incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Sun, 08 Nov 2015 11:26:44 GMT
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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".
> >
>
> Makes sense. To answer you previous question on what is meant by "running"
> a release. The answer is yes, a committer functioned as a Release Manager.
> I do think we have people that are very close.
>

I'm interested to know what criteria/behavior you're looking for that gets
them over your bar for PMC membership?

Niall



> >
> >
> >
> > 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