On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > On 11/09/2016 12:26 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On 11/08/2016 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern with >>>>>>>> people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of >>> all >>>>>>>> commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast >>> majority >>>>>>>> of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further >>> spend >>>>>>>> resources on this project, that the project would still be as viable? >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've >>> worked >>>>>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the >>> issues >>>>>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation. >>>>>> >>>>>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in >>>>>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not >>> going to >>>>>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better with >>>>>> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have they >>>>>> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the >>> right >>>>>> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved >>> with >>>>>> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the >>> right >>>>>> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and >>> except to >>>>>> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for >>> them >>>>>> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves >>> and >>>>>> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why I >>>>>> think we should vote for them to graduate. >>>>> >>>>> Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on >>>>> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects that >>>>> are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization >>>>> historically cause problems over time. >>>> >>>> I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of problems. >>>> >>>>> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? >>>> >>>> I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in >>> the >>>> Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything >>>> new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large. >>> >>> If it turns the project into a more diverse/dispersed community, I'd say >>> that's added value. We can argue all night whether that's up to the >>> IPMC, the project or the board to figure out, I'm not sure we'll agree >>> there :) >>> >>>> >>>>> Surely we serve the >>>>> Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem >>>>> (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP status? >>>> >>>> I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community >>>> (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the >>>> "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of >>>> votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the >>>> Geode community that mission has been accomplished. >>>> >>>> I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity >>> requirement >>>> simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation. >>> >>> Except it's not pointless for the foundation, we've seen that. we're >>> seeing that right now with several projects that either die completely >>> or take a very wrong turn because someone higher up the food chain >>> thinks otherwise about the project(s), and that also hurts the >>> foundation - let's not pretend that never happens. I can't say whether >>> this would be true for Geode (how would I know?), but a 96+% chunk of >>> all contributions coming from people affiliated with a single company is >>> worrisome to me. >>> >>>> >>>>> I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project >>>>> should the company opt out of working on the project, and more concerned >>>>> with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting to >>>>> see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without >>>>> building the community first. >>>> >>>> Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good >>> number >>>> of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with >>> this >>>> community. >>> >>> I'd say Rich should vote what he feels is right, not what "a good number >>> of us" think is right. That's not how consensus works. >>> >>> You'll notice that I haven't just said "-1, I don't like it". But I also >>> haven't heard any compelling arguments as to why this isn't a problem, >>> save a "we're sure it's not a problem" reply. >>> >>> If I were to look purely at contributions to the codebase, there is no >>> indication that this issue is at all being worked on, on the contrary, >>> if you look at contributions over time, the percentage that is purely >>> pivotal keeps going up and up, and now sits at >96% in the past 6 months. >>> >>> Voting in new committers is one thing, but if it doesn't lead to some >>> sort of dispersion of who has a deciding role in the project, then I >>> don't believe the current strategy is working. >>> >>> Furthermore, there is little to no recognition that this is even a >>> potential issue. I'd love to see people at least *acknowledging* that >>> this is something they have to work on, that'll give us something >>> tangible to relate to when deciding on a vote. >>> >> >> Perhaps you could re-read my first post, because I believe did acknowledge >> it. > > I didn't read it as such, but this does help towards that :) Thanks.
Btw, this point I wholeheartedly agree with: if Geode gets to graduate, it will be joining a number of projects that need to be ever vigilant about undue corporate influence. >From that standpoint, the community had a number of experiences around brand management, etc. that I believe served as a set of useful lessons in explaining how to go about this goal in an effective manner. The role of the board, of course, is central to making sure this goal is always a priority, but I also believe that this community has learned (and taken to heart) the fact that IPMC (regardless of a status of the project) and ComDev can be great resources. But once again, thanks for stressing this Daniel -- this is one of those things that can't be stressed enough. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
