incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:36:32 GMT
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the
> codebase,
> > > which
> > > is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar"
> > should
> > > be.
> > > It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a release,
> > > that has
> > > considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally
> meets
> > my
> > > definition of "belongs on the PMC".
> > >
> >
> > Makes sense. To answer you previous question on what is meant by
> "running"
> > a release. The answer is yes, a committer functioned as a Release
> Manager.
> > I do think we have people that are very close.
> >
>
> I'm interested to know what criteria/behavior you're looking for that gets
> them over your bar for PMC membership?
>

We don't have a hard criteria for joining the PMC, but generally being
Release Manager is a great way to be considered for membership. The only
gray area is that we do consider not just *what* was done, but *how* it was
done - were the correct steps followed and was any feedback addressed
appropriately.


Thanks,
Lenni



>
> Niall
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> > > > he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination
> > > problems.
> > > > Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
> > > > instance,
> > > > which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to
> > see
> > > > the rhyme
> > > > or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are
> using.
> > > >
> > > > I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets
> are
> > > > being resolved,
> > > > but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion
> > about
> > > > planning and
> > > > such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns
> > as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should
> > be
> > > >> posted on a wiki someplace.
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list
> to
> > > see
> > > >> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics
> > (big,
> > > >> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Lenni
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the
> > position
> > > >> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before
> joining
> > > the
> > > >> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community
now
> > > >> includes
> > > >> > new committers and new community members following along for
which
> > > their
> > > >> > voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you
> recognize
> > > that
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut
> > like
> > > >> this
> > > >> > on-
> > > >> > list.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > > >> > chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > +1 to the below.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > > >> > > Chief Architect
> > > >> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > > >> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > > >> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > > >> > > Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> > > >> > > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > > >> > >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > > >> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089
USA
> > > >> > >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > From: Joe Schaefer <joesuf4@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> > > >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > > >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> general@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the
Apache
> Way
> > > and
> > > >> > > graduation
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss
> everything
> > > >> here,
> > > >> > > >including past decisions.
> > > >> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision,
> and
> > we
> > > >> try
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >move with near
> > > >> > > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out
what
> roles
> > > >> people
> > > >> > > >have without some formal
> > > >> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list-
it really
> > > >> shouldn't
> > > >> > > >matter what roles people have
> > > >> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <
> joesuf4@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry
project" isn't
> > > >> capable
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > >> considering anything.
> > > >> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers
or
> the
> > > >> PPMC
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > > >> the community, all
> > > >> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about
any
> position
> > > >> being
> > > >> > > >> taken.  I would consider
> > > >> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous
on a
> > > >> situation
> > > >> > > >> like this or other related
> > > >> > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking
on
> > behalf
> > > of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >> project.  That is why
> > > >> > > >> we have communication channels in the first place
and
> generally
> > > >> refer
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> on list decisions.
> > > >> > > >> The individual positions of the participants should
be
> > reflected
> > > in
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > > >> consensus-based decision
> > > >> > > >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on,
but
> collective
> > > >> > decision
> > > >> > > >> making requires
> > > >> > > >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff <
> > lskuff@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry
project has
> > > never
> > > >> > > >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website
change was
> > only
> > > to
> > > >> > help
> > > >> > > >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of
the project, it
> > was
> > > >> not
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >>> result of any decision being made.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>> Lenni
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz
<
> > > >> ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff
<
> lskuff@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05
AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > > >> > > >>><ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> > >>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32
AM, Joe Brockmeier <
> > > jzb@zonker.net
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>>wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> * I would invite folks with
access to go to Sentry's
> > > private
> > > >> > list
> > > >> > > >>> and
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> look over discussions about
adding new contributors,
> and
> > > >> > > >>>discussions
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> about the project in general.
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> I took a look.
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> From a community growth perspective,
I see them adding
> > new
> > > >> > > >>> committers,
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What
I don’t see is any
> > discussion
> > > at
> > > >> > all
> > > >> > > >>> about
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor
any discussion about why they
> > > >> chose to
> > > >> > > >>>go
> > > >> > > >>> the
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> In a thread related to the
first new committer being
> > added
> > > >> [1],
> > > >> > > >>>it
> > > >> > > >>> is
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> pointed out that the podling
website stated that
> Sentry
> > > was
> > > >> > > >>> Committer
> > > >> > > >>> > ==
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member
vote was only for
> > Committer.
> > > At
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > >>> point
> > > >> > > >>> > >> it
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> looks like the website was
updated to reflect
> Committer
> > !=
> > > >> PMC.
> > > >> > > >>>From
> > > >> > > >>> > that
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> point on, all new member
votes were for Committer
> only,
> > > and
> > > >> > there
> > > >> > > >>> were
> > > >> > > >>> > no
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> discussions regarding adding
new PMC members or
> > promoting
> > > >> > > >>> committers to
> > > >> > > >>> > >> the
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> PMC role.
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting
is that there
> doesn’t
> > > >> seem
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >>>be
> > > >> > > >>> any
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> consideration or discussion
around growing the PPMC
> and
> > > why
> > > >> > > >>>that’s
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> important. Sure they have
20-odd PPMC members from the
> > > >> initial
> > > >> > > >>> > committers
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> list, so it would take a
pretty large exodus to render
> > the
> > > >> > > >>>project
> > > >> > > >>> > unable
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> to function, but I don’t
see anything to indicate that
> > > they
> > > >> > > >>> understand
> > > >> > > >>> > >> the
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> function and importance of
growing the PPMC.
> > > >> > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > >>> > > Background: I am a Sentry community
member.
> > > >> > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > >>> > > I would have to disagree with this.
We have identified
> > lack
> > > of
> > > >> > new
> > > >> > > >>> PPMC
> > > >> > > >>> > > members as an issue and called out
in our board reports.
> > We
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > >>>also
> > > >> > > >>> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get
involved in ways
> they
> > > can
> > > >> > > >>>become
> > > >> > > >>> PPMC
> > > >> > > >>> > > members - for example, we have had
non-PPMC members run
> > two
> > > of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >>> last
> > > >> > > >>> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier,
it's not like
> there
> > > is
> > > >> no
> > > >> > > >>> progress
> > > >> > > >>> > > here, we have people who are very
close (and I agree
> that
> > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > >>>do a
> > > >> > > >>> > > better job discussing this on or
private@ list). We are
> > > also
> > > >> > > >>> > encouraging
> > > >> > > >>> > > others in the community to step up,
giving them
> > > opportunities,
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >>> really
> > > >> > > >>> > > striving to build a community around
the project.
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > Fair enough.
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > Can you point me to the discussion where
the project
> decided
> > > to
> > > >> go
> > > >> > > >>>with
> > > >> > > >>> > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision
just looks
> > like
> > > a
> > > >> > > >>>single
> > > >> > > >>> > commit, without any public discussion,
which speaks to the
> > > >> concerns
> > > >> > > >>> others
> > > >> > > >>> > have raised about decisions being made
in private.
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > -Taylor
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>> > 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