subject:"Re\: \[DISCUSSION\] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator"

Congratulation - this is the longest [DISCUSS] thread on a podling graduation
in the last 4 years (since ACE). Musta be some sort of record or something!

Cos

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Hello Apache Incubator,
> 
> At the suggestion of our mentors the Ignite community established consensus
> and held a successful vote with 14 +1 votes in favor of proposing
> graduation to TLP.
> 
> Vote thread:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Graduate-Apache-Ignite-from-Incubation-td1539.html
> 
> Summary of the vote results:
> +1 (non-binding) = 14
> 
>1. Yakov Zhdanov (PMC)
>2. Gianfranco Murador (PMC)
>3. Ira Vasilinets (PMC)
>4. Nikolai Tichinov (PMC)
>5. Semyon Boikov (PMC)
>6. Sergi Vladykin (PMC)
>7. Alexey Goncharuk (PMC)
>8. Ognen Duzlevski (PMC)
>9. Valentin Kulichenko (PMC)
>10. Nikita Ivanov (PMC)
>11. Dmitriy Setrakyan (PMC)
>12. Andrey Novikov (Committer)
>13. Alexey Kuznetsov (Committer)
>14. Milap Wadwa
> 
> We’d like to initiate this discussion/proposal to establish a consensus
> within the incubator and if appropriate will initiate a vote.
> 
> Below is our proposed resolution:
> 
> Thank you
> Dmitriy Setrakyan(on behalf of the Apache Ignite PPMC)
> 
> SUBJECT: Establish the Apache Ignite TLP
> 
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software, for distribution at no charge to
> the public, related to the automated and managed flow of
> information between systems.
> 
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Ignite Project",
> be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
> Foundation; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the Apache Ignite Project be and hereby is
> responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
> related to the automated and managed flow of information
> between systems and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Ignite" be
> and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
> serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
> of the Apache Ignite Project, and to have primary responsibility
> for management of the projects within the scope of
> responsibility of the Apache Ignite Project; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
> hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
> Apache Ignite Project:
> 
> Semyon Boikov (sboi...@apache.org)
> Konstantin Boudnik (c...@apache.org)
> Branko Čibej (br...@apache.org)
> Ognen Duzlevski (mak...@apache.org)
> Sergey Evdokimov (sevdoki...@apache.org)
> Alexey Goncharuk (agoncha...@apache.org)
> Nikita Ivanov (nivano...@apache.org)
> Sergey Khisamov (s...@apache.org)
> Valentin Kulichenko (vkuliche...@apache.org)
> Alexey Kuznetsov (akuznet...@apache.org)
> Gianfranco Murador (mura...@apache.org)
> Andrey Novikov (anovi...@apache.org)
> Vladimir Ozerov (voze...@apache.org)
> Dmitriy Setrakyan (dsetrak...@apache.org)
> Roman Shaposhnik (r...@apache.org)
> Ilya Sterin (iste...@apache.org)
> Nikolai Tikhonov (ntikho...@apache.org)
> Irina Vasilinets (ivasilin...@apache.org)
> Anton Vinogradov (a...@apache.org)
> Sergey Vladykin (svlady...@apache.org)
> Evans Ye (evan...@apache.org)
> Yakov Zhdanov (yzhda...@apache.org)
> 
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
> Dmitriy Setrakyan be appointed to the office of Vice President,
> Apache Ignite, to serve in accordance with and subject to the
> direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the
> Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or
> disqualification, or until a successor is appointed;
> and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Ignite PMC be and hereby is
> tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
> encourage open development and increased participation in the
> Apache Ignite Project; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that the Apache Ignite Project be and hereby
> is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
> Incubator Ignite podling; and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
> Incubator Ignite podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
> Project are hereafter discharged.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
>
> > Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
> > dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
> > major feature appear in the Ignite code base without dev@ list
> discussion.
> >
>
> Could you find some examples.
>
> I would love to be convinced.  So far, I have mostly been unconvinced by
> the examples that I have found.
>
> You would be likely to be better at finding good examples since you are
> closer to the project.


Ted,

Just from browsing first few pages on nabble (http://s.apache.org/ignite-dev),
I found many examples of decisions or important discussions made on the dev
list:

http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Ignite-Web-Control-Center-Architecture-td1397.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Collocated-queues-td1760.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Ignite-startup-in-client-mode-silently-hanging-td1749.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Unstructured-object-format-td1685.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Create-cache-and-near-cache-from-XML-configuration-on-client-node-td1672.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Json-support-in-Ignite-td1662.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Ceph-w-Ignite-td1524.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ConsistentId-for-IgniteConfiguration-td1472.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Improve-plugins-start-stop-procedure-td1468.html

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Roman Shaposhnik

// Putting my Ignite mentor hat on

I apologies for not chiming in on this thread earlier.
I am at OSCON and my connectivity is extremely
limited. Thus, I'd like to constrain myself to highly
actionable questions on this thread. Which is:

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>> Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
>> dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
>> major feature appear in the Ignite code base without dev@ list discussion.
>>
>
> Could you find some examples.
>
> I would love to be convinced.  So far, I have mostly been unconvinced by
> the examples that I have found.
>
> You would be likely to be better at finding good examples since you are
> closer to the project.

Is this the only actionable data point that is being
requested of Ignite mentors at this point? If there are
others I missed (once again apologies) I'd like
to know the full list before I dig into providing more
details on the podling.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 04:31, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
>> is not relevant history.
>
> You may or may not claim that, but the fact that issue tracking is required
> to be on Apache controlled resources indicates a somewhat different
> result.

