Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ralph Goers]

And I have to disagree with you Joe. To me, a mandatory RTC policy says “we 
don’t trust anybody”. Sure, it doesn’t discriminate, but it is also a PITA. One 
project I mentored uses RTC along with ReviewBoard and mandates that you cannot 
commit your own work and every commit must be formally reviewed. I have found 
this process to be so onerous that I have never committed any code to the 
project, even though I really would like to.  I find the pace of this project 
to be fairly slow.  But it seems to fit within the corporate culture that most 
of the committers seem to work in.

OTOH, I am involved in a project that uses CTR but where feature branches are 
frequently created to allow others to review and improve significant new work 
before it is integrated. As a consequence, new features are introduced at a 
much faster pace in this project.

Ralph

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
> 
> -- For sure.
> 
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
> 
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
> 
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
> 
> Thanks
> Joe



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:

> No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
>
> It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time. They
> are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> one of them.
>

The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
votes are essentially subject to veto.

There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

Top-posting on purpose. 

This thread has veered from discussing specific concerns about Sentry to
a discussion about the Maturity Model. It'd probably be good to fork the
thread and continue the discussion separately in case other folks
specifically interested in the discussion about Sentry are watching this
thread. 

Best, 

jzb

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, at 01:56 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Justin,
> 
> Why is it so that graduation can be vetoed?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> >
> > > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> > >
> > > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> > They
> > > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> > > one of them.
> > >
> >
> > The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> > votes are essentially subject to veto.
> >
> > There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> > to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> > personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin
> >


Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

On Nov 15, 2015 10:14 AM, "Justin Erenkrantz"  wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
justin

Sure. If these were just my personal guidelines, that would indeed be a
concern.

I'd assert, however, that we already have members voting on their own
personal guidelines, they just haven't written them down for the rest of us
to see.

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think the Maturity Model, relied on as some guidelines for assessing a 
project, needs to be applied for that purpose in terms of identifying the 
striving-fors.  Is there evidence that particular areas are being strived for.  
Is there evidence of an anti-pattern.  How do these net out in the considered 
judgment of the person making that assessment, what facts are indicators, 
warning-signs, etc.  

It is my understanding that this is not a pure pass/fail thing.  A graduation 
could be accompanied by a charge to develop/diminish/whatever in the activities 
of the newly-established PMC and having that accounted for.

Isn't this an always "on balance" determination, where in some cases, 
demonstration of remedy is required before graduation and other times not?  
(With some items being show-stoppers, I suppose, such as careless handling of 
IP clearance.)

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: justin.erenkra...@gmail.com [mailto:justin.erenkra...@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 07:14
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> 
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a
> podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,
> and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation.
> That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
> particular
> > one of them.
> >
> 
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
> 
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your
> votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
> justin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ross Gardler]

Dennis makes a good point.

Some to ago it became common to think of the diversity objective to become a 
minimum number of contributors from different orgs rather than an acceptance of 
new contributors views.

Now we require a behavior pattern likely to lead to diversity.

One is quantative (bad, as it does nit take everything into account) one is 
subjective (good, but open to abuse).

To have the good we merely need to trust the people involved. Providing 
guidelines is good. Having those guidelines become rules is bad.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Dennis E. Hamilton
Sent: ‎11/‎15/‎2015 10:28 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and 
graduation

I think the Maturity Model, relied on as some guidelines for assessing a 
project, needs to be applied for that purpose in terms of identifying the 
striving-fors.  Is there evidence that particular areas are being strived for.  
Is there evidence of an anti-pattern.  How do these net out in the considered 
judgment of the person making that assessment, what facts are indicators, 
warning-signs, etc.

It is my understanding that this is not a pure pass/fail thing.  A graduation 
could be accompanied by a charge to develop/diminish/whatever in the activities 
of the newly-established PMC and having that accounted for.

Isn't this an always "on balance" determination, where in some cases, 
demonstration of remedy is required before graduation and other times not?  
(With some items being show-stoppers, I suppose, such as careless handling of 
IP clearance.)

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: justin.erenkra...@gmail.com [mailto:justin.erenkra...@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 07:14
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
>
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a
> podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,
> and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation.
> That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
> particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your
> votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
> justin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Pierre Smits]

Justin,

Why is it so that graduation can be vetoed?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz 
wrote:

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

On Nov 13, 2015 4:50 PM, "Branko Čibej"  wrote:
>
> On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
> > Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
> > hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are
not
> > Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board
member
> >
> > That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.
>
> The document is not a Foundation standard. ComDev is no closer to being
> "the ASF" than, say, Bloodhound PMC.
>
> Whilst I do find this attempt at a maturity model an interesting
> experiment, I'm really, really uncomfortable with people pushing it as
> some sort of golden standard for podlings (and, worse, TLPs). It's a
> completely informal paper, yet I've already seen people cast doubts on
> podling graduation with the excuse that some criterion of the model
> wasn't met.

That's because the document codifies what I consider criteria for
graduation, not because I somehow think that the document itself is holy.
Ie, the document reflects me, not vice versa.

>
> That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
> the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
> the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
> measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
> recreational purposes) is rude at best.

No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.

It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time. They
are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
one of them.

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ted Dunning]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
> the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
> the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
> measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
> recreational purposes) is rude at best.
>

Or it is a good test of whether it brings up important issues and seems to
accord well with the more intuitionist approaches.

Setting it as a standard without testing it against real cases would be
irresponsible. Giving it test drives against real cases is exactly the way
to find out whether it is useful.  Right now the biggest gripe that I hear
about the incubator from incoming projects is that they need SOME path to
be better documented.  They get that there are many paths ... but air
philosophical description don't work for them.

So far, that maturity test is doing a great job, but I don't want to
enshrine it without more run time.  Using it serious is a great way to get
that run time.

This is neither rules for rules sake (we are being very cautious about
proposing it as a requirement) nor it is adding requirements (the
requirements were pretty much already there in many ways and in different
people's heads).

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Branko Čibej]

On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote:
> That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
> Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
> hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not
> Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board member
>
> That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.

The document is not a Foundation standard. ComDev is no closer to being
"the ASF" than, say, Bloodhound PMC.

Whilst I do find this attempt at a maturity model an interesting
experiment, I'm really, really uncomfortable with people pushing it as
some sort of golden standard for podlings (and, worse, TLPs). It's a
completely informal paper, yet I've already seen people cast doubts on
podling graduation with the excuse that some criterion of the model
wasn't met.

That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
recreational purposes) is rude at best.

-- Brane

[1] And even then it'd be open to scrutiny; paperwork for its own sake
is always suspect.


> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Huh?  The development of this document,
>>>
>>> <
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>>> was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
>>> time.  It even provides an account for
>>
>> And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
>> Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
>> de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.
>>
>> Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
>> consider... great.
>>
>> But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
>> yardstick, rather than a guide.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 11/10/2015 10:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache
> Software Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and
> others) and hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying
> that those 'are not Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of
> a fellow board member

Pierre, it's as though a document were written by the PMC of the OFBiz
project, and then the people that had been involved in that
conversation were to assert, unilaterally, that it must be adopted by
the entire ASF, without any debate either on board@ or members@   That
is the concern that Greg is citing, and one that I can find no fault wit
h.

When I encouraged, in another thread on this list, that mentors use
the maturity model document as a useful measure to judge projects, I
was careful to phrase it as a useful tool, rather than as new policy.
You'll remember, no doubt, that when it was proposed as new policy,
there was not consensus around doing that. (How's *that* for a tactful
phrasing?!)

