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 06:34:58 GMT
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