+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.mattm...@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 <joes...@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 <joes...@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 <lsk...@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 <ptgo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz >>><ptgo...@gmail.com> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@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-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>
