Chip, Sebastien, Without my PMC hat on; My take on this is that a couple of companies want to agree on a way of working guide lines that can function as an example for others to do so as well. We obviously can not go the same way of designing off list and then bring back and ask for +1/0/-1. This way has been tried to often in the past and is destined to fail given our by-law of any -1 is a veto on technical decisions.
The suggestion to report back with minutes is a good one, it will keep people informed. We do not want to enforce a way of working but acquire one that is practical and make it known. Only a very small part is not doing/setting an example. This part is agreeing on the goal. Which we mostly do already. (David , Animesh,?) Rajani, Pierre-Luc and I are part of this endeavour so far. We will look out for the project and you know I will turn to you guys when in moral need. I hope this addresses both of your concerns, Daan On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > Steve, > > (Speaking with my PMC hat on, but not as someone that has the time to > help with this process) > > I love the idea of moving forward with resolving some of the quality > process / tooling / etc... challenges that we face as a project and > community. I also love the idea that companies getting commercial value > from this project are talking (as companies) about how to best support > the project through either directing their employees to work on this > problem, allowing those interested the time to do so, and / or offering > (as Citrix did) required hardware/software resources to make > improvements for the common good. Importantly, I like that the > companies involved are mutually agreeing that this is for the common > good. > > That said, I have a concern about the outline below, specifically in how > the definition of approach and eventual execution are handled. The > proposal of taking this off-list until there is a "proposal to ratify" > is what I'd like to see changed. I would fully expect that a fleshed out > proposal hitting the list would be met with more discussion than you > would like (and perhaps even met with frustration). > > What has worked well for us in the past, where there is a need to have > those interested in "doing work" to be able to focus on that work, has > been to start with a call for interested parties (as you did). Then, > using a combination of threads on this list and "live" meetings, make > progress on defining the requirements and approach incrementally. > Execution of any work should similarly be open and shared on this list. > Throughout that process, allowing comments and openings for participants > are critical. > > One of the things we learned about using "live" meetings to speed up the > consensus process in the past is to make sure that while they are > fantastic at allowing the participants to understand each other, it's > critical to remember that (1) there are no project decisions made > outside of the mailing lists and (2) that it's important to have minutes > or notes from those live meetings shared with the community as a whole. > > Now a very real concern that some of us have is getting bogged down in > arguments based on opinion, especially the "drive by" opinions. This > issue (plus challenges with people violently agreeing with each other, > yet talking past each other), is what I believe has held up meaningful > progress. To deal with this, I suggest we all remember that projects at > the ASF are about supporting those that "DO", while giving opportunity > for participation and comment from those that might not currently be > "DOING". But those that are doing the work, and collaborating to reach a > shared goal, shouldn't let a lack of 100% consensus on every aspect hold > back progress. > > As someone who will not be "doing" anything for this effort, but has an > interest in maintaining this community's health and seeing it continue > to succeed, I hope my suggestions and comments are helpful. > > -chip > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:12:27PM +0000, Steve Wilson wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> It was great to get to see a number of you at the recent CCC in Budapest. >> While I was there, I got to meet face to face with individuals working for >> several companies that have a real stake in the commercial success of the >> CloudStack project. >> >> After joining Citrix (and becoming involved in CloudStack) about a year ago, >> I’ve come to believe that we need to do more to mature our quality practices >> around this codebase. We all like to say #cloudstackworks (and it’s true), >> but this is a massive codebase that’s used in the most demanding situations. >> We have large telecommunications companies and enterprises who are betting >> their businesses on this software. It has to be great! >> >> There has been quite a bit of discussion on the mailing list in recent >> months about how we improve in this area. There is plenty of passion, but >> we haven’t made enough concrete progress as a community. In my discussions >> with key contributors as CCC, there was general agreement that the DEV list >> isn’t a good forum for hashing out these kinds of things. Email is too >> low-bandwidth and too impersonal. >> >> At CCC, I discussed with several people the idea that we commission a small >> sub team to go hash out a proposal for how we handle the following topics >> within the ACS community (which can then be brought back to the larger >> community for ratification): >> >> * Continuous integration and test automation >> * Gating of commits >> * Overall commit workflow >> >> We are looking for volunteers to commit to being part of this team. This >> would imply a serious commitment. We don’t want hangers on or observers. >> This will entail real work and late night meetings. We’re looking for >> people who are serious contributors to the codebase. >> >> From Citrix, David Nalley and Animesh Chaturvedi have booth told me they’re >> willing to commit to this project. They’ve both managed ACS releases and >> have a really good view into the current process — and I know both are >> passionate about improving our process. From my CCC discussions, I believe >> there are individuals from Schuberg Philis, Shape Blue and Cloud Ops who are >> willing to commit to this process. >> >> If you are willing to be part of this team to drive forward our community, >> please reply here. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Steve >> >> Steve Wilson >> VP & Product Unit Manager >> Cloud Software >> Citrix >> @virtualsteve -- Daan