Correction: unlike source repositories, issue tracking is not required
to be on Apache controlled resources. There's no policy or bylaw that
requires that. This PMC has graduated at least one podling that doesn't
use an ASF-hosted issue tracker.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:31PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Branko,
> 
> Let me preface this by my thought that I feel that the JIRA's are a
> valuable organizational tool in that I should be able to find the
> information on a particular issue there.  The Hadoop or Zookeeper JIRA's,
> for instance, are often models of this.  Issues are discussed, reviewed,
> dissected and finally a resolution is made.
> 
> More comments in-line in a rather ruthlessly summarized quote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
> 
> >
> > >>
> > >> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
> > >> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.
> > > But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
> > > see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
> > > to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
> > > not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
> > > commits IDs nor the JIRAs...so how exactly are we to interpret what's
> > > going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?
> > >
> > > Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
> > > also about making the development and decision process open and
> > > transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
> > > not appear to be that way yet.
> > >
> > > I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
> > > one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
> > > stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
> > > satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
> > > of) the board.
> >
> > There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
> > is not relevant history.
> 
> 
> You may or may not claim that, but the fact that issue tracking is required
> to be on Apache controlled resources indicates a somewhat different
> result.  Also, JIRA is often used as a way of putting comments onto the
> mailing list, while at the same time organizing them for ease in finding
> them.
> 
> So JIRA may or may not be relevant history (and it certainly is relevant in
> many ASF projects), the fact is that I only used it as one source of
> information.  I would be happy in finding discussions in any of the
> standard places, but I find that many issues seem to have essentially no
> discussion.  There are comments about reviews that are done, but there is
> no record of those reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Discussions do happen on the dev@ list, so the
> > problem must be in the commit messages.
> 
> 
> Hmm... I think I disagree.
> 
> It is clear that some discussions happen on the mailing list, but it is
> also pretty clear from what I have seen so far that many discussions don't
> happen on the list.  I can only judge by what I can see and from my
> examination of recently closed issues, I found no discussion of these
> issues on the dev mailing list.
> 
> The fact that *some* issues are discussed does not lead to the conclusion
> that all design discussions are occur on or reflected onto the list. The
> fact that a random-ish sample of recent issues reveals no substantive
> discussion even though some of these issues seem to be worthy of discussion
> (race conditions and such) makes me think that there might well be
> substantial discussion going on somewhere else.
> 
> What would make me happy is a comment on the JIRA which is then reflected
> on the mailing list of the form "Joe and I talked about this and it looks
> pretty simple" or "We talked about this as a group and we had the following
> suggestions which were all hooey so we are doing this".
> 
> I don't see that happening.  I see issue opened.  Issue closed.
> Occasionally a "reviewed by" comment.  All that is only on the JIRA and
> nothing appears on the mailing list.
> 
> 
> > ... Discussions happen on the
> > dev@ list but a Jira issue is raised for each every change, ever so
> > minor; the notification about the issue creation goes to the dev@ list,
> > the change is made, nobody objects and that's it. Hence, there doesn't
> > seem to be much correlation with all the JIra spam and dev@ discussions.
> >
> 
> Could be.
> 
> 
> > First of all, it's not reasonable to expect a dev@ discussion for every
> > one-liner change; CTR rules. Next, it's not reasonable to open a Jira
> > issue for every one-liner change; that's simply a waste of time (and
> > leads to the kind of misunderstandings that we have on this thread).
> >
> 
> I agree.  But the changes I am seeing are not really one-liners.  Or at
> least they are not exclusively one-liners.
> 
> 
> > I do insist that discussion of important issues and features does happen
> > on the dev@ list. The Jira tickets that are created as a result of those
> > discussions can easily be cross-referenced by a simple search in the
> > dev@ archives.
> >
> 
> I have tried to find such.
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:25AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 23.07.2015 23:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic?
> >
> > I never could tell them apart...
> 
> Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
> fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting.

Sorry, I agree - the last one was over the board for sure. Apologies!

> -- Brane
> 
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:26PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >> Your comment came across as antagonistic.
> >>
> >> Nuff said.
> >>
> >> Pierre Smits
> >>
> >> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >> Services and Retail & Trade
> >> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, you made a fact-less observation, and I called you on it. How 
> >>> exactly
> >>> is it insulting? Which part of CoC has been violated?
> >>>
> >>> Cos
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:04PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>  Konstantin,
> 
>  Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such
> >>> actions
>  and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.
> 
>  Best regards,
> 
>  Pierre Smits
> 
>  *ORRTIZ.COM *
>  Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>  Based Manufacturing, Professional
>  Services and Retail & Trade
>  http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
>  On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> >>> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits <
> >>> pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> > regarding
> >>> building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory
> >>> review of
> > the
> >>> mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements
> >>> of
> >>> organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> > changes/mentor
> >>> changes).
> >>>
> >> New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> >>
> >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
> > See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> > message"
> >
> > Cos
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> > As far as off-list discussions are concerned, this is still a very big
> > issue for me.  Off-list discussions and design work is not forbidden, but
> > it must be reflected back to the mailing list.
>
> I agree in principle but have to object to the "must": it's "should".
>

Hmm... we differ here.

> Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
> dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
> major feature appear in the Ignite code base without dev@ list discussion.
>

Could you find some examples.

I would love to be convinced.  So far, I have mostly been unconvinced by
the examples that I have found.

You would be likely to be better at finding good examples since you are
closer to the project.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

I don't think that such implementation requires hand-holding either.



On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> On 23.07.2015 18:26, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
> >
>  Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
> >> that
>  seems to be left open ?
> >>> I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind
> >> commits
> >>> aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?
> >> I think there are a couple things to consider here:
> >>
> >>  1. Off-list discussions, and commits made based on such discussions:
> >> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The resultant code is
> >> public and can be reviewed. If the reasons behind a change are not
> >> clear, well, it's up to the devs to document the code and/or explain
> >> on the dev@ list; but forbidding off-list discussions implies
> >> forbidding hackathons and ApacheCons, for example.
> >
> > My question was more to do with losing historical detail by squashing
> > commits.  Squashing commits has the tendency to hide contributions as
> > well.  I think we have a good answer for that.
>
> I'd rather not state my opinion about squashing commits here; it's not
> printable.
>
> > As far as off-list discussions are concerned, this is still a very big
> > issue for me.  Off-list discussions and design work is not forbidden, but
> > it must be reflected back to the mailing list.
>
> I agree in principle but have to object to the "must": it's "should".
>
> Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
> dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
> major feature appear in the Ignite code base without dev@ list discussion.
>
> > With Ignite, I worry that such discussions are happening (they must be,
> by
> > geography and time zone alone) but are not being reflected back to the
> > mailing list or to the JIRA.  It is not even clear when a bug is closed
> > whether there was a code fix or not.
>
> I've put my thoughts on Jira usage into another post.
>
> -- Brane
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Branko,

Let me preface this by my thought that I feel that the JIRA's are a
valuable organizational tool in that I should be able to find the
information on a particular issue there.  The Hadoop or Zookeeper JIRA's,
for instance, are often models of this.  Issues are discussed, reviewed,
dissected and finally a resolution is made.