I think that it's a useful tool. I think that mentors should consider
it when they're looking at podlings, because, frankly, it's bloody
hard to judge project readiness to graduate. I've been in the business
(professionally, across several jobs) for some time, of attempting to
measure project health, and it's really, really hard, and most (all)
programmatic ways of doing so get it wrong at least half of the time.
As such, they should be used only as a early warning system, and not,
as Greg says, as a yardstick. Or as a checklist.

Consider, for example, the numeric health score given by the
reporter.apache.org tool. If it gives your project a -6, it means that
you should look for warning signs and consider whether something is
broke, but it does NOT NECESSARILY mean that your project is trouble.
Likewise, if it gives you a 9.6, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that
everything is peachy, because there are so many unmeasurables.

So, yeah, Greg's concerns here are valid, and I agree. I want as many
tools as possible, and, I will always mistrust all of them to a
certain degree. The 'maturity model' is not a checklist, and if we
start seeing people using it as such, we should be very worried.

Always be very, very careful what you measure, because people will
naturally optimize for those things, to the detriment of some of the
less measurable things.


- -- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlZEqKUACgkQXP03+sx4yJPZogCbBB1UOrff/cFLIt9gEU/prwHw
DqQAn011cQGigcnb60UaVI64Hj2rQVXT
=Bgtv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Steve Loughran]

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 17:24, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran"  wrote:
> 
>> * In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>> expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>> schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>> going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>> engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>> what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>> felt to be too risky.
> 
> I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
> project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
> thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
> amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
> like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
> own itch.
> 
> -Alex
> 


There's in-house and the ASF releases. 


Some ASF projects have a fixed "Release every quarter" schedule and are pretty 
strict, others have a "a few times a year" and/or "when big features are in". 
The latter is generally more common.

When there's a release coming, most projects have a release manager whose task 
is following the project & ASF release guidelines, and, if the release process 
the project has includes some beta-test cycle, being the gatekeeper of what 
goes in vs. what's going to get postponed. 


In house, yes, there are people trying to make sure that we engineers put time 
into what's relevant, rather than just what's interesting, and having hard 
release deadlines.(*) That's where I was thinking some of the conflict could 
arise: internal pressure to release with a set of features on a hard deadline.

-Steve


(*) But you can still do the interesting things as well, the one thing you 
don't get is anyone saying "don't work on OSS code". 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

On 11/11/2015 12:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> 
> On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran"  wrote:
> 
>> >* In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>> >expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>> >schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>> >going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>> >engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>> >what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>> >felt to be too risky.
> I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
> project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
> thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
> amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
> like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
> own itch.

In The Old Days, everybody (for certain values of "everybody") worked on
Apache projects in their spare time. It's useful to explicitly
acknowledge that this is no longer the case. These days everybody (for
certain values of "everybody") works on Apache projects as part of their
day job. This varies in true-ness from project to project, of course. It
appears to be the case that on httpd, for example, everybody still does
this in their hobby time. It appears to be the case on most of our other
projects however, that Apache work is something that folks are paid to do.

Consequently, many of our developers answer to two masters - their work
boss, who may or may not lean on them to implement certain things, and
the project community and/or their own interests.

All of that to say, sure, many of our projects have various project
managers that are directing them, and our job, at the Foundation, is to
ensure that the community has a louder voice than the individual project
managers at $Company.

Perhaps things were simpler in The Old Days, or perhaps I was just more
naive. I suspect it's a little of both.

Maintaining the ideals of The Apache Way, while also acknowledging that
the world is different from how it was in 1998, is a core theme in many
discussion we have these days on various ASF mailing lists.


-- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran  wrote:
> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...

I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.

I'm a big fan of backing all my work with issue tracker tickets, but
*decisions* (except minor ones which only have a very local impact)
should not happen in those tickets. IMO tickets are for execution of
something that's been decided on your project's dev list.

It's a difficult balance, and it requires all developers to be aware
of when the time comes to stop discussing in a ticket and bring that
discussion to the dev list.

>... Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more

I don't think so, as that's not inclusive nor asynchronous.

IMO the combination of dev list + tickets can work well but it
requires lots of discipline for the most active developers, to make
sure they expose their ideas, decisions and discussions to their
project's dev list.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran 
wrote:

>
> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran 
> wrote:
> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >
> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
>

Agreed.

I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
commits first."

>...

> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it,
> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to
> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle
> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later
> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work
> out what happened and why.
>

I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can have
this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
typical problem with development.

(and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and CI)

>...

> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can
> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still
> more inclusive of
>

I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
the first review, not ALL review.

Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.

Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure, and
bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come up
with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.

>...

Cheers,
-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Alex Harui]

On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran"  wrote:

>* In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>felt to be too risky.

I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
own itch.

-Alex

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Witt]

"Trust is the basis of a healthy community"

-- For sure.

"and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
must review all commits first.""

-- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
all.  It is about community.

Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
to go without a counter.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Steve,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran 
>> wrote:
>> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
>> >
>> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
>> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
>> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> commits first."
>
>>...
>
>> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
>> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it,
>> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
>> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to
>> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle
>> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later
>> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work
>> out what happened and why.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can have
> this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> typical problem with development.
>
> (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and CI)
>
>>...
>
>> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can
>> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
>> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still
>> more inclusive of
>>
>
> I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> the first review, not ALL review.
>
> Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
>
> Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure, and
> bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come up
> with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
>
>>...
>
> Cheers,
> -g

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Steve Loughran]

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran  
> wrote:
>> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> 
> I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> 
> I'm a big fan of backing all my work with issue tracker tickets, but
> *decisions* (except minor ones which only have a very local impact)
> should not happen in those tickets. IMO tickets are for execution of
> something that's been decided on your project's dev list.
> 
> It's a difficult balance, and it requires all developers to be aware
> of when the time comes to stop discussing in a ticket and bring that
> discussion to the dev list.

One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic 
consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it, and 
then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave differently. 
Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to watch there 
(guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle like a change 
in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later that you find 
your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work out what happened 
and why.

> 
>> ... Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more
> 
> I don't think so, as that's not inclusive nor asynchronous.
> 


Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can do 
some more detailed code review of various complex things more interactively. I 
know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still more inclusive of 


> IMO the combination of dev list + tickets can work well but it
> requires lots of discipline for the most active developers, to make
> sure they expose their ideas, decisions and discussions to their
> project's dev list.
> 
> -

what we shouldn't be doing in conf calls is those big decisions, the stuff 
you'd vote on; the mailing list must also be the normative history of 
discussions. It's just that the online conf tooling has grown so that its 
fairly straightforward to have a small multuser conf with google+ (sadly 
excluding all .cn participants), and an awful but global experience using Cisco 
webex.

-Steve

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Steve Loughran  wrote:
> This is an interesting topic, and one that is broader than just Apache
> Sentry (incubating). Even so, I want to praise Joe Brockmeier for raising
> it, and the comments -especially those from Greg Stein and Rich Bowen and
> Marvin Humphrey for making me think more about this.

I'd also like to acknowledge Patrick Hunt and Sravya Tirukkovalur who have
done the heavy lifting in defense of Sentry. Having to respond to critiques is
an uncomfortable position to be in, and it is with their endurance that we
have been able to have a productive discussion.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ted Dunning]

Yes.  It is very much like a hackathon.

And it has some benefits in that somebody in a small town who couldn't make
it to a hackathon in person but who happens to be near the right time zone
can still participate.


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Pierre Smits 
wrote:

> In that respect it is just like a hackathon.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
> > benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.
> >
> > It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
> > the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
> > that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
> > online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
> > other aspects of the project.
> >
> > I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
> > done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.
> >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ted Dunning]

Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.

