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 05:44:20 GMT
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