And yet we have evidence from other ASF projects that this is not always the case.
All I am trying to do is have a backstop against that from happening here. But if no one wants it, then fine, I give up. -Joan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Cc: "priv...@couchdb.apache.org Private" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 1:57:14 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > https://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats > > INDIVIDUALS COMPOSE THE ASF > All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the > committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That > is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal > contributions. > > Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any > mailing list is done as themselves. It is the individual > point-of-view, wearing their personal hat and not as a mouthpiece > for whatever company happens to be signing their paychecks right > now, and not even as a director of the ASF. > > All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the > Board, the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need > to talk about a matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be > expressing a personal opinion, they will state that they are talking > in their special capacity. However, most of the time this is not > necessary, personal opinions work well. > > Some people declare their hats by using a special footer to their > email, others enclose their statements in special quotation marks, > others use their apache.org email address when otherwise they would > use their personal one. This latter method is not reliable, as many > people use their apache.org address all of the time. > > -- > Robert Samuel Newson > rnew...@apache.org > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, at 18:47, Joan Touzet wrote: > > Garren, > > > > RFCs are intended for major changes to our projects, not for minor > > improvments. > > > > Do you foresee massive changes to nano and fauxton? > > > > Do you not see that a single employer driving ~all the development > > of either or both of these as a significant concern re: the health > > of our community? > > > > -Joan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Garren Smith" <gar...@apache.org> > > > To: "priv...@couchdb.apache.org Private" > > > <priv...@couchdb.apache.org>, "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > > > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:56:04 AM > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > > > I'm also not super keen on the "not directly affiliated with the > > > proposer's > > > employer”. I think this will put unnecessary strain on the > > > community. > > > Take > > > the Fauxton and Nano.js project. The majority of work on those > > > projects > > > come from IBM affiliated developers. We do have a smaller group > > > of > > > community developers. That small group of community developers > > > would > > > have > > > to review all RFC's and approve them and ideally not hold up > > > development on > > > a feature for a few weeks while they try and find time to get to > > > it. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:49 AM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll make another attempt to sway others, and I'd like > > > > to > > > > hear > > > > from more people on this thread. > > > > > > > > I don't see the harm in this, it would rarely if ever be > > > > invoked, > > > > and > > > > it allows us to point to a concrete, solid action we have taken > > > > to > > > > ensure we don't have a runaway project in the future. I would > > > > think > > > > it could be a guiding light for other ASF projects that have > > > > lost > > > > their > > > > way (where we, I continue to assert, have not). > > > > > > > > Remember that votes on RFCs are the *committer* community, not > > > > the > > > > PMC. > > > > I'd be shocked if the PMC remained entirely silent on a > > > > proposal, > > > > but > > > > it indeed could be possible that committers could get an RFC > > > > together > > > > "while the PMC isn't looking" (say, over a holiday). Granted > > > > it'd > > > > be in > > > > bad form, and the PMC could still take steps to correct things > > > > after > > > > the action, but it'd be annoying to deal with. > > > > > > > > Again all I am trying to do here is put in a limiter in case > > > > the > > > > PMC > > > > and committer base /were/ to get stacked against the community. > > > > If > > > > that > > > > were to occur, your argument that the PMC could step in at that > > > > point > > > > is moot, because the PMC would already be stacked in that > > > > direction. > > > > This would protect the community from the negative effects of > > > > that > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > > > To: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > > > > > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>, "CouchDB > > > > > PMC" > > > > > < > > > > priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:46:35 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > Any member of the PMC who is railroading changes through on > > > > > behalf of > > > > > their employer to the detriment of this project should be > > > > > disciplined, ultimately losing their PMC membership (and > > > > > their > > > > > binding vote on future changes). > > > > > > > > > > The "not directly affiliated with proposer's employer” seems > > > > > to > > > > > presume bad faith on the part of some of those with binding > > > > > votes > > > > > at > > > > > worst, and, at best, is stating that the PMC already > > > > > distrusts > > > > > its > > > > > members that happen to be