It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
other aspects of the project.

I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.




On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:

> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
>
> -- For sure.
>
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
>
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
>
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz  >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Steve,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> ste...@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > commits first."
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> it,
> >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things
> to
> >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> subtle
> >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> later
> >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> work
> >> out what happened and why.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> have
> > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > typical problem with development.
> >
> > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and
> CI)
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> can
> >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> still
> >> more inclusive of
> >>
> >
> > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> > the first review, not ALL review.
> >
> > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> >
> > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> and
> > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> up
> > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> >
> >>...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Pierre Smits]

In that respect it is just like a hackathon.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
> benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.
>
> It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
> the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
> that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
> online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
> other aspects of the project.
>
> I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
> done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
> > "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
> >
> > -- For sure.
> >
> > "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> > must review all commits first.""
> >
> > -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> > trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> > will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> > everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> > all.  It is about community.
> >
> > Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> > to go without a counter.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <
> ste...@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Steve,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> > ste...@hortonworks.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a
> community?...
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> > >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> > >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should
> be
> > > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC
> (via
> > > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > > commits first."
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> > >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> > it,
> > >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> > >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are
> things
> > to
> > >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> > subtle
> > >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> > later
> > >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> > work
> > >> out what happened and why.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> > have
> > > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > > typical problem with development.
> > >
> > > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing
> and
> > CI)
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> > can
> > >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> > >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> > still
> > >> more inclusive of
> > >>
> > >
> > > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out"
> of
> > > the first review, not ALL review.
> > >
> > > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> > >
> > > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> > and
> > > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus.
> We
> > > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> > up
> > > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10
> people
> > > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -g
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ted Dunning]

Alex,

Yes.  Pretty much any project that has significant commercial applications
will have cadres of developers from companies involved.  Those companies
will be managing those developers time and efforts to meet the company
goals.

This can definitely be pernicious, especially since a company may be making
decisions about which general areas they want to be pushing off-line. This
affects the project majorly even if the technical and coding decisions are
made in good fashion.

Another problem is that when some developers are working 40 hours per week
plus on a project, volunteer developers often have a very hard time keeping
up with the pace of change.  Building safe havens not only for different
timezones but also for different time rates is an architectural challenge
that is well worth doing. One way to do this is with very clean
user-defined-function sorts of architectures.  That can help moderate the
rate of change.


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:

> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
>
> -- For sure.
>
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
>
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
>
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz  >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Steve,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> ste...@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > commits first."
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> it,
> >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things
> to
> >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> subtle
> >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> later
> >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> work
> >> out what happened and why.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> have
> > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > typical problem with development.
> >
> > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and
> CI)
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> can
> >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> still
> >> more inclusive of
> >>
> >
> > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> > the first review, not ALL review.
> >
> > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> >
> > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> and
> > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> up
> > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> >
> >>...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Pierre Smits]

That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not
Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board member

That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Huh?  The development of this document,
> >
> > <
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> > >
> >
> > was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
> > time.  It even provides an account for
>
>
> And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
> Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
> de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.
>
> Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
> consider... great.
>
> But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
> yardstick, rather than a guide.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Steve Loughran]

This is an interesting topic, and one that is broader than just Apache Sentry 
(incubating). Even so, I want to praise Joe Brockmeier for raising it, and the 
comments -especially those from Greg Stein and Rich Bowen and Marvin Humphrey 
for making me think more about this.

* In any project with a pool of developers, there's going to be co-located 
discussions. And, even if they don't directly affect the decision making of a 
project "let's get this patch in vs that patch", they have consequences. I'll 
cite from historical reference, IBM's reassignment of a lot of the Axis 1 team 
to other things. It wasn't a decision of the developers; there was enough of a 
community to continue, but it was traumatic nonetheless.

* In any project where a significant number of the team members are expected to 
ship something in approximate correlation with a release schedule imposed by 
product management, project development decisions are going to follow. 
Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those engineers is going to be made 
by other people. This not only constrains what goes in, but providers a 
motivator for keeping things out if they're felt to be too risky.

* With engineers overloaded with lots of work, it's really easy to neglect 
patches from others which are on't on the critical path for those releases. I'm 
going to point to myself here, and my unintentional neglect of a large set of 
Hadoop patches that I could get in if I reviewed them. The only time I have to 
do that is weekends, and there there's some expectation in my family that 
parental duties get a look in.

One thing to consider in general is: is JIRA-first development conducive to 
developing a community? It's great for engineering: you watch the issues you 
care about, discuss them all in one place, and it deals with the challenge of 
scale. But it breaks a project up into a pool of JIRAs, where each participant 
only watches and comments on those they care about. It removes the ability to 
view the project as a whole, and breaks it up into a set of actions. Yet: how 
else do we scale to the size of some of the projects at work today?

I don't have any magic answers here

* If you look at any project I work on, I'm happy to leave JIRAs open for 
months at a time, until anyone picks them up. Where I'm at fault is not 
following up on the patches people provide, not out of any deliberate neglect, 
just overcommitment.
* I do try to encourage discussion on the email lists on broader topics. on 
Hadoop I'all also call out Vinod and Wittenauer for lots of work here, to try 
and build a community that is more than a set of JIRAs.
* I've been known to complain (privately) when people do a JIRA-patch-commit 
sequence on something which I'm known to care about, because I hate going 
through the morning emails to see something was decided on while I was asleep.
* How else to encourage community?

Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more. I know it's at odds with 
"TZ-neutral" dev, but with things like google hangouts we can have 
conversations that aren't around a single JIRA, and can set the direction of 
the project across all participants. We'd just need to make sure that people 
who couldn't make the call can still help set that direction, which means 
standardised followons: notes -> DISCUSS -> VOTE. After all, there's been ASF 
IRC channels for a long time.

-Steve

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Niall Pemberton 
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  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?
>

We don't have a hard criteria for joining the PMC, but generally being
Release Manager is a great way to be considered for membership. The only
gray area is that we do consider not just *what* was done, but *how* it was
done - were the correct steps followed and was any feedback addressed
appropriately.


Thanks,
Lenni



>
> Niall
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > 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 
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >> 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Niall Pemberton]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  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  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 
> 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 
> 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 
> > >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> > >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > >> > > To: "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  >
> 

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 09:29
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> > Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> > our maturity model [1].
> 

[ ... ]
> Can we please stop calling someone's pet paperwork "our maturity model?"
> I'm fed up to the gills with the assumption that it has any relevance
> for anything or anyone in the foundation, including the Incubator and
> Podlings.
> 
> -- Brane

[orcmid] 

Huh?  The development of this document, 



was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of time.  
It even provides an account for that development and where related materials 
can be found.  It is a work in progress, as is the ASF itself.  As far as I can 
tell, being a tender-foot in these parts, this is a distillation of a great 
deal of thinking and consideration based on serious consideration by 
contributors with substantial experience.  

I find the dismissing of that effort to be very peculiar as part of a 
discussion about The Apache Way.

It is easy to find evidence that this is relevant to several someones in the 
foundation, including in the Incubator and Podlings.  Apparently, some other 
someones have not been paying attention or simply haven't taken it seriously.  
That happens.

I do agree that a list of codes without any context is probably not a very 
gentle application of it as part of an assessment of a podling's readiness to 
graduate.  

> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

If the mentor brought the considerations to a podling for them to reconcile
and record, that would be great.  If that were guidance to mentors, that
would be great also.

What concerns me is that podlings of newly-arrived initial committers may
tend to see whatever the practice that is suggested to them as being gospel
and this is carried from one PPMC to another.

