incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Usergrid BaaS Stack for Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:15:16 GMT
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 02:23:34AM +0600, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >    On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Jim Jagielski <[1]jim@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >      On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 01:59:21AM +0600, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >      > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <[2]
> jim@jagunet.com>
> >      wrote:
> >      >
> >      > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> >      > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Jim Jagielski
> >      <[3]jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >      > > > > Alex, if people want to join and add themselves as
> >      > > > > committers, then they can. The bar to entry for podlings
> >      > > > > during the initial proposal stage is "I'm interested" :)
> >      > > >
> >      > > > Is there some more background available on why the barrier is
> set
> >      this
> >      > > > low in the incubator? It seems unnatural to me. A large part
> of
> >      > > > incubation of course is to attract new committers, but why
> not let
> >      the
> >      > > > podling decide on which barrier it wants to use?
> >      > >
> >      > > I said "initial proposal stage." After accepted and it actually
> >      becomes
> >      > > a podling then, of course, the podling decides how high or low
> that
> >      > > bar is.
> >      > >
> >      > > But we aren't talking about that.
> >      > >
> >      >
> >      > So during the "initial proposal stage" anyone who volunteers goes
> in
> >      > without having to contribute? There's no input from the
> perspective
> >      > podliing?
> >      >
> >
> >      How can they have contributed if its a new podling?
> >
> >    So fill the bus with anybody who volunteers? That does not sound
> >    meritocratic.
>
> As Champion of the proposal, I felt it was the Right Thing. I didn't
> say filling the bus was going to happen, but rather people who
> expressed a sincere interest, I was, as Champion, OK in adding
> them.
>
>
Sincere interest is good. And before continuing to read please understand
that my issue is not with you as our champion but with this process.
Something is broken here, and it makes it possible for people to think or
presume the worst case (which I'll try to outline below).

So to resume ... Sincere interest is wonderful.

However, when the CEO of a company adamantly volunteers to mentor a
perspective podling, and within 36 hours a few of his employees also
volunteer, then people start thinking things. And this is very natural. I'm
not saying they're founded or not founded. I'm saying, the probabilities
have a suggestive quality, hinting that there may be some back channel
coordination activities at play. Such activities are often considered not
very sincere.

I understand meritocracy, and I understand our Way. Why suspend the
meritocratic principals that has been part of our existence since our very
being in this "initial podliing stage"? It will naturally cause issues,
stress and concerns. It's not consistent with our Way and it will cause
many threads to grow very very long.

Let volunteers really volunteer, with their contributions and not with
their words.

Let's prevent these potential misunderstandings by leveraging meritocracy
in this initial proposal stage. I don't think we (the IPMC, mentors, or
champions) have a right to decide on who is included or not included in a
community. We cannot make that call for any community. They have to do it.
For us to make that call, requires us to have a knowledge of their software
and the ability of a candidate to understand it. That's not why we're here.

Meritocracy needs to be in effect at all times!


> Tell you what: Since you feel so strongly, I no longer volunteer
> to Champion the proposal. You will have to find someone else.
>
>
I'm sorry to hear that. Worse yet I'm sorry that you may have misunderstood
my intentions.

I was trying to make a point about the process being borked by presenting
an extreme example. I hope you did not take offense. I was, after all, the
first to approach you on becoming our champion. So my aim is of course not
to attack our champion, but rather to allow people to see the faults in our
process.

>
> >
> >    OK in the immortal words of a friend, I'm going to just be a
> committer on
> >    every podling from now on.**
> >
> >    --
> >    Best Regards,
> >    -- Alex
> >
> > References
> >
> >    Visible links
> >    1. mailto:jim@jagunet.com
> >    2. mailto:jim@jagunet.com
> >    3. mailto:jim@jagunet.com
>
> --
> ===========================================================================
>    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>         "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war"  ~ John Adams
>



-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message