employed by IBM. If that is > > > > > currently > > > > > the > > > > > case, the PMC should act directly and censure those members > > > > > who > > > > > have > > > > > acted contrary to the requirements of an ASF PMC member. > > > > > > > > > > I don’t see how this piece is coupled with RFC, especially > > > > > when > > > > > writing RFC’s, and taking them through a community review > > > > > process, > > > > > is likely to mitigate the issue of significant work being > > > > > designed > > > > > in private but ultimately contributed to CouchDB publicly. > > > > > > > > > > If the “RFC before code” approach does not work out, I will > > > > > add > > > > > my > > > > > support to the affiliation requirement, but with a heavy > > > > > heart. > > > > > To > > > > > presume such bad faith within the PMC, or to suspect it so > > > > > strongly > > > > > as to embed pre-emptive measures into our bylaws, points at > > > > > issues > > > > > deeper than a bylaw change can reasonably address. Other, > > > > > stronger > > > > > responses would seem more appropriate should that come to > > > > > pass. > > > > > > > > > > B. > > > > > > > > > > > On 14 Feb 2019, at 21:31, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > > > > > Care to give any more detail on your -1? > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave a fairly extensive argument as to why I think such a > > > > > > safeguard is important for our community. I also feel it > > > > > > would > > > > > > be meaningless to push through an RFC without community > > > > > > support. > > > > > > But our current bylaws would make this very > > > > > > straightforward. > > > > > > Why not put in this "backstop?" > > > > > > > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > >> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > > > >> To: "CouchDB PMC" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > > >> Cc: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org>, "CouchDB > > > > > >> Developers" > > > > > >> <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:26:31 PM > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am +1 on the RFC’s and -1 on the "not directly > > > > > >> affiliated > > > > > >> with > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> proposer's employer” item. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> B. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 11:13, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! > > > > > >>> I’d > > > > > >>> love > > > > > >>> for us to lead the way here (yet again). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Best > > > > > >>> Jan > > > > > >>> — > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 20:15, Joan Touzet > > > > > >>>> <woh...@apache.org> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> There appears to be general consensus on the RFC > > > > > >>>> process, > > > > > >>>> with > > > > > >>>> no > > > > > >>>> objections to the proposal itself. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> I'd like to propose the following changes to our bylaws: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb-www/commit/8ae3a5a230b1717d7affe23625eeb288635aa542 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Quick summary: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> * Added the RFC proposal process > > > > > >>>> * The RFC will become an official template as part of > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>> * https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1914 adds > > > > > >>>> Bob's > > > > > >>>> request > > > > > >>>> to include a Security section > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> * Proposed a new "qualified lazy majority" approval > > > > > >>>> model > > > > > >>>> for > > > > > >>>> RFCs: > > > > > >>>> * Requires 3 binding +1 votes > > > > > >>>> * Requires more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes > > > > > >>>> * (NEW) Requires at least +1 binding vote from an > > > > > >>>> individual > > > > > >>>> not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer > > > > > >>>> (if > > > > > >>>> applicable) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> * Changed URLs to use the new Pony Mail web interface > > > > > >>>> (yay!) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> While today we are in a great situation where no single > > > > > >>>> entity > > > > > >>>> dominates > > > > > >>>> CouchDB development (to the exclusion of others), I > > > > > >>>> believe > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>> new > > > > > >>>> approval model (just for RFCs) will prevent that from > > > > > >>>> occurring > > > > > >>>> in > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> future, and will ease a long-standing concern I have > > > > > >>>> held. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> If there is no strong objection, I will start the VOTE > > > > > >>>> later > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>> week. > > > > > >>>> As this is both creating and amending our official > > > > > >>>> documents, > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> vote > > > > > >>>> will be a lazy 2/3 majority vote, with binding votes > > > > > >>>> only > > > > > >>>> from > > > > > >>>> PMC > > > > > >>>> members. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Why is this so important to me? Recently, on another ASF > > > > > >>>> mailing > > > > > >>>> list, > > > > > >>>> there was a discussion about some of the changes > > > > > >>>> happening > > > > > >>>> in > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> commercial world, and as it relates to big companies > > > > > >>>> giving > > > > > >>>> back > > > > > >>>> to open > > > > > >>>> source. (You may have read about some competing database > > > > > >>>> projects > > > > > >>>> changing their license, for instance.) