incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:26:39 GMT
I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
result of any decision being made.

Thanks,
Lenni

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> >>> about the project in general.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I took a look.
> >>>
> >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
> >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
> >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
> >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> >>>
> >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer
> ==
> >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point
> >> it
> >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From
> that
> >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were
> no
> >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to
> >> the
> >>> PMC role.
> >>>
> >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
> >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
> committers
> >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
> unable
> >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand
> >> the
> >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> >
> > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> >
> > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC
> > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress
> > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
> encouraging
> > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really
> > striving to build a community around the project.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with
> Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
>
> From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single
> commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns others
> have raised about decisions being made in private.
>
> -Taylor
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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