Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (qpid) Diversity
Dirk, It is the first case that applies here i.e. 2. Having the employer invisible either implies one of two: a) The employer totally does not enter into this and the committer is acting a 100% as a private, free individual; and his work does not pertain or is associated in any way with his other endeavors. Marnie On 3/6/08, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote: Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult position disclosing their employer in Apache world. They have signed a legal document, in order to be allowed to contribute to Apache, and thus this is not a simple preference issue. Two thoughts: 1. As to avoid having trust or distrust affecting the community (i.e. some rot setting in at a later stage) I would completely ignore these people as adding to the 'diversity' and in fact advise to assume the 'worst' - and treat them as one block. I.e. they are _counter_ to the diversity you want to show. That is the most robust approach. As information leaks and attitude shift the situation only gets better and more trust is build. 2. Having the employer invisible either implies one of two: a) The employer totally does not enter into this and the committer is acting a 100% as a private, free individual; and his work does not pertain or is associated in any way with his other endeavors. b) The employer is in fact part of the 'agreement' - and hence known to the foundation. In the last case we, that is the foundation, would need to figure out if we can act as such a 'clearing house' - and would allow such provided the CCLA's are visible to the members. I personally would be very wary of this though. As ultimately the CCLA and software grants carry a lot of sensitive rights - and part of standing within our role in the current open source/standards ecosystem has been gained by allowing full downstream visibility. Dw
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Martin Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel I believe if a committer has signed the required legal documents then thats all what matters. If they are uncomfortable disclosing their employer then perhaps we should respect that. What is important is that these folks are contributing to the project in a legal manner. The last thing we want is to discourage people from contributing. As martin has pointed out, looking at the last 6 months and just the trunk is not a fair evaluation of diversity. We should also not forget the significant contributions made by the following folks in the last year or two. Off the top of my head. Colin Crist - Hermes JMS integration Kevin Smith - SSL patch for the java broker. Steve Vinoski - Maven build system Tomas Restrepo - .NET client. There was also a few individuals who made patches for the python client to get it interoperating with other open source implementations. I am very optimistic that our community will continue to grow with more contributions as we increase our visibility and efforts to integrate with other projects like Synapse, Axis2, Tuscany, CXF etc.. Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat blog: http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? If we don't know the committer's employer (and they're working on the project as an employee), we can't determine if a CCLA is on file. From http://www.apache.org/licenses/ --- For a corporation that has assigned employees to work on an Apache project, a Corporate CLA (CCLA) is available for contributing intellectual property via the corporation, that may have been assigned as part of an employment agreement. Note that a Corporate CLA does not remove the need for every developer to sign their own CLA as an individual, to cover any of their contributions which are not owned by the corporation signing the CCLA. Scott Deboy -Original Message- From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:48 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Martin Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/03/2008, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Kulp write: a quick svn log on their SVN repo for all commits since Jan 1 [suggests that] all but 4 commits since Jan 1 can easily be contributed to RedHat employees. I think the above should provide enough information about the health and diversity of the community that actually working on the code. What is the Qpid community's response to these findings? --- Noel I believe if a committer has signed the required legal documents then thats all what matters. If they are uncomfortable disclosing their employer then perhaps we should respect that. What is important is that these folks are contributing to the project in a legal manner. The last thing we want is to discourage people from contributing. As martin has pointed out, looking at the last 6 months and just the trunk is not a fair evaluation of diversity. We should also not forget the significant contributions made by the following folks in the last year or two. Off the top of my head. Colin Crist - Hermes JMS integration Kevin Smith - SSL patch for the java broker. Steve Vinoski - Maven build system Tomas Restrepo - .NET client. There was also a few individuals who made patches for the python client to get it interoperating with other open source implementations. I am very optimistic that our community will continue to grow with more contributions as we increase our visibility and efforts to integrate with other projects like Synapse, Axis2, Tuscany, CXF etc.. Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat blog: http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ Ok I have a few comments in response to the findings: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community of the project than identifying who is paying the bills. The whole project worked very hard to pull together two servers and five client libraries for the M2 release all talking AMQP 0-8. We are again working as a community to provide a M2.1 release that will inter operate at AMQP 0-9 with other AMQP products outside the Apache world. I for one am looking forward to our future releases where we can again move the entire project on to the wholly different AMQP 0-10. -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On Thursday 06 March 2008, Martin Ritchie wrote: - Firstly not all work is done on trunk so purely looking at trunk is not a good metric That's fair. I forgot about the work on the branches. That's a very valid point.Updated list with branches added from Jan 1: Alan ConwayRH 84 Aidan Skinner ?51 Arnaud Simon RH 48 Andrew StitcherRH Carl Trieloff RH 6 Gordon Sim RH 40 Jim Meyering ? John O'HaraJPMC Marnie McCormack JPMC (maternity) Martin Ritchie JMPC 42 Kim van der Riet RH Nuno SantosRH 6 Rafael Schloming RH 56 Rajith Attapattu RH 24 Robert Godfrey JPMC 14 Robert Greig. JPMC Rupert Smith ?36 264 RH 143 Non-RH Back to Nov 1: Alan ConwayRH 167 Aidan Skinner 51 Arnaud Simon RH 105 Andrew StitcherRH 5 Carl Trieloff RH 22 Gordon Sim RH 107 Jim Meyering John O'HaraJPMC Marnie McCormack JPMC (maternity) Martin Ritchie JMPC 81 Kim van der Riet RH 10 Nuno SantosRH 7 Rafael Schloming RH 60 Rajith Attapattu RH 58 Robert Godfrey JPMC 20 Robert Greig. JPMC Rupert Smith63 541 RH 215 Non-RH - Looking at the last two months especially as that includes the start of the year which is typically a quite period also will show poor commit numbers. Yes, lower numbers, but they should still be relatively proportional as it should be just as poor for RH folks as for non RH folks, right? The issue isn't the number of commits, it's who is doing them. Anyway, I added a 4 months set shown above. Yes, # of commits is not a good metric as different people work different ways. Example: I tend to commit small things several times a day. If I find a spelling mistake, it gets committed. Other people save things up and do larger commits. It's all personal. The thing that the IPMC needs to know more about are trends. Is the community getting better or worse from a diversity standpoint. That IS subjective to some extent and each IPMC member may interpret the data differently, but the point is they need the data.Thus, having the 6 month, 4 month, and 2 month numbers is a start. - We are preparing for an M2.1 release so a lot of effort is being expended on that branch. Fine. I included the entire trunk + branches dirs. My take would be to look at the last 6 months, which admittedly includes a number of holiday periods so the count of commits may be a little low. Since 2007-09 for the commits on the qpid repository shows: aconway 272 aidan 54 arnaudsimon 230 astitcher 16 cctrieloff 45 gsim 201 kpvdr 11 nsantos 8 rajith 169 rgodfrey 99 rgreig 98 rhs 151 ritchiem 593 rupertlssmith 468 1103 RedHat 1312Non-Aligned So Redhat have less than half the commits to Qpid so I don't think this is something we should worry about. It IS something to worry about if all the Non-Aligned folks really are aligned together under one entity. The questions that each IPMC member needs to answer for themselves based on all the metrics are: 1) If RedHat decides tomorrow to pull all it's engineers off of qpid, would the project survive? 2) If the entity behind the non-aligns gets bought out by another entity that has no interest in AMQP and pulls the engineers off, will the project survive? Those are the things the IPMC must consider (and the board if graduating top level) as it affects the long term viability of the project. Keeping an eye on for sure, but over analysing the alignment of those people that don't want to or are not allowed to say who they work for is not something that Apache requires nor would it be beneficial. Saying that we are not diverse because a lot of work on trunk has been done by a small set of people over a two month period is not helpful to the discussion. But it helps provide insite into the above questions, so it is helpful. Other things that aren't even mentioned in this are things like participation on the dev list, documentation updates, wiki updates, JIRA cleanups, etc Those are all ALSO important metrics and maybe some of the folks above are more valuable in areas other than the raw code. There are lots of roles in a community, the code is just a single metric amoungst many. For example: http://markmail.org/search/?q=qpid+type%3Adevelopment+date%3A200709-200803 is another metric. It is also worth noting that volume of commits does not in anyway correspond to the quantity of code changed and even looking at lines changes cannot say anything for the quality. I think the fact that we have an active project that has matured to the point that where we feel as though we can self regulate in the Apache Way speaks far more to the community
Re: March of the Reports
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Needless to say, it is that time again, when Incubator Reports march towards their inevitable meeting with the Board. :-) i've taken a quite look but i can't find the report page on the wiki. is there a page up yet? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: March of the Reports
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i've taken a quite look but i can't find the report page on the wiki. is there a page up yet? I just set up a skeleton now, going off the Reporting Schedule on the wiki. Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: (qpid) Diversity
Does ASF need proof that a transfer of intellectual property ownership occurred? Scott Deboy -Original Message- From: Robert Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity On 06/03/2008, Scott Deboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? I do not believe so since those employees have signed legal documents with the employer where the employer has transferred the intellectual property ownership to the employee. Therefore those committers are effectively working as private individuals. RG - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: (qpid) Diversity
On 06/03/2008, Scott Deboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the qpid folks who don't want to divulge their employer: are they working on the project as part of their employment? If so, it would appear we need a CCLA, correct? I do not believe so since those employees have signed legal documents with the employer where the employer has transferred the intellectual property ownership to the employee. Therefore those committers are effectively working as private individuals. RG - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
