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: <CA+ULb+vu3uj24-bWnCV7PtuBEsA4dTPWvqkoz4XqCDAsYXW-2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+ULb+tuVKw3troZ7LNGpQyiFc2SAzDpxgFyNeg_ZaUek-6RNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOqetn__f=G1jF_ShSMi_Y58vR3N0UVtRL2d8swvty_Vm0ZgOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOfJQJ3HLUGe9KOBVHSdb-TN9sAiLLVQQ0CGqWTRifwLdq1-ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ7_JgihV8Qit0fasezL-WwXmAfvwUBsfGD6GGwnDVrXFD1jbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+OE_e1DPRoz26xvT9=tzFYqbFDGp-MF2QEO0uJfprji-DL0+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANPnQjdiQR=_xcgSfs9zjTuoVqaogmeB+suEmpD28q7XuVYKrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKgUS2AzxiEPXhh+x086z-pbBf=n5jv+fFjOW1C2h2nvH=CJmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC01A6AD-94BF-47A7-996D-F846463AA66A@jpl.nasa.gov> <e47d4013-88aa-a3bd-6c9e-ea0dea518c5f@apache.org>
 <CAPmHmDTnS_2621COT25+Z4y--8SMvYUBT4V2A1Um6qpTxtP9RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <926b19ef-1ade-63ec-1c14-d926571f17a5@rcbowen.com> <CA+ULb+u-a6y+-Ubf2=E=AzQxNiuY10Sg5dpyrJE6YwDDSD-4NQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d6ee55ac-a5b4-9249-752b-8f19aea29ec5@apache.org> <CA+ULb+vu3uj24-bWnCV7PtuBEsA4dTPWvqkoz4XqCDAsYXW-2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:57:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD6VreujgP_6=BBBX9CEMDn0ZpSwQV+oqi2ZbW5BKgxm5ze+UA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114778e2853aeb0540d2e78a
archived-at: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 23:57:41 -0000

--001a114778e2853aeb0540d2e78a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I am frankly not informed enough to vote up or down. I remain concerned at
the rate we turn out projects that are monocultures but I will trust the
people to whom this decision is delegated.

On Nov 8, 2016 18:51, "Roman Shaposhnik" <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:42 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.
>
> True. But it is *my* right to try and convince Rich to change his mind in a
> certain direction. Whether he gets convinced or not -- is, as you pointed
> out,
> up to him.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think we can present any material evidence that project is going
> to be free from "we own it" mentality for ANY given project. First of all,
> there's no way to predict the future. Which means that the strongest
> argument we can present is only this: "the behavior during 19 months
> hasn't exhibited signs of 'we own it' mentality and all the signs point to
> the fact that it is unlikely to be a problem". This is the argument that is
> being presented here.
>
> Now, as with any argument that is not rooted is science, but rather comes
> from observing social dynamics -- you never ever going to have an ironclad
> opinion (short of, may be personally spending enough time yourself
> observing
> said social dynamics). That is why the opinion of mentors and IPMC members
> embedded in the community and some of the data points presented in the
> DISCUSS
> thread (like the fact that the PMC chair is at this point a Pivotal
> alumni, no
> longer working for the company but still active in the project) could
> help boost
> your level of comfort in that we're making the right call here.
>
> Honestly, this is the best we can do. And just like with the other choice
> that
> a lot of people are facing today -- once you've heard all the sides (and
> you
> really should -- echochambers are awful!) you'll have to make your own
> call.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

--001a114778e2853aeb0540d2e78a--