More comments in-line in a rather ruthlessly summarized quote:

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

>
> >>
> >> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
> >> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.
> > But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
> > see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
> > to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
> > not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
> > commits IDs nor the JIRAs...so how exactly are we to interpret what's
> > going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?
> >
> > Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
> > also about making the development and decision process open and
> > transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
> > not appear to be that way yet.
> >
> > I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
> > one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
> > stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
> > satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
> > of) the board.
>
> There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
> is not relevant history.

You may or may not claim that, but the fact that issue tracking is required
to be on Apache controlled resources indicates a somewhat different
result.  Also, JIRA is often used as a way of putting comments onto the
mailing list, while at the same time organizing them for ease in finding
them.

So JIRA may or may not be relevant history (and it certainly is relevant in
many ASF projects), the fact is that I only used it as one source of
information.  I would be happy in finding discussions in any of the
standard places, but I find that many issues seem to have essentially no
discussion.  There are comments about reviews that are done, but there is
no record of those reviews.

> Discussions do happen on the dev@ list, so the
> problem must be in the commit messages.

Hmm... I think I disagree.

It is clear that some discussions happen on the mailing list, but it is
also pretty clear from what I have seen so far that many discussions don't
happen on the list.  I can only judge by what I can see and from my
examination of recently closed issues, I found no discussion of these
issues on the dev mailing list.

The fact that *some* issues are discussed does not lead to the conclusion
that all design discussions are occur on or reflected onto the list. The
fact that a random-ish sample of recent issues reveals no substantive
discussion even though some of these issues seem to be worthy of discussion
(race conditions and such) makes me think that there might well be
substantial discussion going on somewhere else.

What would make me happy is a comment on the JIRA which is then reflected
on the mailing list of the form "Joe and I talked about this and it looks
pretty simple" or "We talked about this as a group and we had the following
suggestions which were all hooey so we are doing this".

I don't see that happening.  I see issue opened.  Issue closed.
Occasionally a "reviewed by" comment.  All that is only on the JIRA and
nothing appears on the mailing list.

> ... Discussions happen on the
> dev@ list but a Jira issue is raised for each every change, ever so
> minor; the notification about the issue creation goes to the dev@ list,
> the change is made, nobody objects and that's it. Hence, there doesn't
> seem to be much correlation with all the JIra spam and dev@ discussions.
>

Could be.

> First of all, it's not reasonable to expect a dev@ discussion for every
> one-liner change; CTR rules. Next, it's not reasonable to open a Jira
> issue for every one-liner change; that's simply a waste of time (and
> leads to the kind of misunderstandings that we have on this thread).
>

I agree.  But the changes I am seeing are not really one-liners.  Or at
least they are not exclusively one-liners.

> I do insist that discussion of important issues and features does happen
> on the dev@ list. The Jira tickets that are created as a result of those
> discussions can easily be cross-referenced by a simple search in the
> dev@ archives.
>

I have tried to find such.

Can you provide some examples?  I keep looking and citing the examples that
I find, but none of them show the behavior that I would like to see.

> My only recommendation here would be to use Jira only to track important
> issues and to always write proper commit logs. The la

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 04:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
 I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
 community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
 the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
 happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
 about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
 dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
 we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
 encourage everyone to do so going forward.
>>> As a small reminder, evidently to IPMC members as well as podling
>>> committers: Jira is not the official archive of "what happened" on the
>>> project. Only the dev@ list is. There is no requirement for any project
>>> to use the ASF Jira instance; there's not even a requirement to use an
>>> issue tracker. Suddenly making the contents of tickets in Jira an issue
>>> for graduation is just a bit out of order IMNSHO.
>>>
>>> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
>>> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.
>> But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
>> see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
>> to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
>> not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
>> commits IDs nor the JIRAs...so how exactly are we to interpret what's
>> going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?
>>
>> Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
>> also about making the development and decision process open and
>> transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
>> not appear to be that way yet.
>>
>> I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
>> one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
>> stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
>> satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
>> of) the board.
> There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
> is not relevant history. Discussions do happen on the dev@ list, so the
> problem must be in the commit messages. I've pointed out that these
> leave much to be desired. My diagnosis here is overuse of Jira; what we
> see here is a typical many-places problem: Discussions happen on the
> dev@ list but a Jira issue is raised for each every change, ever so
> minor; the notification about the issue creation goes to the dev@ list,
> the change is made, nobody objects and that's it. Hence, there doesn't
> seem to be much correlation with all the JIra spam and dev@ discussions.
>
> First of all, it's not reasonable to expect a dev@ discussion for every
> one-liner change; CTR rules. Next, it's not reasonable to open a Jira
> issue for every one-liner change; that's simply a waste of time (and
> leads to the kind of misunderstandings that we have on this thread).
>
> I do insist that discussion of important issues and features does happen
> on the dev@ list. The Jira tickets that are created as a result of those
> discussions can easily be cross-referenced by a simple search in the
> dev@ archives.
>
> My only recommendation here would be to use Jira only to track important
> issues and to always write proper commit logs. The latter is an art that
> takes years to learn ...

