Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4489A38B.3000209@hogstrom.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:36:27 -0400
From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
References: <4488B55B.9010302@hogstrom.org>
	 <74e15baa0606081744t198d89e4q692d7a4c555d50b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7b3355cb0606082337x246b7b90p56626e739433231f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4489713F.9030701@apache.org>
 <74e15baa0606090634y151633fw1f38eb0023a648f9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0606090634y151633fw1f38eb0023a648f9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Aaron,

Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private 
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread.  I think 
that will help.

Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. 
  Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address specific information.

Registrant:
    Address is provided *Removed*
    Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
       Created on: 11-Apr-06
       Expires on: 11-Apr-07
       Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06

    Administrative Contact:
       Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu

    Technical Contact:
       Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu

Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes.  I was working to release 1.1 and 
you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release.  I  don't think that we agreed on how to handle 
JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not 
releasing 1.1.

We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which 
may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several 
times.  I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.

Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded 
members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like.  Given 
that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that 
you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open 
as well.

In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste their private 
notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your request.  I'm happy to oblige.

Bring it on.

Matt


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
> 
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> working toward are.
>> >
>> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
>> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
>> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
>> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> > immensely.
>>
>> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
>> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
>> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>>
>> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
>> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >
>> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
>> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
>> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>
> 
> 
>