On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: >>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the >>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion >>> >>> That's not what I am suggesting. >>> >>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I >>>> thought >>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy >>>> to >>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit) >>> >>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it >>> may relate to changes in the committer roster. >>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs. >>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed. >>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect. >> >> I see it as adding more confusion than insight. And in any case, the >> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's >> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than >> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are. >> Here's an index of such pages: > > Huh? > > I think we are talking about two different things here.
That's indeed possible. > 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in > the past quarter > IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting > committers (though there are of course caveats). > This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter > tool (and has been in the template for some while). Changes in committers is indeed useful. I think highlighting the source of that information in each and every report is at best an implementation detail and at worst confusing. I would actually go so far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board. > 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt > and the LDAP committee and unix groups. > These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page. > It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link > to the page if the numbers don't agree. > > This would be done from the section currently called: > > "PMC changes (From LDAP) " > (previously "LDAP changes") I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big improvement. Thanks! > The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it > would not be added to the report template section. > > However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any > discrepancies in the numbers. > >> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/ >> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Hervé >> >> - Sam Ruby - Sam Ruby >>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit : >>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## PMC changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt. >>>>> >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 44 members >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone? >>>>> > >>>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be >>>>> > useful >>>>> >>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC. >>>>> >>>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group >>>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group) >>>>> >>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl >>>>> >>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl >>>>> >>>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed >>>>> > in >>>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section >>>>> >>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not >>>>> belong in the report template. >>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section. >>>>> >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Hervé >>>>> > >>>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit : >>>>> >> The app currently says for OODT: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## PMC changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 42 PMC members. >>>>> >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members. >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015 >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*) >>>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version >>>>> >> which >>>>> >> was: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## PMC changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 42 PMC members. >>>>> >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## LDAP changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members. >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015 >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee >>>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> So what I propose is: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## PMC changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt. >>>>> >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes: >>>>> >> - Currently 44 members >>>>> >> - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- cut here ---------- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt >>>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >> from my understanding: >>>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= >>>>> >> >> golden >>>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for >>>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps >>>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to >>>>> >> > confuse >>>>> >> > the >>>>> >> > two.> >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to >>>>> >> > SVN. >>>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any >>>>> >> > ASF committer to commit. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> then instead of displaying: >>>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info >>>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more: >>>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not >>>>> >> >> consistent) >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it >>>>> >> > could be repeated here. >>>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP) >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> WDYT? >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer >>>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in >>>>> >> > general. >>>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma. >>>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix >>>>> >> > group, >>>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing. >>>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new >>>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> Hervé >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit : >>>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> >>>>> > >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, >>>>> >> >>> > and >>>>> >> >>> > that >>>>> >> >>> > no >>>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership. >>>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related). >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than >>>>> >> >>> PMC >>>>> >> >>> a while back. >>>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, >>>>> >> >>> only >>>>> >> >>> LDAP. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, >>>>> >> >>> so >>>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the >>>>> >> >>> LDAP >>>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership. >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> > Best regards, >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* >>>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> >>>>> > >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project >>>>> >> >>> >> membership >>>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose >>>>> >> >>> >> of >>>>> >> >>> >> actually >>>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting >>>>> >> >>> >> confuses >>>>> >> >>> >> me >>>>> >> >>> >> Every >>>>> >> >>> >> Single Time. >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> Viz: >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes: >>>>> >> >>> >> - Currently 10 PMC members. >>>>> >> >>> >> - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> >>> >> - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 >>>>> >> >>> >> 2014 >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes: >>>>> >> >>> >> - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members. >>>>> >> >>> >> - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> >>> >> - No new committers added in the last 3 months >>>>> >> >>> >> - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015 >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC >>>>> >> >>> >> members, >>>>> >> >>> >> and >>>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on >>>>> >> >>> >> April >>>>> >> >>> >> 30. >>>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs >>>>> >> >>> >> committer >>>>> >> >>> >> and >>>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure. >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it >>>>> >> >>> >> won't >>>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month? >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> --Rich >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> -- >>>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen >>>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >>>>