And, of course, the overarching question is whether implementing my
recommendation requires hand-holding by the Incubator. I don't think it
does.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> If after this lengthy thread, Ignite's Mentors remain persuaded that
> it's time to graduate, I hope that others will weigh that carefully.
>

This is a typically wise comment from Marvin.  The mentors judgement does
deserve strong consideration.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 18:26, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
>
 Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
>> that
 seems to be left open ?
>>> I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind
>> commits
>>> aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?
>> I think there are a couple things to consider here:
>>
>>  1. Off-list discussions, and commits made based on such discussions:
>> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The resultant code is
>> public and can be reviewed. If the reasons behind a change are not
>> clear, well, it's up to the devs to document the code and/or explain
>> on the dev@ list; but forbidding off-list discussions implies
>> forbidding hackathons and ApacheCons, for example.
>
> My question was more to do with losing historical detail by squashing
> commits.  Squashing commits has the tendency to hide contributions as
> well.  I think we have a good answer for that.

I'd rather not state my opinion about squashing commits here; it's not
printable.

> As far as off-list discussions are concerned, this is still a very big
> issue for me.  Off-list discussions and design work is not forbidden, but
> it must be reflected back to the mailing list.

I agree in principle but have to object to the "must": it's "should".

Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
major feature appear in the Ignite code base without dev@ list discussion.

> With Ignite, I worry that such discussions are happening (they must be, by
> geography and time zone alone) but are not being reflected back to the
> mailing list or to the JIRA.  It is not even clear when a bug is closed
> whether there was a code fix or not.

I've put my thoughts on Jira usage into another post.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>>> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
>>> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
>>> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
>>> happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
>>> about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
>>> dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
>>> we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
>>> encourage everyone to do so going forward.
>>
>> As a small reminder, evidently to IPMC members as well as podling
>> committers: Jira is not the official archive of "what happened" on the
>> project. Only the dev@ list is. There is no requirement for any project
>> to use the ASF Jira instance; there's not even a requirement to use an
>> issue tracker. Suddenly making the contents of tickets in Jira an issue
>> for graduation is just a bit out of order IMNSHO.
>>
>> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
>> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.
> But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
> see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
> to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
> not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
> commits IDs nor the JIRAs...so how exactly are we to interpret what's
> going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?
>
> Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
> also about making the development and decision process open and
> transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
> not appear to be that way yet.
>
> I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
> one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
> stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
> satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
> of) the board.

There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
is not relevant history. Discussions do happen on the dev@ list, so the
problem must be in the commit messages. I've pointed out that these
leave much to be desired. My diagnosis here is overuse of Jira; what we
see here is a typical many-places problem: Discussions happen on the
dev@ list but a Jira issue is raised for each every change, ever so
minor; the notification about the issue creation goes to the dev@ list,
the change is made, nobody objects and that's it. Hence, there doesn't
seem to be much correlation with all the JIra spam and dev@ discussions.

First of all, it's not reasonable to expect a dev@ discussion for every
one-liner change; CTR rules. Next, it's not reasonable to open a Jira
issue for every one-liner change; that's simply a waste of time (and
leads to the kind of misunderstandings that we have on this thread).

I do insist that discussion of important issues and features does happen
on the dev@ list. The Jira tickets that are created as a result of those
discussions can easily be cross-referenced by a simple search in the
dev@ archives.

My only recommendation here would be to use Jira only to track important
issues and to always write proper commit logs. The latter is an art that
takes years to learn ...

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Marvin Humphrey

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
> fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting.

Thanks for answering so many questions at length, Brane.

I think these graduation discussions on general@incubator are most
fruitful when we defer to the judgment of the podling's Mentors.
Raising issues that the Mentors may not have considered is helpful;
disputing the assessment of Mentors who have put in the time over many
months watching the podling develop, perhaps less so. (Unless the
Mentors have some affiliation or conflict of interest which justifies
increased scrutiny.)

If after this lengthy thread, Ignite's Mentors remain persuaded that
it's time to graduate, I hope that others will weigh that carefully.

Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Daniel Gruno

On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
>> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
>> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
>> happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
>> about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
>> dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
>> we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
>> encourage everyone to do so going forward.
> 
> 
> As a small reminder, evidently to IPMC members as well as podling
> committers: Jira is not the official archive of "what happened" on the
> project. Only the dev@ list is. There is no requirement for any project
> to use the ASF Jira instance; there's not even a requirement to use an
> issue tracker. Suddenly making the contents of tickets in Jira an issue
> for graduation is just a bit out of order IMNSHO.
> 
> The important question is whether the development process is open, not
> whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.

But, from what I can read in the comments about it, and from what I can
see when I scan the tickets, lists, commits etc; The commits only refer
to JIRA tickets and not discussions on the dev list, the JIRA tickets do
not refer to anything, and the dev list does not refer to neither the
commits IDs nor the JIRAs...so how exactly are we to interpret what's
going on then, if it's all suddenly irrelevant?

Open Source development is not just about publishing your code, it's
also about making the development and decision process open and
transparent, and in several cases, such as the ones Ted listed, it does
not appear to be that way yet.

I see that this issue has been acknowledged on the dev list by at least
one member of the project, and while that is a positive response, I
stand by my decision to withhold support for graduation till I am
satisfied that this has been shown in a consistent manner across (most
of) the board.

With regards,
Daniel.

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 23:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic?
>
> I never could tell them apart...

Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting.

-- Brane


> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:26PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
>> Your comment came across as antagonistic.
>>
>> Nuff said.
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, you made a fact-less observation, and I called you on it. How exactly
>>> is it insulting? Which part of CoC has been violated?
>>>
>>> Cos
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:04PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
 Konstantin,

 Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such
>>> actions
 and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.

 Best regards,

 Pierre Smits

 *ORRTIZ.COM *
 Services & Solutions for Cloud-
 Based Manufacturing, Professional
 Services and Retail & Trade
 http://www.orrtiz.com

 On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
>>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits <
>>> pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> regarding
>>> building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory
>>> review of
> the
>>> mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements
>>> of
>>> organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> changes/mentor
>>> changes).
>>>
>> New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
>>
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
> See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> message"
>
> Cos
>
>
> -
> 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
>


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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
> happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
> about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
> dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
> we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
> encourage everyone to do so going forward.