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Allen Wittenauer graciously allowed me to excerpt his > > > > > >>>> post, > > > > > >>>> which > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > >>>> critical of the Apache Hadoop community, and share it > > > > > >>>> here > > > > > >>>> as a > > > > > >>>> cautionary tale: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>>> This pretty much ignores the committer hoarding > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > > >>>>>> happening in a lot of ASF projects. It’s > > > > > >>>>>> something > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>>>>> Jeff > > > > > >>>>>> hinted at in a previous reply that I think people > > > > > >>>>>> completely > > > > > >>>>>> missed: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> The obvious reality is that the companies who build > > > > > >>>>>>> service > > > > > >>>>>>> around > > > > > >>>>>>> "pay to call me when it breaks" are very, very often > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>> same > > > > > >>>>>>> companies who hire all the committers, who fund all > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>>> dev, > > > > > >>>>>>> who end > > > > > >>>>>>> up in danger when a cloud provider offers their > > > > > >>>>>>> product > > > > > >>>>>>> as a > > > > > >>>>>>> service. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Most of the Hadoop vendors tried to hire as many > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> committers as they possibly could and was even > > > > > >>>>>> part > > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > > >>>>>> some > > > > > >>>>>> PR campaigns (“We have more!” “Ours were > > > > > >>>>>> first!”) > > > > > >>>>>> This > > > > > >>>>>> resulted in the community outside of those > > > > > >>>>>> vendors > > > > > >>>>>> being > > > > > >>>>>> mostly ignored. This also built a feedback loop > > > > > >>>>>> where > > > > > >>>>>> PMC > > > > > >>>>>> members promote their coworkers at a > > > > > >>>>>> significantly > > > > > >>>>>> higher > > > > > >>>>>> rate than non-coworkers because the only > > > > > >>>>>> contributions > > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >>>>>> were being looked at were the ones that helped > > > > > >>>>>> their > > > > > >>>>>> employers. (Anecdotally, coworkers: committer in > > > > > >>>>>> 6 > > > > > >>>>>> months, > > > > > >>>>>> non-coworkers, ~1-2 years, if ever) As a result, > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> project > > > > > >>>>>> is a shell of its former self since it was > > > > > >>>>>> impossible > > > > > >>>>>> for > > > > > >>>>>> outsiders to make major, disruptive advancements > > > > > >>>>>> in > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> project. Worse yet, Hadoop is now overwhelmingly > > > > > >>>>>> controlled > > > > > >>>>>> by one company since two of those vendors were > > > > > >>>>>> forced > > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > > >>>>>> merge. > > > > > >>>>> [snip] > > > > > >>>>>> This is probably the key reason why a lot of > > > > > >>>>>> companies > > > > > >>>>>> participate in open source. Maybe if companies > > > > > >>>>>> didn’t > > > > > >>>>>> feel > > > > > >>>>>> the need to hire every single person they could > > > > > >>>>>> get > > > > > >>>>>> their > > > > > >>>>>> hands on to try and control the project, maybe > > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>>> cloud > > > > > >>>>>> providers would be more willing to donate man > > > > > >>>>>> power. > > > > > >>>>>> As > > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > > >>>>>> is, there is little point for anyone outside of a > > > > > >>>>>> company > > > > > >>>>>> whose mission is to be “the source” for their > > > > > >>>>>> project > > > > > >>>>>> (officially or unofficially) to contribute to > > > > > >>>>>> non-diverse > > > > > >>>>>> projects. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> From my informal chats with people at ApacheCon 2018 in > > > > > >>>> Montreal, > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>> is a hot-button topic. I'd like to get CouchDB out from > > > > > >>>> under > > > > > >>>> this > > > > > >>>> cloud. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Again I am NOT ASSERTING that this is where we are > > > > > >>>> today. I > > > > > >>>> think > > > > > >>>> our > > > > > >>>> dev community works well together and is not controlled > > > > > >>>> by a > > > > > >>>> single > > > > > >>>> entity. I just want to remove the possibility for this > > > > > >>>> sort > > > > > >>>> of > > > > > >>>> abuse to > > > > > >>>> occur, and I think that doing so thru the RFC process is > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> right > > > > > >>>> step > > > > > >>>> at this time. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> It is in everyone's best interest that RFCs happen, that > > > > > >>>> we > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > >>>> consensus agreement on them, and that an open vote > > > > > >>>> happens > > > > > >>>> where > > > > > >>>> it's > > > > > >>>> clear that no single party is forcing through changes > > > > > >>>> against > > > > > >>>> the > > > > > >>>> will > > > > > >>>> of other committed parties. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> -Joan > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > >>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > > > > > >>> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
