incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2015 07:00:58 GMT
PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
which
is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" should
be.
It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a release,
that has
considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally meets my
definition of "belongs on the PMC".



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems.
> Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
> instance,
> which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see
> the rhyme
> or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using.
>
> I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are
> being resolved,
> but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about
> planning and
> such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns as
> well.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be
>> posted on a wiki someplace.
>>
>> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see
>> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
>> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lenni
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
>> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
>> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now
>> includes
>> > new committers and new community members following along for which their
>> > voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that
>> > the
>> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like
>> this
>> > on-
>> > list.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 to the below.
>> > >
>> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> > > Chief Architect
>> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>> > > Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>> > > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com>
>> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
>> general@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
>> > > graduation
>> > >
>> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything
>> here,
>> > > >including past decisions.
>> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we
>> try
>> > to
>> > > >move with near
>> > > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles
>> people
>> > > >have without some formal
>> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
>> > > >
>> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really
>> shouldn't
>> > > >matter what roles people have
>> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't
>> capable
>> > of
>> > > >> considering anything.
>> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the
>> PPMC
>> > or
>> > > >> the community, all
>> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position
>> being
>> > > >> taken.  I would consider
>> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a
>> situation
>> > > >> like this or other related
>> > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf
of
>> > the
>> > > >> project.  That is why
>> > > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally
>> refer
>> > to
>> > > >> on list decisions.
>> > > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected
in
>> > any
>> > > >> consensus-based decision
>> > > >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective
>> > decision
>> > > >> making requires
>> > > >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> 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