streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Community - call for help [Was: Setting priorities for our next few releases]
Date Sun, 02 Oct 2016 19:16:34 GMT
On 2016-10-01 03:36, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> It's optional, u need 3 +1 binding votes for a release to pass; so u r good to close
the vote and finalize the release

The 72h minimum is not optional and there was no reason to rush the vote.
For sure 4 +1 binding votes are enough.
But a later -1 vote concerning for example legal issues should still be
considered blocking until resolved.
However in this case I don't think there was anything to worry, certainly not
after the +1 from Justin. So no harm done.
However for next time we should again honour the 72h minimum time.

Thanks, Ate

>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Steve Blackmon <sblackmon@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that optional
once a quorum to release is reached?
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <smarthi@apache.org> wrote:
>>> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may want to
close the vote and finalize the release.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sblackmon@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Suneel!
>>>>
>>>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared vision
of what improvements would position the project well for community and user growth over the
short and medium term.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and associating
them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back to the list with some proposals
shortly.
>>>>
>>>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our 0.3-incubating
release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org)
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ate and Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping
the
>>>>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get
>>>>> started on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suneel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Steve, community, silent followers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps
>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try address
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> in the community directly, because I think there are other and more
>>>>>> critical
>>>>>> actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling
of this
>>>>>> project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first and highest priority action should be getting more and
diverse
>>>>>> involvement and active participation from the community.
>>>>>> The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as
well.
>>>>>> But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions
from
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully
as well
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and participation
>>>>>> with concrete contributions.
>>>>>> (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also
is
>>>>>> needed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project
>>>>>> community to
>>>>>> the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at most).
>>>>>> Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on
its feet
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator
>>>>>> Chair), to
>>>>>> switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the
IPMC can
>>>>>> monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably
will
>>>>>> decide
>>>>>> (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all.
>>>>>> I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the
reporting
>>>>>> schedule for Streams shortly to make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered
monthly
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> at least the coming 3 months.
>>>>>> We better make sure there is positive news to report :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this
list)
>>>>>> to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in getting
the
>>>>>> W3C
>>>>>> ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community, including
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able
to do
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code contributions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards, Ate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion
is overdue
>>>>>>> on the topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases
are on our
>>>>>>> list of graduation criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on
these goals:
>>>>>>> - planning release versions around one or two significant improvements
>>>>>>> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases
>>>>>>> - prioritizing our backlog after each release
>>>>>>> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list
>>>>>>> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can
decide
>>>>>>> where it’s most important to focus their efforts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable
of
>>>>>>> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once
per month
>>>>>>> around the end of the month.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting
Activity
>>>>>>> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take,
and get
>>>>>>> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the
>>>>>>> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the
prospects of
>>>>>>> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate
DISCUSS
>>>>>>> coming on this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any
modules we
>>>>>>> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going
to maintain up
>>>>>>> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open
question but
>>>>>>> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests
at the
>>>>>>> level of a typical module in a typical TLP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers
and
>>>>>>> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs
that have
>>>>>>> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example
per
>>>>>>> release is a good target for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have created some future versions with target release dates
in JIRA and
>>>>>>> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with
those
>>>>>>> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their
thoughts and
>>>>>>> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA.
This
>>>>>>> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way
to help - look
>>>>>>> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of
the backlog
>>>>>>> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the
year? Or
>>>>>>> other ideas on improving planning and coordination?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblackmon@apache.org)
wrote:
>>>>>>> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support
would
>>>>>>> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete
>>>>>>> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start.
>>>>>>> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the
JIRA could
>>>>>>> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community
working in a
>>>>>>> common direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>



Mime
View raw message