As a small reminder, evidently to IPMC members as well as podling
committers: Jira is not the official archive of "what happened" on the
project. Only the dev@ list is. There is no requirement for any project
to use the ASF Jira instance; there's not even a requirement to use an
issue tracker. Suddenly making the contents of tickets in Jira an issue
for graduation is just a bit out of order IMNSHO.

The important question is whether the development process is open, not
whether some entries in Jira appear to have adequate comments.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 24.07.2015 00:03, Pierre Smits wrote:
> And we also have keep in mind that the project not only there for those
> with privileges. Focus on that subset of the community isn't building
> healthy, successful projects.

This is the second time on this thread that you've implied that there
are people with inappropriate privileges in the Ignite community. I've
asked you to name specific cases and got no response. If you have
evidence, bring it out. Otherwise stop with these unfounded insinuations.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do all issues get discussed on the dev list? I would say we are very close
> to it. Yes, of course, there is some Skype communication given that the
> project is very complex and the team is distributed. But if you look on the
> dev list you will see that  all (or close to all) of the discussions do
> find their way to the dev list and the community does participate very
> actively.
>

OK.

Let's take some examples combined from the JIRA I mentioned and the most
recently resolved JIRAs:

IGNITE-1134 - No hits on the dev list with this string.  There is now one
comment on the JIRA (from 15 hours ago).

IGNITE-630 - Two comments during development, both disconnected and having
nothing to do with what the problem is or how it is solved.  Nothing on the
mailing list as far as I can tell. 14 hours ago there were some benchmarks
posted and then 8 hours ago, the issue was closed.

IGNITE-1131 - One comment applied as the bug was fixed.  I can't find any
mailing list discussion.

IGNITE-1109 - One cryptic comment, no description on the JIRA.  No mailing
list comments as far as I can tell.

(woof, this takes a lot of work to track these down)

So can you see what I mean that it doesn't look like things are getting
discussed on the list?

My presumption is that this looks very different from your side of the
email chain.  What is it that is causing us to have such different
impressions?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

Hi Ted,

I think the main question here, is whether Ignite community fully following
the Apache Way, or in other words has an active meritocratic community
which is open and makes it easy for people to join.

In my opinion, absolutely Yes.

The project guidelines are fully documented on the website and Wiki,
guidelines on how to contribute and become a committer are documented as
well. All emails about joining the community and becoming a contributor are
answered in timely fashion [1]. In fact, Ignite has one of the easiest
barriers to become a committer - all you need to do is contribute at least
one patch to qualify [2].

[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Regarding-contribution-to-Ignite-td1715.html
[2]
https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/contribute.html#become-committer

Is the community open or has some secret Jira or other types of dicussions?
I have been on the PPMC from the very beginning, and believe we now have
come a long way. I believe that everyone in the community, including old
and new members, have absolutely embraced the Apache Way. There are no
secret Jiras or secret discussions taking place of any sort. Quite frankly,
I personally find it hard for myself to code anything without discussing it
on the dev list first, and I believe that everyone in the Ignite community
feels the same way. I think that most people looking at our project would
agree that we have a very active dev list and everyone in the community is
participating.

Do all issues get discussed on the dev list? I would say we are very close
to it. Yes, of course, there is some Skype communication given that the
project is very complex and the team is distributed. But if you look on the
dev list you will see that  all (or close to all) of the discussions do
find their way to the dev list and the community does participate very
actively.

I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
happened on the dev list, including community members sending notifications
about starting and ending work on Jiras and discussing Jira issues on the
dev list as well. This was a preferred way selected by the community that
we followed. I do agree that Jiras should be updated better and will
encourage everyone to do so going forward.

Hope this clarifies some points raised here.

Thanks,
Valentin

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for some late responses. It so happens that most of the community
> > members are on european time zones.
> >
>
> Thanks so much for jumping in!
>
>
> > > I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
> > > Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to
> be
> > > left open ?
> > >
> >
> > As Dmitry has already responded, there is absolutely no separate Jira
> > maintained for Ignite. Denis accidently sent his employer's Jira ticket
> > status to the dev list. In fact he is so used to send the most of his
> > emails to the dev list, that he sent this one to the dev list by accident
> > as well.
> >
>
> Valentin,
>
> As an interesting test of point of view, could you approach the project as
> if a stranger?
>
> Look at the mailing list.  Look at JIRA.  Try to understand what was
> resolved from the evidence you see.  Look for evidence of how the design
> for the solution was arrived at.
>
> Take for instance IGNITE-1134.  This is a hang after some stimulating
> event.  This sort of problem is often caused by subtle consistency issues
> in distributed systems.  This JIRA was resolved 21 hours after it was filed
> with no discussion or review as far as I can tell.  It was closed 20
> seconds after resolution. How can an outsider be part of this process?
>
> After take a look from that perspective, please tell us what you think
> about whether design decisions are being made on the list. My view is that
> they appear not to be, but you can probably say more from the inside of the
> project.
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread P. Taylor Goetz


> On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> But before we go down that path I want to ask folks who have expressed factual
> concerns to chime in once more and confirm which of those weren't addressed
> yet, if possible.

I completely agree. Enumerating the remaining, unaddressed concerns would be 
good at this point. This thread is getting unwieldy.

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Taylor,

I agree with you - there's no rush in the graduating of course - the community
and the mentors were in the consensus that the project is ready for it.
However some of the points that lead to the perpetuation of the thread were
obvious non sequitur, like the "63%" one. The others were very valid. I
believe valid points were addressed as the discussion was happening.

I personally think that all real concerns are addressed and the community is
trending handsomely and healthy. Some of IPMC members might have different
impression - there's little we can do except of waiting for the later time
when _every single IPMC member_ is on board; running the vote will be
contradictory to the consensus building principle.

