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 05:02:40 GMT
Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
between
committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
own work.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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