incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: Board response to January Report on Heraldry
Date Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:08:35 GMT
Hey Ted,

Bottom line: there's some issues with the heraldry community to fix,  
it's their responsibility to fix it, looks like you guys did a good  
job of that so far to me, we should give heraldry some more time to  
try and fix things.

On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
> Paul and I are about at our wit's end on what to do here, besides  
> upping the number of messages that say "please talk to us on the  
> list".

When you need to say that more than once every three months, there's  
a problem. I think submitting a frank and open report was exactly the  
right action to take.

>     But given that development is happening somewhere else

Yep. I just reviewed the commits archive, and its quite obvious. I  
see about three big code drops (maybe you want to look at how harmony  
did IP clearance on these kinds of big drops. Having some rigid  
physical seperation between "drop box" and "proper" helped in many  
ways I think besides just IP clearance).

> , I am doubtful as to whether that would make any difference.    
> Late today a thread started up which clearly shows that some amount  
> of development is happening elsewhere: < 
>>.    I would  
> definitely appreciate concrete suggestions of things to do.

Seems like a hard thing to get right. I don't like "just can it" very  
much as an approach, but I agree it's on the table now.

The committers on heraldry have so far just not made enough (visible)  
effort to change their processes to be open-source-y, it is a  
problem, you've mentioned it to them gently a few times, now I hope  
the message has gotten across in a not-so-gentle way too.

It is up to *them* to figure out what to do and how to do it, and to  
do so in public, on heraldry-dev. I think they've gotten enough  
hints, it looks like some people are forming plans, in their heads,  
which need to solidify and be brought to the mailing list.

If I were a heraldry mentor, I would see what happens over the next  
two weeks, and be on ready stand-by to answer any questions, and be  
ready to participate in my role as mentor in any discussion happening  
on heraldry mailing lists. I don't think it should be up to you to  
formulate the detailed plan.

If I were a committer on heraldry, I would start with immediately  
(better late than never) investigating 

and what happened there, in a lot of detail, gather my thoughts, and  
reply to it. When a mentor says "I'm half thinking all of these  
commits should be vetoed", that **is a very serious thing which  
should pop up on the top of each committer's agenda to deal with  
properly**, and  then they should reply to it on the development  
mailing list. When a mentor says "Why are you committing changes for  
other people?", **a committer just might be violating the CLA  
agreement signed with the ASF, and it's definitely violating  
incubation standards and policies**, and its even more important, and  
all committers share responsibility for dealing with it.

The next time a message like that goes unanswered for several weeks,  
the project should be shut down immediately.

If I were the incubator PMC responding to the board's request, I would

   * discuss what to do on this mailing list (in progress)
   * notify the heraldry community of the situation (done)
   * transfer responsibility to follow up with a plan of
     action onto the heraldry community (todo, ted or paul)
     * provide (mentor-based) support in formulating that plan  
     * put a deadline on formulation of that plan of 3 weeks (Feb 15)
     * submit it as part of the next board report (Feb 16)
   * report back to the board this is our rough plan (Feb 16)

hope this helps,


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message