Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of simon.willnauer@googlemail.com
 designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=V3/g20381ItTw0pf7DVSnANcZyguQxiLrh+7m3KpqpXY3XgjDtpD1S8Doletro+Rn8
         xmpJmzK9ZCVOnZAFBL3NQaILLU6MH/ibTjIfYzm4IF5K6K/BiLK+SLdmHFbjc9+g5wTk
         r1a0XXYI+ldncZUOIFmuoGxeFMR5+yg3NnOME=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20110507075254.GA24376@gmail.com>
References: <B8B6F06F-92EE-4C74-B233-7E9CAC23E628@apache.org>
	<BANLkTi=crYNpFdfBWEVMdA59j6EmLNpn=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<567B7495-87D2-4A4E-B528-BE1B1EBA85A0@apache.org>
	<059CA21D-8E66-4E3B-B4C8-18B580F81EC4@apache.org>
	<BANLkTikpDx0MhEyD7re3X6gR++Wg5G_J4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110507075254.GA24376@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 12:41:27 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinEJgV270kTc7qZaOaH4p4Zi+Os9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Special Board Report for May 2011
From: Simon Willnauer <simon.willnauer@googlemail.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen several people note that "IRC is not logged". Fine. LOG IT.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for you guys not to set up logging for the
> channel that you use. We do this for Subversion development:
> =C2=A0http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/svn-dev
>
> If IRC is posing so much of a problem, then just log it. I saw a
> comment about civility on the channel. Well... if it is logged, then
> you may see that fixed. Discussions can then be referenced when it is
> brought to the dev list. And people can always refer back to the log
> to read about the nuances around some particular discussion.
>
> Seems to be a simple solution to me.
huge +1! IRC is so powerful we should not put it down just because we
don't log the channel.

We already have a logged channel #lucene-dev and its logged here

http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/lucene-dev

having tech discussion there should be ok I think and for major
decisions we can still send a mail to dev@l.a.o referencing the
discussion. I think we all have the discipline to do that right?

I am moving there now... we should also eventually add this channel to
the website and maybe mark #lucene as the user channel?