But before we go down that path I want to ask folks who have expressed factual
concerns to chime in once more and confirm which of those weren't addressed
yet, if possible.

With regards,
  Cos

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:48PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> It seems to me that some valid concerns have been raised regarding Ignite’s
> readiness to graduate.
> 
> Is there a rush for Ignite to graduate? If there is, and the reason for that
> rush is anything other than “the excitement and pride of becoming a TLP”,
> then it might be indicative of an additional problem.
> 
> Would spending one or more additional monthly cycles in the incubator to
> address those concerns be a problem?
> 
> I know when podlings graduate it reduces the load on the IPMC, but isn’t our
> goal to make sure podlings leave the nest ready to succeed and thrive within
> the bounds of the Apache Way?
> 
> -Taylor

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Spending additional cycles in the incubation phase should never pose a
problem. Especially not with the number of IPMC members as high as it is.

It is more about doing the right thing, than the easy or the fast. It is
not a race, not a competition. And it shouldn't be about surpassing the
latest milestone or achievement (as in more graduated to TLP than last
period or shortest time spent in incubation). Remember, this phase exist to
build healthy ASF projects, where community is more important than code.
Rushing a podling through incubation leaves a taste like it is the other
way around.

And we also have keep in mind that the project not only there for those
with privileges. Focus on that subset of the community isn't building
healthy, successful projects.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:48 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

> It seems to me that some valid concerns have been raised regarding
> Ignite’s readiness to graduate.
>
> Is there a rush for Ignite to graduate? If there is, and the reason for
> that rush is anything other than “the excitement and pride of becoming a
> TLP”, then it might be indicative of an additional problem.
>
> Would spending one or more additional monthly cycles in the incubator to
> address those concerns be a problem?
>
> I know when podlings graduate it reduces the load on the IPMC, but isn’t
> our goal to make sure podlings leave the nest ready to succeed and thrive
> within the bounds of the Apache Way?
>
> -Taylor
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread P. Taylor Goetz

It seems to me that some valid concerns have been raised regarding Ignite’s 
readiness to graduate.

Is there a rush for Ignite to graduate? If there is, and the reason for that 
rush is anything other than “the excitement and pride of becoming a TLP”, then 
it might be indicative of an additional problem.

Would spending one or more additional monthly cycles in the incubator to 
address those concerns be a problem?

I know when podlings graduate it reduces the load on the IPMC, but isn’t our 
goal to make sure podlings leave the nest ready to succeed and thrive within 
the bounds of the Apache Way?

-Taylor


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic?

I never could tell them apart...

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:26PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Your comment came across as antagonistic.
> 
> Nuff said.
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > Well, you made a fact-less observation, and I called you on it. How exactly
> > is it insulting? Which part of CoC has been violated?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:04PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > > Konstantin,
> > >
> > > Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such
> > actions
> > > and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Pierre Smits
> > >
> > > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > > Services and Retail & Trade
> > > http://www.orrtiz.com
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits <
> > pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> > > > regarding
> > > > > > building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory
> > review of
> > > > the
> > > > > > mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements
> > of
> > > > > > organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> > > > changes/mentor
> > > > > > changes).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
> > > >
> > > > See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> > > > message"
> > > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Your comment came across as antagonistic.

Nuff said.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> Well, you made a fact-less observation, and I called you on it. How exactly
> is it insulting? Which part of CoC has been violated?
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:04PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > Konstantin,
> >
> > Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such
> actions
> > and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits <
> pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> > > regarding
> > > > > building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory
> review of
> > > the
> > > > > mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements
> of
> > > > > organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> > > changes/mentor
> > > > > changes).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> > > >
> > >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
> > >
> > > See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> > > message"
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Well, you made a fact-less observation, and I called you on it. How exactly
is it insulting? Which part of CoC has been violated?

Cos

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:04PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Konstantin,
> 
> Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such actions
> and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> > regarding
> > > > building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of
> > the
> > > > mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
> > > > organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> > changes/mentor
> > > > changes).
> > > >
> > >
> > > New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> > >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
> >
> > See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> > message"
> >
> > Cos
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Konstantin,

Your remark is insulting and uncalled for. Please refrain from such actions
and apply some people skills in line with the code of conduct of the ASF.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more
> regarding
> > > building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of
> the
> > > mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
> > > organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc
> changes/mentor
> > > changes).
> > >
> >
> > New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html
>
> See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4
> message"
>
> Cos
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:29AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to
> > rest.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that I am willing to say that the entirely reasonable git branch
> > > detail loss QUESTION has been answered.
> > >
> > > I don't think that recasting it as a fiction is helpful because it tends
> > to
> > > polarize the conversation by implying that the question was made up as
> > some
> > > sort of propaganda ploy that had to be defeated by righteous opponents.
> >
> > No implications of a propaganda ploy, Ted - sorry if it looked that way.
> > However, stories about how one thinks a software application should work is
> > exactly that - a fiction ;)
> >
> 
> Cos,
> 
> I am basing my questions on comments you made earlier [1].  To wit:
> 
> After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> > questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> > being properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
> 
> 
> My reading of your meaning here is that histories are expected to be
> squashed, thus losing historical detail.

'histories are expected to be squashed' before the merge != 'existing
histories of the shared branches are expected to be squashed' I guess we fell
into the proverbial email-pit of semantical loss.

> So this isn't a fiction, nor am I uninformed about how git works. This is
> about questions that were raised based on how presumably well-informed
> insiders describe the process combined with an examination of recent JIRA's
> and the mailing list.
> 
> As a side issue, I don't think that it helps to describe the other
> participants in a conversation with heavily loaded terms and phrases like
> "fiction" or "stories" or "how one thinks ... application should work".
> Please credit other people in this conversation with good intent and with
> technical competence. There are real questions being discussed here and
> distracting the conversation from the content-rich answers that can resolve
> those questions isn't helpful.

Wasn't aiming to hurt anyone, Ted - see above ;) Besides, 'fiction' isn't a
lewd word, last time I've checked.