I have seen too much customization too early and there is then not even some
sort of common practice that can be used even as training wheels.  It is
like trying to improvise jazz when you take your first instrument out of the
box.  

Bothers me.  YMMV [;<).

> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:58
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the
> podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing
> the pros and cons of each model.
> 
> The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having
> a "default" is problematic.
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> 
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton
> Sent: ‎11/‎6/‎2015 9:35 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the
> recommended approach for Podlings is.
> 
> My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default
> tends to be PPMC == committer.
> 
> Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not*
> moved to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My
> question, as a PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the
> reins too tight at the expense of both community and sustainability.  An
> useful danger sign, that.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > graduation
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > >> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC
> membership
> > is the
> > >> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous
> > state
> > >> between
> > >> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than
> > likely
> > >> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern
> > their
> > >> own work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> > automatically
> > > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation
> that
> > I
> > > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of
> projects
> > > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice
> that
> > > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> >
> > In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> > involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> > within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> > just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> > abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> > unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> > let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> > anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Ross Gardler]

There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the 
podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing the pros 
and cons of each model.

The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having a 
"default" is problematic.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Dennis E. Hamilton
Sent: ‎11/‎6/‎2015 9:35 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and 
graduation

I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the recommended 
approach for Podlings is.

My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default tends 
to be PPMC == committer.

Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved to 
the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a PMC 
member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at the 
expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign, that.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership
> is the
> >> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous
> state
> >> between
> >> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than
> likely
> >> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern
> their
> >> own work.
> >
> >
> > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> automatically
> > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> I
> > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
>
> In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
>
> Greg
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:
>...

> Huh?  The development of this document,
>
>  >
>
> was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
> time.  It even provides an account for


And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.

Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
consider... great.

But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
yardstick, rather than a guide.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Branko Čibej]

On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
>> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
>> since its inception...
> If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
>
> and earlier he wrote:
>> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
> Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
>
> Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> our maturity model [1].

Can we please stop calling someone's pet paperwork "our maturity model?"
I'm fed up to the gills with the assumption that it has any relevance
for anything or anyone in the foundation, including the Incubator and
Podlings.

-- Brane


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[larry mccay]

Hi Rich -

I have read it and I think that it is really good.
My concern isn't with the document at all - I think that it would have been
great to have earlier.
IMHO, it should not be a measuring stick as much as a teaching tool.

Mentors helping podlings learn what is meant by The Apache Way and what
sorts of things can be seen in successful podlings and TLPs.

Once the mentors feel that a podling has achieved this understanding this
document doesn't really need to be used as criteria.
As soon as it does then the metrics begin to lose their meaning.

The concerns about adding of PPMC members began to feel like we were going
down that road even though that doesn't seem to be in the maturity model
explicitly. It just highlighted a concern that I have about such metrics.

I don't want to take away from the value of the maturity model and the work
that has been put into it in any way.
The 7 Habits of Successful Podlings really is a great idea and would make
an interesting article. :)

Thanks,

--larry

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 11/05/2015 12:49 PM, larry mccay wrote:
> > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> >
> > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but
> > criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not
> > actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can
> > get the boxes checked.
> >
> > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> > natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be
> > done artificially.
>
> Given your comments, I'm curious if you've read the document we're
> discussing. It's here:
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.ht
> ml
>
> It's a set of interview questions for evaluation. None of them can
> really be considered checkboxes, since every one of them requires
> quite a bit of research and thought to fill out, and hardly any of
> them will have a clear yes or no answer, but are rather a goal that we
> all continually strive towards. (Sure, some of them are clearly yes or
> no, but most are not.)
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not
> >>> yet). And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread
> >>> let me explain
> >> why.
> >>
> >> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other
> >> general@ thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to
> >> yet another bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly
> >> require all projects to complete.
> >>
> >> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community
> >> is different.
> >>
> >> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> >> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report
> >> monthly is against what we should be about.  I believe that the
> >> IPMC should be imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the
> >> Board requires from the full projects.  To that end, having
> >> mentors explicitly sign-off is fair - but, additional paperwork
> >> is not.  -- justin
> >>
> >> -
> >>
> >>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> - --
> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlY9BcIACgkQXP03+sx4yJPiSgCeJCN75hYHUk4ZQFsSGgq/yKsw
> nIsAnRM7MS6FmrRJfNvZL3f3Hi8TzdIm
> =QDyV
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

My belief is that committer != PMC is the ideal choice, based on my long
history of watching communities at the ASF. It allows for onboarding
committers rapidly and with a lower bar. That helps to draw them further
into the community, reduces the workload of others (who would otherwise
need to review/apply their work), and provides a mechanism to review
bringing them onto the PMC.

As Greg Reddin notes, separation of the two roles provides a mechanism for
distinguishing between "enable contributions" and "enable governance". As
an old-timer, I've observed (unfortunately) too many problems in
governance. An extra step is advisable (with a higher bar, while keeping
the low bar for contributions).

Cheers,
-g


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:

> I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the
> recommended approach for Podlings is.
>
> My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default
> tends to be PPMC == committer.
>
> Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved
> to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a
> PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at
> the expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign,
> that.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > graduation
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > >> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership
> > is the
> > >> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous
> > state
> > >> between
> > >> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than
> > likely
> > >> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern
> > their
> > >> own work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> > automatically
> > > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> > I
> > > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> >
> > In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> > involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> > within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> > just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> > abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> > unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> > let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> > anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
> document into a policy document

As a sidenote the maturity model is not "my" document. I did initiate
that effort but it's been greatly enhanced by contributions from
various people on the comdev list. There's a link to those discussions
at the top of 
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
if you're curious.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Reddin]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
>> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
>> between
>> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
>> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
>> own work.
>
>
> Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
> PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
> wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.

In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.

Greg

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Martijn Dashorst]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
>> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
>> between
>> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
>> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
>> own work.
>
> Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
> PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
> wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.

As a (PMC) Member I've always taken (one of) Roy's mantra to heart:
those that do the work should steer the project. At Wicket we have
committer == PMC, and I'd posit we are now among the 'Older' projects
(given our 8 years here). Wicket just counts as one project so this
doesn't invalidate your point, but adds a datapoint.

Martijn

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the recommended 
approach for Podlings is.

My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default tends 
to be PPMC == committer.

Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved to 
the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a PMC 
member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at the 
expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign, that.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gred...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership
> is the
> >> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous
> state
> >> between
> >> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than
> likely
> >> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern
> their
> >> own work.
> >
> >
> > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> automatically
> > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> I
> > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> 
> In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> 
> Greg
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 11/05/2015 12:49 PM, larry mccay wrote:
> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> 
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but
> criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not
> actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can
> get the boxes checked.
> 
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be
> done artificially.

Given your comments, I'm curious if you've read the document we're
discussing. It's here:
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.ht
ml

It's a set of interview questions for evaluation. None of them can
really be considered checkboxes, since every one of them requires
quite a bit of research and thought to fill out, and hardly any of
them will have a clear yes or no answer, but are rather a goal that we
all continually strive towards. (Sure, some of them are clearly yes or
no, but most are not.)


