRC sessions and also that probably more success will be
> the result.
> 
> 2. - One week before the session call a vote as to whether we will run the
> session. To proceed a session would need a minimum of three +1, meaning the
> voters will attend for the full 2 hours, and no -1, meaning the voter wants
> to attend that session but cannot.
> 
> Ok, so what time of day will the 2 hour session occur? Having it at the same
> time every time is bound to exclude some people globally every time. This
> boils down to the same people being able to attend, with a different topic
> each time some of those may not be interested in all of them.
> 
> I am possibly different from the norm in that I have no agenda and if the
> time is reasonable for me to attend then I will be there every time unless
> something crops up. I liked the 24 hour sessions because I could nip out, do
> a job, come back carry on etc. With a 2 hour session I could also ensure I
> would available for the whole time.
> 
> Is 2 hours enough ? Sometimes in takes me that long to get into the swing of
> things, but that's me. I'd be happier with say 4 hours. I agree with
> Cyriaque in the suggestion of having two a month if the time is going to
> reduced so much.
> 
> Also, why the no on a -1. Everyone who will not attend is automatically a -1
> I'd assume.
> 
> 3. - In addition, one of the attendees must commit to writing a summary
> immediately after the session, (this could be done collaboratively during
> the session using Guppy or similar - it works on mac now I think)
> 
> Agreed, it need not be the same person each time. I think one person who is
> going to attend should volunteer this role up front so everyone else know
> they don't have to, and that it will get done - then as mentioned others
> could perhaps tinker with it afterwards if needed. (Especially if I did it!)
> 
> 4. - During the session discussion is limited to the identified issues and
> social chat. Anything else is deemed off topic and moved to the mailing
> list.
> 
> Agreed. (woohoo, short answer)

Dunno, I like some small talk on IRC on FF.

> 5. - We can keep a list of topics we want to tackle on an FF and vote for
> more than one each month, the one with the highest attendance will be the
> one to go ahead. This way we ensure maximum community involvement.
> 
> Yep, that's cool. If someone has a Eureka moment I don't think it should be
> held back though.
> 
> 6.I feel a tighter focus and a shorter time frame will make it easier for
> people to participate effectively, it will also prevent problems such as the
> different XHTML2 solutions from occurring since someone with a vested
> interest can vote -1 on a session if they are unable to attend.
> 
> Agree, with caveats mentioned previously.
> 
> > 
> > People other than the Forrest PMC can also help with
> > this decision. What is your experience?
> 
> Erm, see above :)
> 
> 
> Gav...

Thanks Gavin for this nice mail.

salu2
-- 
Thorsten Scherler
COO Spain
Wyona Inc.  -  Open Source Content Management  -  Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                   http://lenya.apache.org
thorsten.scherler@wyona.com                thorsten@apache.org


Mime
View raw message