Cheers,
  Cos

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:29AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to
> rest.
> > >
> >
> > I think that I am willing to say that the entirely reasonable git branch
> > detail loss QUESTION has been answered.
> >
> > I don't think that recasting it as a fiction is helpful because it tends
> to
> > polarize the conversation by implying that the question was made up as
> some
> > sort of propaganda ploy that had to be defeated by righteous opponents.
>
> No implications of a propaganda ploy, Ted - sorry if it looked that way.
> However, stories about how one thinks a software application should work is
> exactly that - a fiction ;)
>

Cos,

I am basing my questions on comments you made earlier [1].  To wit:

After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> being
> properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.

My reading of your meaning here is that histories are expected to be
squashed, thus losing historical detail.

So this isn't a fiction, nor am I uninformed about how git works. This is
about questions that were raised based on how presumably well-informed
insiders describe the process combined with an examination of recent JIRA's
and the mailing list.

As a side issue, I don't think that it helps to describe the other
participants in a conversation with heavily loaded terms and phrases like
"fiction" or "stories" or "how one thinks ... application should work".
Please credit other people in this conversation with good intent and with
technical competence. There are real questions being discussed here and
distracting the conversation from the content-rich answers that can resolve
those questions isn't helpful.

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150722231648.GU28615%40boudnik.org%3E

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:29AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to rest.
> >
> 
> I think that I am willing to say that the entirely reasonable git branch
> detail loss QUESTION has been answered.
> 
> I don't think that recasting it as a fiction is helpful because it tends to
> polarize the conversation by implying that the question was made up as some
> sort of propaganda ploy that had to be defeated by righteous opponents.

No implications of a propaganda ploy, Ted - sorry if it looked that way.
However, stories about how one thinks a software application should work is
exactly that - a fiction ;)

Cos

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:16AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> 
> > Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more regarding
> > building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of the
> > mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
> > organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc changes/mentor
> > changes).
> >
> 
> New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html

See the keyword here is 'cursory review' which means "glanced at <= 4 message"

Cos


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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 03:31PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> When we're talking about this podling having  gained 'committers many from
> outside the company that donated the code', I wonder who we are talking
> about.
> 
> The reports to the IPMC show only numbers (3 in March 2015) and no names.
> And for what it is worth, the June 2015 report shows a link (
> https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community.html#list) that is pointing
> nowhere. I assume that it should have been this page:
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people.
> 
> So we have (per today):
> 
>- http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite , aka ASF
>list,
>- http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite , aka Incubator list,
>- http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people
>(showing affiliation), aka podling list
> 
> And there are discrepancies between the pages. E.g.
> 
>- http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite shows Ryan Rawson as a
>committer, but is not in
>http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite
> 
> If we substract the mentors (4 according to
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite, though we can argue whether
> Henry Saputra should also be in there as he is listed in the March 2015
> report to the IPMC as one of the report signers) from any list, we see the
> following changes:
> 
>1. Rayn Rawson (external, Apache Drill committer),
>   1. Incubator list

Rayn evidently didn't have time/resources to participate in the incubation as
initially proposed. That's why he's not in the authz template nor in the
resolution draft. 

What's the point of this list again? 

>2.  Sergey Khisamov (external - Fitech Source),
>1. ASF list
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>3. Ilya Sterin (external - ChronoTrack),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>4. Evans Ye (external - TrendMicro),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>5. Ognen Duzlevski (external - Shoutlet),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>6. Gianfrano Murador (external - Engiweb Security)
>   1. ASF list
>   2. Incubator list
>   3. podling list
> 
> Adding 5 or 6 new committers isn't many. That is a start (regarding
> diversity). It for sure doesn't scream independence, when the majority (of
> committers, intended PMC members) is affiliated to one company.
> 
> As for building the community of the podling, a mentor has the
> responsibility to keep tabs on contributions to ensure that everything goes
> according to the policies of the ASF, of the incubator and of the podling
> and assess (together with the community) everything whether it is in line
> with those policies. And report.
> 
> As examples:
> 
>- Statements (on podling pages re StackOverflow, or on external fora,
>e.g. Nabble) that questions can be raised via those media, isn't in line
>with how contributions to an ASF project (or podling) should be done. ASF
>mailing lists are the primary source for non-JIRA (including code patches)
>/ non-wiki contributions. External sources are a nicety, but unreliable
>when it comes to feeding back into the ASF mailing lists or identifying
>active contributors or assessing potential additions to list of the
>privileged few;
>- Community pages should reflect how the on-boarding process is,
>including pointing out/stressing that an iCLA is required (when
>contributing anything above the level of question or comment);

iCLA requirement is foundation wide, Pierre. Are you getting back to the point
of by-laws again? Please don't

>- Committed non-privileged contributors (at least those who have
>registered an iCLA) should be listed in the pages of the podling, in order
>to assess who (beyond committers) are enabled to make changes to e.g. wiki
>pages, and who are eligible for commit privileges.

Is it a requirement or just something you're making up?

> And diversity is not only about the aspect of affiliation. It is also about
> having (privileged) contributors of another kind other than just those who
> contribute code changes (or register with JIRA). The pages of the podling
> should reflect such. And mentors should point that out to the community of

Again, is it some of your own wishes? If not, I'd apprecite a prooflink ;)
Otherwise we can safely skip over the rest of it.

> the podling. Otherwise the podling might imply (through its pages) that the
> other kind of contributors aren't welcome, and/or that principles of the
> ASF (e.g. 'All contributions are equal', 'Contributions buys privileges')
> aren't applicable in the podling.

Are you saying that these horrible things are practiced in the Ignite podling?
Cause if you aren't saying that explicitely then I am completely lost in the
purpose of this verbiage.

> Apart from the above, the podling

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to rest.
>

I think that I am willing to say that the entirely reasonable git branch
detail loss QUESTION has been answered.