> 
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
>>  wrote:
>>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not
>>> yet). And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread
>>> let me explain
>> why.
>> 
>> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other
>> general@ thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to
>> yet another bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly
>> require all projects to complete.
>> 
>> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community
>> is different.
>> 
>> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more 
>> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report
>> monthly is against what we should be about.  I believe that the
>> IPMC should be imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the
>> Board requires from the full projects.  To that end, having
>> mentors explicitly sign-off is fair - but, additional paperwork
>> is not.  -- justin
>> 
>> -
>>
>> 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 


- -- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlY9BcIACgkQXP03+sx4yJPiSgCeJCN75hYHUk4ZQFsSGgq/yKsw
nIsAnRM7MS6FmrRJfNvZL3f3Hi8TzdIm
=QDyV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Rich Bowen]

On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
> right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
> between
> committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
> will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
> own work.


Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.


-- 
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Martijn Dashorst]

> 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".

We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
new projects
and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him to
continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
social manager!

We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time to
contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

Martijn

[1] https://twitter.com/apache_wicket

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/05/2015 01:34 AM, Joe Schaefer 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.

Yes. This is accurate.

> 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.

Much appreciated. Thanks!

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst 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".
> 
> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
> new projects
> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him 
> to
> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
> social manager!
> 
> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time 
> to
> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
*not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
to projects. ASF projects need help in a lot of ways besides code - glad
you've found someone who is lending a hand there.

(I checked out the twitter feed, they really are doing a great job.)

Best,

jzb

-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain why.

And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
projects to complete.

We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is different.

Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[larry mccay]

+1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.

A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.

While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done artificially.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain
> why.
>
> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> projects to complete.
>
> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> different.
>
> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[larry mccay]

Hi Caleb -

I am glad that it is useful for your projects.

I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
podling.

"These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
- this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".

We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
community decisions or milestones.

As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
graduate or not.

thanks,

--larry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton  wrote:

> I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
>
> Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> need to be moving towards.
>
> Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> useful guidance.
>
> If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
> particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
> are missing?
>
> Regards,
>   Caleb
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:
>
> > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> >
> > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> develop
> > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
> >
> > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> natural
> > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > artificially.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > explain
> > > why.
> > >
> > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > projects to complete.
> > >
> > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > different.
> > >
> > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Caleb Welton]

I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...

Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
need to be moving towards.

Especially starting with an established team working on close source
project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
useful guidance.

If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
are missing?

Regards,
  Caleb

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:

> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
>
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
> more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
>
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
> growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> artificially.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> > wrote:
> > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> explain
> > why.
> >
> > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > projects to complete.
> >
> > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > different.
> >
> > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).

Yup. And that's why I felt like clarifying.

> It got shot down for many, many reasons.

Well, that depends on what 'it' is. But that's a different conversation ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer]

I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
document into a policy document.  Rather, some people are finding it a
useful
guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM, larry mccay  wrote:

> Hi Caleb -
>
> I am glad that it is useful for your projects.
>
> I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
> It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
> podling.
>
> "These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
> - this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".
>
> We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
> to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
> community decisions or milestones.
>
> As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
> help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
> graduate or not.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton  wrote:
>
> > I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
> >
> > Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> > incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> > useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> > community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> > development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> > need to be moving towards.
> >
> > Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> > project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> > entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> > the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> > help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> > guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> > encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> > useful guidance.
> >
> > If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> > suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are
> there
> > particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things
> that
> > are missing?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Caleb
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:
> >
> > > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> > >
> > > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> > develop
> > > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes
> checked.
> > >
> > > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> > natural
> > > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > > artificially.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> jus...@erenkrantz.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > > explain
> > > > why.
> > > >
> > > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > > projects to complete.
> > > >
> > > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > > different.
> > > >
> > > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should
> be
> > > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires
> from
> > > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off
> is
> > > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer]

IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).
It got shot down for many, many reasons.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> > I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very
> nice
> > document into a policy document.
>
> To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
> It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..
>
> > Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> > guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be
> encouraged.
>
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
> document into a policy document.

To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..

> Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.

...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 05/11/15 13:48, Joe Brockmeier a écrit :
> On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst 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".
>> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
>> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
>> new projects
>> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted 
>> him to
>> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
>> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
>> social manager!
>>
>> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
>> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time 
>> to
>> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.
> You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
> happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
> *not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
> to projects. 
It never was. On Directory or MINA, we voted in people who focused on
documentation or other non-coding things. Three of them have been added
to the PMC. Use your jugement, you will quickly see when someone is
beneficial to your community !


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

I took the tenor of the conversation as heading in a direction where
mentors would be expected to fill it out or the IPMC would stop any
graduation conversations.

If a podling chooses to voluntarily fill it out, great.  But, don't
put the burden on mentors to fill out some crazy paperwork.  -- justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Private PPMC discussions and archives (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/04/2015 03:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> One question on discussing candidature of a person for PPMC on private:
> I know that private is only for PPMC, but I believe the new elected PPMC
> can always get the digest for older messages (or not?). If that is the case
> wouldn't it defeat the purpose of having these discussions on private?

New PPMC/PMC members *can* access private list archives where their
candidacy is discussed, absolutely.

And yes, this means that when they're added to the PPMC (or PMC, or as
an ASF Member) they can see where they've been discussed 'privately.'
So, when discussing this sort of thing, assume that eventually the
person you're discussing will be able to see it.

If the purpose were simply to do this out of sight of the prospective
PPMC member, then it would defeat the purpose.

However, AIUI, it serves a few additional purposes:

- It doesn't have an immediate impact on the project or person. Someone
who is contributing well but not quite ready for PPMC duties, for
example, may get immediately discouraged if they're discussed publicly
and found wanting.

- You don't wind up with a publicly searchable discussion of someone's
suitability (or lack thereof) that might turn up when someone google's a
person's name. So - it might hurt my feelings eventually to learn that
someone -1'ed me for some reason, but it shouldn't impact my job
prospects, etc.

But I recommend assuming that when you discuss anyone for PPMC (etc) on
a private list that the odds are they will eventually see it. I'm not a
fan of this, because I suspect it inhibits fully candid discussion.

On the flip side, I don't think PPMC folks should shy away from
objectively discussing folks and being willing to say "this person may
be a great PPMC member someday, but I don't think they are ready today.
Here's where I feel they need to improve." One hopes that our PPMC, PMC,
etc. folks can handle objective (if retroactive) feedback, and be happy
that they've since addressed concerns.

But if a person goes on a personal rant against someone who is later
added to the PPMC, then... they can probably expect to be dropped from
the new PPMC person's holiday card list.

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Sravya Tirukkovalur]

I like Roman's idea of filling out the maturity model template, I too think
that might help get a holistic view . I can volunteer to do it as a sentry
community member if needed.

And let me take a stab at which of these I think we did for growing the
community.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>
> > In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
> > hard to do.
>
> Agreed -- and that why so many podlings put so much effort into it over the
> course of incubation and find it a challenging hurdle to overcome.  When a
> project enters incubation, its core developers should expect that they are
> going to do a lot less coding and a lot more recruitment and community
> management for a long while.
>
> *   Raising awareness of the product through talks, articles, etc.
>

Sentry community members have given talks at major conferences like
ApacheCon, Hadoop World and so on. We also hosted Sentry Meetups around the
globe. One of my favorites is in India, where there were around 100
participants. We also wrote a few blog posts to make it easy to digest
information on latest features. And we also continuously improve on our
website and wiki pages.

*   Writing up "how to contribute" documents.
>
We have an excellent "how to contribute" page, which we continuously
improve on. A lot of new comers have used the doc to make their first
Apache contribution, which I am very proud of, as I believe the first
commit is the major step in the journey. I know of at least few
contributors who have used the doc and also have contributed back to the
doc with what they saw as gaps.

*   Teeing up easy starter issues.
>

We do have a newbie label that we use to mark easy to fix jiras. I agree
that it is hard to keep up with tagging all relevant jiras, but we try to
do our best. And try to revisit when ever there is a new contributor trying
to look for jiras to pick up.


