Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOzHqcJDH3=YPyN743zqv4yj7Z3_Ps-gBcBLHv+1S6gwd9rX0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <1446465555.3149570.426574697.76AAA52B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AABEDF1B-03E3-49BB-9864-6F34510599C9@hortonworks.com>
 <5637A2F9.2000502@zonker.net>
 <AC8AE0DC-63A4-42F6-95C4-87CD32B92449@hortonworks.com>
 <CAOzHqcLf5gYa5r5F7e6mxF8vQHA0WWbkUo9OZ=aUJzn4yf7bdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5637C764.9090707@zonker.net>
 <CANLc_9KoXX5_mXL-=KSX4TA0CYOyi==q9-dDACzgOxrSa02pPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5637D540.1060806@zonker.net>
 <CACMN7iwFOOsQnGg_T0bWoELZoCiYfe2cTUVFKYayjJPtXDapCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5637DBD6.3060306@zonker.net>
 <CANLc_9+6S2bzO8FAP58N7izSihJrNTSbHCMw-nBFd2xisJnszw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1446502283.947.427199313.71AF5988@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <CAEWfVJ=rj_XwQN11ZApo3hy+rgw_Om3a2cz8WFhvoYTFVhkt_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9+iFfD8ZKv_yuvkryNtY-GEiLrzQuBzrEOSw7vmeaXcjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEWfVJ=o8oi2xOrG+RxPv6CdFfhBv6VrQtD1Xt8=XW90aBcpDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABD8fLU-GT215YRx2zELU_QhUVvJPR1vwO6p9nqx9oL0KuX2bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzHqc+jnpm4V7p=0gn-Y43H2=a=3VSyzFJDDWf0bkn-BJTDgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1446654749.1533446.429046241.294D4F7B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <E590495D-600E-4889-BA40-330DD02404B5@gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9KA9djy_CHctO7v5dvFGhM4_WAN56uRt2Sbe=j=ZOWv0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQc2gFbWH7w0q0CdSNGFfeo-72DSqPh4raK19fVXWO_HfNrvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <66713E00-9EB5-4BE4-B8BE-F4F3202492A0@gmail.com>
 <CAGQc2gGneUto71Mg3QE=goeCfn=neAgeLG2d-rFrd+nc7A_MqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzHqcLYMHc6b7iij72_VgoyT+Q4PGH-xTn=3DTTv4rRZZL3QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzHqcKf6CVGrhbkBo=tbBpAB9gY53-YuSBD-dTK_nn68zfQPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <D2602862.56E65%chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
 <CAOzHqcK-ASHnTo3uH7HwRdEG3SjgpSkMdzXL1Xt05oZQka9D9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGQc2gG+XOnj=GjXaxSYbLiUOMVEu_wp2+fRo+idKPhpPKpjmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzHqcLmxtuTHyu5eZR2q-F427OwSQM17pjUtF_=tiY=hu_8Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzHqcJDH3=YPyN743zqv4yj7Z3_Ps-gBcBLHv+1S6gwd9rX0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:28:27 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAGQc2gE8yWhjv2uRDjss5J2ufznHQvjcwYkG2A1AAqJio=2_EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
 graduation
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112d056e2e8180523c61377

--089e0112d056e2e8180523c61377
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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" shou=
ld
> 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.


>
>
>
> 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 se=
e
> > 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 abo=
ut
> > planning and
> > such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns a=
s
> > 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 b=
e
> >> 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 positi=
on
> >> > 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 li=
ke
> >> 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 behal=
f
> 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 reflecte=
d
> 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 =3D=3D PMC. The recent website change was=
 only
> to
> >> > help
> >> > > >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it wa=
s
> >> 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 n=
ew
> >> > > >>> committers,
> >> > > >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don=E2=80=99t see is any d=
iscussion
> at
> >> > all
> >> > > >>> about
> >> > > >>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they
> >> chose to
> >> > > >>>go
> >> > > >>> the
> >> > > >>> > >>> Committer !=3D PPMC route.
> >> > > >>> > >>>
> >> > > >>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being add=
ed
> >> [1],
> >> > > >>>it
> >> > > >>> is
> >> > > >>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry
> was
> >> > > >>> Committer
> >> > > >>> > =3D=3D
> >> > > >>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer=
.
> At
> >> > that
> >> > > >>> point
> >> > > >>> > >> it
> >> > > >>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer =
!=3D
> >> PMC.
> >> > > >>>From
> >> > > >>> > that
> >> > > >>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only,
> and
> >> > there
> >> > > >>> were
> >> > > >>> > no
> >> > > >>> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promotin=
g
> >> > > >>> committers to
> >> > > >>> > >> the
> >> > > >>> > >>> PMC role.
> >> > > >>> > >>>
> >> > > >>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn=
=E2=80=99t
> >> seem
> >> > to
> >> > > >>>be
> >> > > >>> any
> >> > > >>> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and
> why
> >> > > >>>that=E2=80=99s
> >> > > >>> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the
> >> initial
> >> > > >>> > committers
> >> > > >>> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render t=
he
> >> > > >>>project
> >> > > >>> > unable
> >> > > >>> > >>> to function, but I don=E2=80=99t see anything to indicat=
e 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 lac=
k
> of
> >> > new
> >> > > >>> PPMC
> >> > > >>> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. W=
e
> >> 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 tw=
o
> 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 !=3D PMC over Committer =3D=3D PMC?
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks lik=
e
> 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
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

--089e0112d056e2e8180523c61377--