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: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:26:39 GMT
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> wrote:

> On 11/08/2016 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern
with
> >>>>> people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90%
of
> all
> >>>>> commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast
> majority
> >>>>> of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further
> spend
> >>>>> resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable?
> >>>>>
> >>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've
> worked
> >>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the
> issues
> >>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation.
> >>>
> >>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in
> >>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not
> going to
> >>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with
> >>> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they
> >>> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the
> right
> >>> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved
> with
> >>> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the
> right
> >>> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and
> except to
> >>> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for
> them
> >>> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves
> and
> >>> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I
> >>> think we should vote for them to graduate.
> >>
> >> Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on
> >> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that
> >> are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization
> >> historically cause problems over time.
> >
> > I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems.
> >
> >> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated?
> >
> > I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in
> the
> > Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything
> > new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large.
>
> If it turns the project into a more diverse/dispersed community, I'd say
> that's added value. We can argue all night whether that's up to the
> IPMC, the project or the board to figure out, I'm not sure we'll agree
> there :)
>
> >
> >> Surely we serve the
> >> Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem
> >> (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status?
> >
> > I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community
> > (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the
> > "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of
> > votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the
> > Geode community that mission has been accomplished.
> >
> > I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity
> requirement
> > simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation.
>
> Except it's not pointless for the foundation, we've seen that. we're
> seeing that right now with several projects that either die completely
> or take a very wrong turn because someone higher up the food chain
> thinks otherwise about the project(s), and that also hurts the
> foundation - let's not pretend that never happens. I can't say whether
> this would be true for Geode (how would I know?), but a 96+% chunk of
> all contributions coming from people affiliated with a single company is
> worrisome to me.
>
> >
> >> I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project
> >> should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned
> >> with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to
> >> see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without
> >> building the community first.
> >
> > Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good
> number
> > of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with
> this
> > community.
>
> I'd say Rich should vote what he feels is right, not what "a good number
> of us" think is right. That's not how consensus works.
>
> You'll notice that I haven't just said "-1, I don't like it". But I also
> haven't heard any compelling arguments as to why this isn't a problem,
> save a "we're sure it's not a problem" reply.
>
> If I were to look purely at contributions to the codebase, there is no
> indication that this issue is at all being worked on, on the contrary,
> if you look at contributions over time, the percentage that is purely
> pivotal keeps going up and up, and now sits at >96% in the past 6 months.
>
> Voting in new committers is one thing, but if it doesn't lead to some
> sort of dispersion of who has a deciding role in the project, then I
> don't believe the current strategy is working.
>
> Furthermore, there is little to no recognition that this is even a
> potential issue. I'd love to see people at least *acknowledging* that
> this is something they have to work on, that'll give us something
> tangible to relate to when deciding on a vote.
>

Perhaps you could re-read my first post, because I believe did acknowledge
it.

Niall



> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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