> *   Responding to any contributions quickly and thoroughly.
>
This is an ongoing thing and I think Sentry community has been good here.
Although, I think we should continually strive to decrease the waiting time.


> *   Involving the community in development discussions.
>

>From what I see, depending on how much clarity we have on a new idea: Folks
either prefer to discuss on dev list or open a jira and have discussion on
the jira. The discussion continues through review board until the patch is
committed (even after in fact).

*   Engaging contributors and collaborating with them to develop *their*
> ideas
> through code review, constructive feedback, freewheeling design
> discussions, being flexible about integrating new ideas, and so on.
>

Ideas have been proposed by various developers in the past and have went
through a very healthy cycle of code reviews, feedbacks, refactoring,
testing and committing.


*   Ensuring that the codebase is easy to approach (builds easily, well
> commented, etc.)
>
> Yes. I would not say Sentry is the most well commented project on earth
and but we do have contributors who care about project quality and
maintainability and we strive to always improve on that front.

There's a lot of stuff we can do to grow communities, and though it's
> always a
> lot of work, the techniques are reasonably well understood around Apache by
> now.  How much of that has Sentry done?  And where in the "open source
> funnel" has there been the greatest narrowing?
>
> 1.  People hear about the product.
> 2.  People download, install, and try out the product.
> 3.  People keep using the product, becoming users.
> 4.  Users offer up their first patches, becoming contributors.
> 5.  Contributors get invited to become committers.
> 6.  Committers get invited to become (P)PMC members.
>
> While it might be "artificial" to consider promoting three committers who
> may
> or may not be ready, it's reasonable to ask, how much have the senior
> members
> of the Sentry community invested in developing those three contributors,
> and
> have there been other contributors who have been lost along the way?
>
> But getting three new committers is actually pretty great!  So how about
> the
> Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
> not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them
> to
> the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
> member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
> community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit.
>
>
We actually have not 3 but 7 new committers! And IMO, we have 3 candidates
for PPMC, who for various reasons I thought (IMO) were not ready a few
months back but now I believe they are. I would be more than happy to start
the discussion on private and give out details there.

One question on discussing candidature of a person for PPMC on 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
> committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a
> PPMC member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
> non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
> synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.

I don't suppose we have stats on that, do we? 

My first project was CloudStack, and I was surprised to find other
podlings *didn't* distinguish between committer and PPMC. While PPMC
votes on members, being a committer does give privileges beyond just
being an occasional contributor, so some folks may find it a useful step
between "we have to review all of your patches" and "you're helping with
governance/growth of the project." 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:26 PM, Lenni Kuff 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.

So... the discussion that prompted this was in March 2014, but the fix
didn't make it to the site until August 2015. 

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-128

See also (for those with access: http://s.apache.org/chc)

I remembered the exchange about this, but wasn't aware that it'd taken
so long to fix. 

When it came up (and in this Jira) it's said "we say that all committers
are PPMC members this is not as planned. Committers should be considered
separate from PMC members." The incubation status page likewise does not
distinguish PPMC. (Compare to CloudStack, which did:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cloudstack.html)

Where was it "planned"? I don't see any indicator in the Sentry proposal
that there was a distinction - where was it documented? If it wasn't
written down somewhere, how would anybody know it was "planned" that
way?

The most public reference would indicate to contributors that
contributors == PPMC. If it was "wrong" I can't find the source to
indicate that the podling felt differently.

Mea culpa for not looking at this more carefully at the time, but the
podling probably should have paused and had a public conversation about
this when it was first caught. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
> > committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a
> > PPMC member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
> > non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
> > synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.
>
> I don't suppose we have stats on that, do we?
>
> My first project was CloudStack, and I was surprised to find other
> podlings *didn't* distinguish between committer and PPMC. While PPMC
> votes on members, being a committer does give privileges beyond just
> being an occasional contributor, so some folks may find it a useful step
> between "we have to review all of your patches" and "you're helping with
> governance/growth of the project."
>
>
My experience on other projects is the same as Joe. afaik it's up to the
podling, and most I've been involved with decided to go with committer !=
ppmc. Honestly I thought that was the default.

Patrick


>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

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  wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[P. Taylor Goetz]

On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:

>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 09:02 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> My experience on other projects is the same as Joe. afaik it's up to the
> podling, and most I've been involved with decided to go with committer !=
> ppmc. Honestly I thought that was the default.

And here I think I have to agree that it this kind of variance makes it
difficult for podlings to really know what's what. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[John D. Ament]

I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a PPMC
member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.

John

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM Lenni Kuff  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  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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
> >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

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  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  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 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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
>> > 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Mattmann, Chris A (3980)]

+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 
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
To: "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  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  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 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>>>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>>>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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

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 
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> To: "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  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  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 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> >>>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
> >>>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
> 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
between
committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
own work.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> 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  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  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 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz >> >
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>>> 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, 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

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  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  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 
> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"  >
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > > To: "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 
> > 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 
> > 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.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

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  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  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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
> >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Also, I'm not quite clear on what is meant by "running" a release.
Do you mean a committer not on the PMC functioned as Release Manager?
Normally someone who does that is sending a clear-cut signal that they
belong on the PMC, because all that work they are doing is being done on
behalf of
the PMC.  I consider it a highly awkward situation when a Release Manager
does
not have a binding vote on their own damned release (well for a normal PMC).


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Schaefer  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 
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
>> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> To: "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  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 
>> 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 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>> >>>
>> >>> > >> wrote:
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>> >>>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 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

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  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 
> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > To: "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 
> 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 
> 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 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff 
> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > >>>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
> > >>>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
> 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

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".



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer  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  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  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 
>> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
>> general@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> > > To: "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 
>> > 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 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur  wrote:
> ...I like Roman's idea of filling out the maturity model template,...

FWIW we did this recently for Groovy and it's been useful, see
https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
>>... I agree but in the meantime we have
>> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
> "we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
> at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
> proper evaluation of a podling's health and community

Ok, "there is" that tool then ;-)

IMO there's a growing consensus that the maturity model provides
useful data points to evaluate a project's health.

I'm not saying it is THE ultimate tool, and If you think it needs
improvements, patches are welcome (on the comdev list).

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  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.


>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer  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  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  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 
> >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> >> > > To: "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 
> >> > 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 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> ...how about the
> Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
> not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them to
> the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
> member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
> community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit

+1, sounds like a plan.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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.


> >
> >
> Anyone from the community that can pitch in with more details? I realize
> the firehose that is the IPMC can be overwhelming, and often intimidating,
> but you should feel free to ensure the record is accurately reflected. :-)
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the podling?
I certainly think you've done the right thing by raising your concerns here
and
asking for a sanity check.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add
> more
> > > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
> me
> >
> > If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> > podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> > incubation.
>
> And note the Board also wants to see PMC growth over the years (for TLPs).
> This is why we mandate reporting requirements of "last date of PMC
> addition"
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add more
> > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
> me
>
> If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> incubation.
>
>
This highlights my concern though. It's why this thread was started in the
first place IMO - the fact that the incubator graduation requirements are a
moving target. It's one of the more frustrating aspects of being a mentor.

A few years ago being in the incubator was strict, but much more
straightforward. Bootstrap, build your community, address the IP issues,
show you understand the Apache way and you are on your way - "best wishes".
Now we seem to think everyone is out to do the wrong thing, rather than
everyone having positive motives and are trying their best.

If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC
as a strict requirement to graduation:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator

Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now saying that
you would be +1?

