incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Geode (incubating)
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2016 00:01:53 GMT
On 11/09/2016 12:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2016 12:26 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2016 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <>
>>>>>> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> worked
>>>>>>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all
>>>> issues
>>>>>>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation.
>>>>>>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously
>>>>>>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm
>>>> going to
>>>>>>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>>> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>>>> If I were to look purely at contributions to the codebase, there is no
>>>> indication that this issue is at all being worked on, on the contrary,
>>>> if you look at contributions over time, the percentage that is purely
>>>> pivotal keeps going up and up, and now sits at >96% in the past 6 months.
>>>> Voting in new committers is one thing, but if it doesn't lead to some
>>>> sort of dispersion of who has a deciding role in the project, then I
>>>> don't believe the current strategy is working.
>>>> Furthermore, there is little to no recognition that this is even a
>>>> potential issue. I'd love to see people at least *acknowledging* that
>>>> this is something they have to work on, that'll give us something
>>>> tangible to relate to when deciding on a vote.
>>> Perhaps you could re-read my first post, because I believe did acknowledge
>>> it.
>> I didn't read it as such, but this does help towards that :) Thanks.
> Btw, this point I wholeheartedly agree with: if Geode gets to graduate, it will
> be joining a number of projects that need to be ever vigilant about undue
> corporate influence.
> From that standpoint, the community had a number of experiences around
> brand management, etc. that I believe served as a set of useful lessons in
> explaining how to go about this goal in an effective manner. The role of the
> board, of course, is central to making sure this goal is always a priority, but
> I also believe that this community has learned (and taken to heart) the fact
> that IPMC (regardless of a status of the project) and ComDev can be great
> resources.
> But once again, thanks for stressing this Daniel -- this is one of those things
> that can't be stressed enough.

As an FWIW, I would have spoken up sooner in the discuss thread, but eh,
work... so sorry about being late to the show. I don't mean to throw any
sticks in the general voting, I just want assurances that these are
issues projects are aware of and are, at the very least, attempting to

> Thanks,
> Roman.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message