Simon
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:17:07PM +0300, Shai Erera wrote:
>> bq. shall I say required reading?
>>
>> You should ! If only so that people don't miss that great article :)
>>
>> On IRC, I agree with Grant (and partly w/ Mike). IMO, we should scale do=
wn
>> the amount of discussion on IRC. While there are several advantages to I=
RC
>> (faster response time, easier to hash things out etc.), I think there ar=
e
>> several drawbacks:
>>
>> * As Grant mentioned, TimeZone -- IRC makes it hard for people to follow
>> discussions that happened while they were asleep
>>
>> * IRC is not logged
>>
>> * Even trying to follow discussions on IRC, the nature of the UI sometim=
es
>> makes it too hard. Many times I've seen two and more discussions happen
>> simultaneously, and the way the UI is constructed, they're all mixed wit=
h
>> each other. This is not so with email threads.
>>
>> * I myself have too many communication mediums I need to follow today: m=
y
>> job's email and messaging system, Gmail (Lucene and other mailing lists,=
 as
>> well as private stuff), phone, people stopping by for questions .. IRC i=
s a
>> very busy and demanding channel. You're kinda expected to respond
>> immediately (which is why, I think, it's easier to hash things out -- th=
e
>> response time is instantaneous). If you only want to follow, you must st=
ay
>> tuned to it. If I turn on "flash the taskbar for new messages", it drive=
s me
>> crazy. If I turn it off, I miss important discussions ... it's impossibl=
e
>> :).
>> With emails, I can prioritize things. At least, Gmail helps to some exte=
nt.
>> That that we now receive all JIRA emails under one thread is a great
>> progress too.
>> With emails, I can always go back when I have time, and re-read the
>> discussion. I can respond to it 2 days after the last email, and people =
will
>> immediately know what I respond about, because we can include quoted tex=
t.
>> And if people's memory is very bad, they can (at least in Gmail) scan
>> quickly previous messages. Hack ... I can do that 1 month after the emai=
l
>> was sent, and most people will be able to quickly pick up from where we
>> left. This is not so with IRC ...
>>
>> * Getting in the middle of a discussion is practically impossible on IRC=
. I
>> have nothing to read for reference (unless I had my IRC client open and =
I
>> turned on the 'logging' feature).
>>
>> * Is it really that easier to hash things out on IRC? I mean, the respon=
se
>> time is great, so you get answers really quick. But then, there are usua=
lly
>> only a handful of participants in that discussion, which makes hashing o=
ut
>> and agreeing much easier anyway. If the same group of people (usually <=
=3D3)
>> communicated in email, they'd hash things out in almost the same speed.
>> After all, IRC mandates they are all awake at the same time, so they cou=
ld
>> also email each other in NRT :).
>>
>> * Imagine this discussion happening on IRC. Most of us would have been a=
ble
>> to pick only shards of it. At some point, maybe Grant or another PMC mem=
ber
>> would 'summarize' the discussion to the list. The summary could be "we'v=
e
>> decided to not use IRC because email is better", followed by some points
>> he's able to pull back from his memory and maybe IRC log. Would *you*
>> (people reading this growing-by-the-minute note) want to get a summary l=
ike
>> that? Would you be satisfied?
>> I think that most of us wouldn't and all that would happen is that such
>> email would start its own thread, repeating mostly what have been said o=
n
>> IRC, b/c people would want answers ...
>>
>> I'm not against IRC, don't get me wrong. I think it's useful b/c the
>> turnaround time is great. But we should not have so many discussions the=
re,
>> as we do today. I don't know where to draw the line. I trust the great
>> people of this community to know when it's better to discuss something i=
n
>> email. An example, if a new feature is being discussed, then it's ok if =
two
>> people want to hash few things out quickly, before they send a detailed =
and
>> organized proposal to the list -- the details to hash out are the initia=
l
>> proposal's details. The rest should be followed on list, even if it mean=
s
>> slightly slower response time.
>>
>> Today's list and JIRA volume always look to me like the response time is
>> instantaneous. We have very active people from around the globe, so you =
have
>> a high chance receiving response in no time. In the worse case, it will =
take
>> a couple of hours, but I don't remember when did that happen (which is a=
n
>> amazing thing !)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Shai
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wr=
ote:
>>
>> > More reading (shall I say required reading?). =C2=A0Benson does a good=
 job of
>> > explaining some of the concepts around consensus and why we also shoul=
d be
>> > primarily using mailing lists:
>> > https://blogs.apache.org/comdev/entry/how_apache_projects_use_consensu=
s
>> >
>> > -Grant
>> >
>> > On May 5, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to throw out another idea:
>> > >
>> > > I think we should standardize on rotating the PMC Chair every year. =
=C2=A0I
>> > think to date, there have been two Chairs: =C2=A0Doug and me. =C2=A0Ba=
ck when Doug
>> > left, no one wanted to do it (both Hoss and I said we would if no one =
else
>> > wanted to) and so I took it on. =C2=A0For the most part, it's a thankl=
ess task of
>> > herding cats (albeit low volume, thankfully), despite the important so=
unding
>> > name that marketing types love. =C2=A0I would like us to share the bur=
den across
>> > the PMC by rotating it on an annual basis. =C2=A0Many other ASF projec=
ts do
>> > exactly this and I think it removes any political pressure. =C2=A0Have=
 I sold it
>> > enough? ;-) =C2=A0Besides, I just know others are dying to file board =
reports on
>> > a quarterly basis!
>> > >
>> > > More inline below...