Based on my reading Sentry has more than met the minimum requirements and I
recommend we allow graduation.

Patrick



> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
> It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
> need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was
> already
> mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
> couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be
> fine
> with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.

FWIW I agree with you that it's "artificial" and for a podling that's
motivated to graduate (which Sentry appears to be) it's not hard to
paper that over and just say "OK, if we want to graduate, let's tick
this checkbox."

Not having new PPMC folks is a symptom of what concerns me about Sentry.
I didn't see a focus on adding committers until prodded. I don't see a
focus on growing committers to become PMC members minus mentor prodding.
If a project cares about sustainability and growth, shouldn't it be
having these discussions? Their absence concerns me greatly. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC
> as a strict requirement to graduation:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
...

I agree but in the meantime we have
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
which many agree is a more fine grained evaluation of a project's
health.

>
> ...Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now saying that
> you would be +1? ...

I'd have to be convinced that there is a very good reason why no PPMC
members have been added during incubation, as that's not a good sign.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
> PPMC
> > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> ...
>
> I agree but in the meantime we have
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> which many agree is a more fine grained evaluation of a project's
> health.
>
>
Is that a rubric for incubation? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the
incubator documents.

Maturity is fine, but it's relative. We're talking about an incubator here,
not a full grown chick.


> >
> > ...Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now
> saying that
> > you would be +1? ...
>
> I'd have to be convinced that there is a very good reason why no PPMC
> members have been added during incubation, as that's not a good sign.
>
>
So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was already
mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be fine
with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.

Patrick


> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> podling?

I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory. 

Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
hard to get right. 

But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
contribute. 

I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.). 

At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE. 

Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
hold it up single-handedly.

* 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. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> ...If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be fine
> with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial

This is getting rethorical...I'm not interested in micromanaging
podlings so won't be able to know myself if those 3 new members were
voted in as a "graduation trick" of if the podling realized the
importance of voting them in.

I guess I'd have to trust the mentors comments in that case.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
PPMC
> > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> >
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> ...
>
> I agree but in the meantime we have
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

"we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
proper evaluation of a podling's health and community.

-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> > podling?
>
> I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
> not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory.
>
> Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
> required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
> time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
> filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
> don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
> hard to get right.
>
> But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
> not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
> contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
> want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
> contribute.
>
> I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
> non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
> are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
> particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
> to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
> about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
> non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.).
>
> At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
> think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
> that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
> that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
> much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE.
>
>
Personally I don't see this. To be fair, to my eye in each case when you've
brought up issues the podling has done their best to address them. They
even reached out to all the mentors recently and asked for feedback on
whether they are ready or not. The frustration podlings have is that
graduation is a moving target, even the mentors/ipmc can't agree. They are
trying to do their best, but growing a community is hard. They have been in
the incubator for two years, have built a useful tool, multiple releases,
have 30+ committers and 20+ ppmc members. Of course they want to graduate.
What I see in the sentry discussions is that they want to stay true to the
apache way, but don't want to do it artificially so. Just "ticking the
boxes" as has been brought up elsewhere in this thread.


> Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
> where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
> filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
> input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
> vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
> my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
> hold it up single-handedly.
>
>
If we can't reach consensus then we shouldn't go ahead. Your input is
valuable, that's why I'm spending my personal time on it. ;-)  However we
need to have some clear action items for the podling so that they have
something solid to build off. As it stands now I don't see a path to
graduation given the current IPMC climate.

Patrick


> * 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.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
> PPMC
> > > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> > >
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > ...
> >
> > I agree but in the meantime we have
> >
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
> "we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
> at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
> proper evaluation of a podling's health and community.


The incubator has lost track of what "incubation" means... but I digress,
and I've tried really hard to stay away from getting onto my soapbox...

Patrick

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
> > It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
> > need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was
> > already
> > mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
> > couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> > we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be
> > fine
> > with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.
>
> FWIW I agree with you that it's "artificial" and for a podling that's
> motivated to graduate (which Sentry appears to be) it's not hard to
> paper that over and just say "OK, if we want to graduate, let's tick
> this checkbox."
>
> Not having new PPMC folks is a symptom of what concerns me about Sentry.
> I didn't see a focus on adding committers until prodded. I don't see a
> focus on growing committers to become PMC members minus mentor prodding.
> If a project cares about sustainability and growth, shouldn't it be
> having these discussions? Their absence concerns me greatly.
>
>
In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
hard to do. Keep in mind all the things we're asking a bunch of folks to do
- look at this thread.

Patrick


> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add
more
> > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
me
>
> If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> incubation.

And note the Board also wants to see PMC growth over the years (for TLPs).
This is why we mandate reporting requirements of "last date of PMC addition"

Cheers,
-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Sravya Tirukkovalur]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> > podling?
>
> I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
> not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory.
>
> Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
> required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
> time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
> filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
> don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
> hard to get right.
>
> I would like to respectfully disagree here. As far as I can see all 7
committers for added organically. Without any prodding.


> But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
> not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
> contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
> want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
> contribute.
>
> I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
> non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
> are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
> particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
> to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
> about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
> non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.).
>
> At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
> think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
> that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
> that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
> much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE.
>
> Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
> where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
> filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
> input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
> vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
> my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
> hold it up single-handedly.
>
> * 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.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

For me, the key, nay brilliant, terms in the Maturity Model are about 
"striving."  

The question is always, is there demonstrable striving toward the elements 
identified in the maturity model.

If that's not apparent, then one has to wonder, whatever the level of 
achievement, whether that's what one expects to see in an Apache Project, 
whatever its tenure.  It's about the journey the Project (or Podling) is on, 
not a fixed destination.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Roman Shaposhnik
> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 09:50
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
[ ... ]

> Think of it as when you are asking somebody to review your code. If you
> don't make it easy for reviewers -- don't expect them to bend over
> backwards
> to make sense out of what you submitted. Doesn't mean you'll get a -1,
> but
> don't expect a quick +1 either. Same deal with a maturity model: when
> the time
> comes for a graduation vote, if you make it easy(er) for "reviewers"
> to start forming
> an opinion on whether the community is ready or not -- you will spend
> less time arguing.
> 
> Personally I find maturity model template to be just that kind of a tool
> for me.
> 
> On the flip side -- not filling it out is not a blocker. It just
> means, for example,
> that *I* personally will have very little incentive to dig into the guts
> of a
> community I don't know well to really find out all the same details that
> mentors
> or community members could have communicated to me filling out the
> maturity model template.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[P. Taylor Goetz]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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.

If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

-Taylor

[1] 
https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  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.
>
>
Anyone from the community that can pitch in with more details? I realize
the firehose that is the IPMC can be overwhelming, and often intimidating,
but you should feel free to ensure the record is accurately reflected. :-)

Patrick


> If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.
>
> -Taylor
>
> [1]
> https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
> hard to do.

Agreed -- and that why so many podlings put so much effort into it over the
course of incubation and find it a challenging hurdle to overcome.  When a
project enters incubation, its core developers should expect that they are
going to do a lot less coding and a lot more recruitment and community
management for a long while.

*   Raising awareness of the product through talks, articles, etc.
*   Writing up "how to contribute" documents.
*   Teeing up easy starter issues.
*   Responding to any contributions quickly and thoroughly.
*   Involving the community in development discussions.
*   Engaging contributors and collaborating with them to develop *their* ideas
through code review, constructive feedback, freewheeling design
discussions, being flexible about integrating new ideas, and so on.
*   Ensuring that the codebase is easy to approach (builds easily, well
commented, etc.)

