incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <tcu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: working together
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:38:59 GMT
>> Unfortunately no one noticed that the
>> actual authors bringing the code were NOT on the private list where
>> the vote was held. So we got a new committer without the consent
>> and/or feedback of the original authors. A big surprise.
>
>
> I disagree here, I was fully aware that we hadn't formed the PPMC from the
> committership yet (read PPMC = mentors) and at least on my side it was by
> design. I should probably have pointed it out at the time just in case
> though, my bad.

Well, I feel tricked into a vote now. That is NOT right. The vote
should come from the community - not the mentors. Whether you like it
or not.

> Avinash and Prashant are two very nice fellows but the Cassandra community
> has to be larger than FB employees and actually was already, given the
> different forks that were developed here and there. Waiting to form the PPMC
> until it's more balanced in this case seems like a reasonable thing to do.

"OK, now childs play together" .. it doesn't work that way.

>> 1. We elected a committer without real community consensus. The
>> barrier of entry was unnatural low on this one. On the other hand we
>> need non-FB committers for the graduation. The more the better. (No
>> reason for low entry barrier though!)
>>
>
> If what you mean is that it was low because there was less direct peer
> review, I would agree

That is what I meant.


>> 3. Is trunk considered "stable"? Or aren't we missing a stable branch
>> for the required stability? Once we have the separation between stable
>> and trunk: Will patches really find it's way from trunk into stable?
>> Is Facebook OK with that approach. Will everyone cope with the
>> additional work of merging? Would it be useful ...or overkill to use
>> merge tracking?
>>
>
> A very useful tool here is what in Apache lingo is called "lazy consensus".
> Anybody can build a proposition and submit it in the open. If nobody objects
> in a reasonable amount of time (usually 72 hours), then it's considered
> adopted.
>
> So I've read a couple of propositions from Jonathan on these points, why not
> formalizing that?

That's the way forward I think.

Mime
View raw message