>> > >
>> > > On May 5, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.or=
g>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> 2. I think we need to prioritize getting patch contributors more
>> > feedback sooner. =C2=A0I think some of this can be automated much like=
 what
>> > Hadoop has done. =C2=A0This should help identify new committers sooner=
 and
>> > encourage them to keep contributing.
>> > >>
>> > >> Big +1. =C2=A0We should be using automation everywhere we can.
>> > >>
>> > >> But, really, we (as all projects do) need more devs. =C2=A0Growing =
the
>> > >> community should be job #1 of all committers.
>> > >
>> > > Agreed, but this dovetails w/ the use of IRC. =C2=A0I realize live c=
ollab is
>> > nice, but it discourages those who aren't "in the know" about the chan=
nel
>> > being used from ever contributing. =C2=A0 =C2=A0Say, for instance, I'm=
 interested in
>> > DWPT (DocWriterPerThread), how am I supposed to know that at 8 am EDT =
on May
>> > 5th (made up example), three of the committers are going to be talking=
 about
>> > it on IRC? =C2=A0If there is email about it, then I can participate. =
=C2=A0Nothing we
>> > do is so important that it can't wait a few hours or a day, besides th=
e
>> > fact, that email is damn near instantaneous these days anyway.
>> > >
>> > > Also, keep in mind that until about a year ago, most everything was =
done
>> > on the mailing list and I think we progressed just fine. =C2=A0Since t=
hen, dev@has almost completely dried up in terms of discussions (factoring =
out JIRA
>> > mails which have picked up -- which is good) and the large majority of
>> > discussion takes place on IRC. =C2=A0I agree, however, we should have =
the IRC
>> > discussion on another thread.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> So, what other ideas do people have? =C2=A0I'll leave this thread =
open for a
>> > week or so and then add what we think are good things to
>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/board-reports/2011/special-boa=
rd-report-may.txt The board meeting is on May 19th. =C2=A0I plan on attendi=
ng.
>> > >>
>> > >> How about also "PMC members will be more proactive in tackling issu=
es
>> > >> that erode the community? =C2=A0I think this would start with a thr=
ead on
>> > >> general@. =C2=A0We need to get in the habit of discussing even tiny
>> > >> elephants as soon as they appear, somehow.
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, I agree. =C2=A0The hard part for me, is I often feel like peop=
le on the
>> > outside make big deals about this stuff and don't get that even having=
 the
>> > discussion is a very healthy sign. =C2=A0Besides the fact, that no one=
 likes
>> > confrontation and uncomfortable topics. =C2=A0We also, I think, are al=
l tired of
>> > endless debates that go on and on w/ no resolution. =C2=A0It's one of =
the big
>> > downsides (and, of course, upsides) to consensus based open source as
>> > opposed to the dictatorial approach.
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Here's an example: "Is Lucid abusing their too-strong influence ove=
r
>> > >> Lucene/Solr"? =C2=A0It's a great question, and I personally feel th=
e answer
>> > >> today is "no", but nevertheless we should be able to discuss it and
>> > >> similar could-be-controversial topics.
>> > >
>> > > I hopefully would agree we are good stewards of the fact that we emp=
loy a
>> > good number of committers (but not nearly all the active ones), but I =
know
>> > some disagree. =C2=A0I do, however, think that the recent spat shows t=
hat we at
>> > Lucid are still free to speak our minds when it comes to open source, =
as
>> > clearly not all Lucid employees agree on the issue and were pretty out=
spoken
>> > about it. =C2=A0I firmly believe we baked this into the company from D=
ay 1 and I
>> > consider it one of our best strengths, but of course, most can't see t=
hat
>> > from the outside. =C2=A0Does that mean we are perfect? =C2=A0Of course=
 not, but I
>> > think we try to follow the ASF guidelines and show up as individuals. =
=C2=A0I
>> > also know we work pretty hard to mind the ASF TM policy, etc. (just as=
k our
>> > marketing folks how much I remind them.) =C2=A0I think we all realize =
that there
>> > would be no such thing as Lucid if it weren't for the ASF and for
>> > Lucene/Solr, so why would we want to hurt that?
>> > >
>> > > The fact is, every single committer here and a good number of
>> > contributors are paid to work on Lucene all day, (most) every day or h=
ave
>> > some other financial stake (i.e. via a book, consulting biz, etc.) =C2=
=A0Any of
>> > us could be accused of only acting in our own financial interest. =C2=
=A0At the
>> > end of the day, I like to think that instead, the cool thing is we all=
 have
>> > a great opportunity to have our financial interests aligned with a gre=
at
>> > project that we like to work on.
>> > >
>> > > For the record, we have pretty diverse PMC and committer base. =C2=
=A0As I said
>> > in our Dec. 2010 Board Report, we are comprised of:
>> > > "[a] total to 17 PMC members from 12 different
>> > > companies, spanning the globe. The flagship Lucene/Solr
>> > > has 26 total committers from 20 different companies, again
>> > > spanning the globe."
>> > >
>> > > The only one that has changed since then is Robert has joined Lucid.
>> > =C2=A0Now, one can argue that some of those members from other compani=
es are not
>> > active, but that isn't Lucid's fault. =C2=A0ASF development has always=
 been about
>> > those who do the work and we do a fair amount of that. =C2=A0Those who=
 are not
>> > active, should, ideally, leave on their own by stating they wish to go
>> > Emeritus. =C2=A0Beyond that, we have a pretty standard policy that ina=
ctive
>> > people are removed after 1 year of no activity. =C2=A0That has been th=
e case
>> > since I joined Lucene way back when and I think makes sense.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>