There's a lot of stuff we can do to grow communities, and though it's always a
lot of work, the techniques are reasonably well understood around Apache by
now.  How much of that has Sentry done?  And where in the "open source
funnel" has there been the greatest narrowing?

1.  People hear about the product.
2.  People download, install, and try out the product.
3.  People keep using the product, becoming users.
4.  Users offer up their first patches, becoming contributors.
5.  Contributors get invited to become committers.
6.  Committers get invited to become (P)PMC members.

While it might be "artificial" to consider promoting three committers who may
or may not be ready, it's reasonable to ask, how much have the senior members
of the Sentry community invested in developing those three contributors, and
have there been other contributors who have been lost along the way?

But getting three new committers is actually pretty great!  So how about the
Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them to
the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit.

Hope this helps,

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> For me, the key, nay brilliant, terms in the Maturity Model are about 
> "striving."
>
> The question is always, is there demonstrable striving toward the elements 
> identified in the maturity model.
>
> If that's not apparent, then one has to wonder, whatever the level of 
> achievement, whether that's what
> one expects to see in an Apache Project, whatever its tenure.  It's about the 
> journey the Project (or Podling)
> is on, not a fixed destination.

Exactly! And this is why, in my opinion, quite a few heated discussion
around graduation are totally missing the point. The frame of reference
that gets perpetuated is that somehow the project has to be a perfect
example of a TLP.

That is, in my opinion, totally counter productive. The project's community
has to demonstrate that they get where the gaps are and they are striving
to address those in a meaningful fashion (*)

Thanks,
Roman.

(*) for the purists on this thread: yes I know that there are certain parts
of the curriculum that have to be mastered as the basis for graduation.
Which, come to think of it, the maturity model also calls out explicitly.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
> since its inception...

If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.

and earlier he wrote:
> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...

Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.

Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
our maturity model [1].

-Bertrand

[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 06:04 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ... the reply from
> > Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> > project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> > over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Joe - I trust and respect you enough to feel that this is unintentional,
> but I am being taken out of context. In this and previous emails you have
> suggested that I admit and approve of an external entity controlling
> Sentry. This is a gross misrepresentation. Please stop implying that for
> your future responses as it was not what I said or meant.

I don't think that's *quite* what I suggested, but per Upayavira's note
that followed yours, I see I may have misread your message. 

Upayavira's reading suggests you meant "not an issue" to mean "this is
not happening" rather than "I don't consider this a problem." That
significantly changes the tone of the response as I understood it. 

If that was your meaning, I do apologize for misinterpreting what you
said. I do appreciate you understanding that my response was based on an
honest interpretation of what you wrote. Just to be clear - you're
vouching that all of Sentry's development is happening in the open, and
Sentry development decisions are not being taken offlist? 

Thanks much for clarifying!

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
>> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
>> since its inception...
>
> If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
>
> and earlier he wrote:
>> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
>
> Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
>
> Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> our maturity model [1].

If this thread is about bringing consensus around the graduation path
for Sentry, is there any chance the community/mentors can compile
all the data points that are part of the maturity model? This will make
it much easier to see things in the holistic view.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 05:27PM, Vinod Vavilapalli wrote:
> Many of the active TLPs do tend to center all project discussions on JIRA as
> opposed to mailing lists. OTOH, non-code discussions are usually best served
> on mailing lists.
> 
> Instead of making it a JIRA vs mailing list discussion, how about the
> podling be advised about putting a cool-off period for JIRA resolutions -
> 24-36hrs before they get closed. Again, this is something a bunch of active
> TLPs practice in the interest of leaving enough time windows for everyone
> (many times around the world in different time-zones) to pitch in.

I think these might be good development practices, but if there's an
underlying issues with off-line decision making none of these tweak will solve
it. The root issue needs to be addressed, if it indeed exists.

But even for the tweaks you've proposed: some fixes/patches are mundane and
keeping them on-hold for an arbitrary number of the hours will simply slow
down the development. Some of the new features might be as well trivial: say
adding new build target to combine certain build functions in a more
convenient way, etc. etc. So, how to line up the rules and control they
are being followed? Creation new policies even before the graduation happened
sounds completely broken to me.

What's important IMO is that committers on a project have enough sense to know
when the input from the rest of the developers is needed and when a change is
trivial enough to "just go in". That's a part of the podling maturity, as I
see it: the effectiveness of the community inner-working; the trust that your
peers are doing "the right thing".

Cos

> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> > time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> > concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> > development and discussion out-of-sight. 
> > 
> > I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> > conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> > and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1] 
> > 
> > Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> > suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> > happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> > and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> > the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> > podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask." 
> > 
> > At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> > third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> > Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> > operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> > in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind: 
> > 
> > "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> > the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> > create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> > patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> > mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> > filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> > the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> > interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> > right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> > opinion at all. And here is why:
> > 
> > When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> > comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> > project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> > quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> > that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> > participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> > knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> > intuitively."
> > 
> > The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved. 
> > 
> > The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> > conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> > and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> > Way" as commonly understood. [3]
> > 
> > However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> > continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> > position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:27PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 03:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > I see this (the release discussion threads you linked) as a semi-mature
> > community that's well aligned. A number of folks responded to the request
> > for discussion and said they were in favor. It was done on the ML in the
> > open. What more do we want? I don't see anyone excluded and I'm sure if
> > there was a new person looking to get involved they would have been
> > welcomed into the discussion, no one is being turned away from what I can
> > see.
> 
> No one is being turned away, that I've noticed, but I really don't see
> how anyone is supposed to follow along if they're not part of the team
> already. I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
> didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence.
> 
> I'm also sad to see that being held up as a standard by other mentors.
> My understanding is that projects should be attempting to create a
> community that is open, and trying to self-perpetuate. Sure, you can't
> do that if you turn people away actively - but you also can't do that by
> having conversations offlist and having an opaque process that newcomers
> can't follow along with.
> 
> I'll say again - maybe my standards are improperly calibrated. If so,
> and "not actively turning people away" is the standard we're going
> for... that's disappointing as all heck.

I don't think your standards have became miscalibrated all of a sudden. These
community principles are what being instilled on new podlings by many here.
Hence I believe that a perceived new norm of "not actively turning people
away" should be dealt with by the first the mentors and backed up by the whole
incubation model, including shepherds.

Cos

> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-934
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 04:42 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  > wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> > > ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC
> > members
> > > since its inception...
> >
> > If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
> >
> > and earlier he wrote:
> > > ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> > > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> > > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
> >
> > Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
> >
> >
> Bertrand, imo this is a reasonable concern. I remember some discussion a
> while back on the sentry lists about it. Note that the community has
> highlighted it in their status reports, so it should be nothing
> new/surprising. iirc (and I'm summarizing here, please correct me if I
> get it wrong) the new committers have had varying levels of activity. Some
> more active than others, but none that had reached ppmc status. Perhaps the
> team should be more aggressive promoting folks, but I don't believe it's out
> of exclusion or lack of understanding the Apache way.

We generally shy away from discussing individuals on open lists w/r/t
"this person should/shouldn't be a PPMC member" type things, so I'm not
sure it'd be right to specifically point to any Sentry contributors as
an example.

I will say I can think of at least two Sentry contributors added since
Sentry entered incubation who seem just as active as other folks who
came in with the podling.  When you say "reached PPMC status" I'm not
sure there's a clear signal to me that they're less worthy than the
folks ushered in with the podling. 

You said it "sounds like" making more folks PPMC members is "in the
pipeline" - do you mean if Sentry graduates, or is there some other
discussion I've missed where that's being pondered?

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org