On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase, > > which > > is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" > should > > be. > > It's about trust. If you trust someone to work the gears on a release, > > that has > > considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally meets > my > > definition of "belongs on the PMC". > > > > Makes sense. To answer you previous question on what is meant by "running" > a release. The answer is yes, a committer functioned as a Release Manager. > I do think we have people that are very close. > I'm interested to know what criteria/behavior you're looking for that gets them over your bar for PMC membership? Niall > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Lenni. If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth, > > > he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination > > problems. > > > Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for > > > instance, > > > which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to > see > > > the rhyme > > > or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using. > > > > > > I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are > > > being resolved, > > > but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion > about > > > planning and > > > such should be taking place on-list. David has echoed these concerns > as > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should > be > > >> posted on a wiki someplace. > > >> > > >> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to > > see > > >> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics > (big, > > >> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Lenni > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the > position > > >> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining > > the > > >> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now > > >> includes > > >> > new committers and new community members following along for which > > their > > >> > voices have not been heard from on this matter. Once you recognize > > that > > >> > the > > >> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut > like > > >> this > > >> > on- > > >> > list. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > > >> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > +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 > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