I don't think that recasting it as a fiction is helpful because it tends to
polarize the conversation by implying that the question was made up as some
sort of propaganda ploy that had to be defeated by righteous opponents.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> >> Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
> that
> >> seems to be left open ?
> > I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind
> commits
> > aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?
>
> I think there are a couple things to consider here:
>
>  1. Off-list discussions, and commits made based on such discussions:
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The resultant code is
> public and can be reviewed. If the reasons behind a change are not
> clear, well, it's up to the devs to document the code and/or explain
> on the dev@ list; but forbidding off-list discussions implies
> forbidding hackathons and ApacheCons, for example.

My question was more to do with losing historical detail by squashing
commits.  Squashing commits has the tendency to hide contributions as
well.  I think we have a good answer for that.

As far as off-list discussions are concerned, this is still a very big
issue for me.  Off-list discussions and design work is not forbidden, but
it must be reflected back to the mailing list.

This issue has come up many times.  For instance, with Apache Drill, the
initial team was highly MapR-centric.  This inevitably meant that people
talked at lunch or because they sat next to each other.  A first step to
broaden this discussion and to even the playing field in terms of face to
face communication was to institute a weekly video meeting open to
everybody via Google hangouts. These meetings are archived, I believe, and
there have been over a hundred of them so far.

But as good as that outreach was, there was considerable criticism on this
same mailing list that hangouts were only OK if the content discussed was
either informational (so information travels from the mailing list to the
hangouts) or if design decisions were discussed that the discussions were
summarized back to the list.  Doing this consistently takes considerable
effort because it is fairly natural to simply move forward.

With perspective, I think that the criticisms and the resulting changes in
process in the Drill project were extremely helpful and they make the
project better and more approachable.

With Ignite, I worry that such discussions are happening (they must be, by
geography and time zone alone) but are not being reflected back to the
mailing list or to the JIRA.  It is not even clear when a bug is closed
whether there was a code fix or not.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-23 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Pierre Smits 
wrote:

> Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more regarding
> building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of the
> mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
> organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc changes/mentor
> changes).
>

New committers were announced on the dev list, here is the thread:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/new-committers-td1221.html

D.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 15:31, Pierre Smits wrote:
> When we're talking about this podling having  gained 'committers many from
> outside the company that donated the code', I wonder who we are talking
> about.
>
> The reports to the IPMC show only numbers (3 in March 2015) and no names.
> And for what it is worth, the June 2015 report shows a link (
> https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community.html#list) that is pointing
> nowhere. I assume that it should have been this page:
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people.
>
> So we have (per today):
>
>- http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite , aka ASF
>list,
>- http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite , aka Incubator list,
>- http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people
>(showing affiliation), aka podling list
>
> And there are discrepancies between the pages. E.g.
>
>- http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite shows Ryan Rawson as a
>committer, but is not in
>http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite


So there are discrepancies; so what? They'll be fixed eventually, but I
hope you're not implying that a typo somewhere is a barrier to graduation.


> If we substract the mentors (4 according to
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite, though we can argue whether
> Henry Saputra should also be in there as he is listed in the March 2015
> report to the IPMC as one of the report signers) from any list, we see the
> following changes:
>
>1. Rayn Rawson (external, Apache Drill committer),
>   1. Incubator list


Ryan is on the list because he's mentioned as an initial commiter in the
original Ignite proposal
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IgniteProposal. He's certainly not in
the authz template.

This seems to be the only discrepancy; we have to get to the bottom of
that. But I'll point out that maintaining the Incubator list is not the
responsibility of the podling.

>2.  Sergey Khisamov (external - Fitech Source),
>1. ASF list
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>3. Ilya Sterin (external - ChronoTrack),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>4. Evans Ye (external - TrendMicro),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>5. Ognen Duzlevski (external - Shoutlet),
>   1. ASF list,
>   2. Incubator list,
>   3. podling list
>6. Gianfrano Murador (external - Engiweb Security)
>   1. ASF list
>   2. Incubator list
>   3. podling list
>
> Adding 5 or 6 new committers isn't many. That is a start (regarding
> diversity). It for sure doesn't scream independence, when the majority (of
> committers, intended PMC members) is affiliated to one company.

We're back to bean counting. How many committers, do you think, is
"enough" and why? I find it more than enough. By the way, if you're
going to be nitpicking, do it right and mention that Evans Ye is a
Bigtop committer.

> As for building the community of the podling, a mentor has the
> responsibility to keep tabs on contributions to ensure that everything goes
> according to the policies of the ASF, of the incubator and of the podling
> and assess (together with the community) everything whether it is in line
> with those policies. And report.
>
> As examples:
>
>- Statements (on podling pages re StackOverflow, or on external fora,
>e.g. Nabble) that questions can be raised via those media, isn't in line
>with how contributions to an ASF project (or podling) should be done. ASF
>mailing lists are the primary source for non-JIRA (including code patches)
>/ non-wiki contributions. External sources are a nicety, but unreliable
>when it comes to feeding back into the ASF mailing lists or identifying
>active contributors or assessing potential additions to list of the
>privileged few;

Nonsense. It's perfectly fine to follow SO etc. for user questions and
to tell users that such external forums are being followed by community
member. A question from a user is not a contribution.

>- Community pages should reflect how the on-boarding process is,
>including pointing out/stressing that an iCLA is required (when
>contributing anything above the level of question or comment);

As I said above, a question is not a contribution. And it is not true
that an ICLA is required for "anything about the level of question or
comment." I suggest you go and read http://www.apache.org/licenses/
again before making such statements.

Specifically, it's perfectly OK to accept patches from people who've not
signed an ICLA as long as these patches are small and/or trivial.

>- Committed non-privileged contributors (at least those who have
>registered an iCLA) should be listed in the pages of the podling, in order
>to assess who (beyond committers) are enabled to make changes to e.g. wiki
>pages, and who are eligible for commit privileges.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

When we're talking about this podling having  gained 'committers many from
outside the company that donated the code', I wonder who we are talking
about.

The reports to the IPMC show only numbers (3 in March 2015) and no names.
And for what it is worth, the June 2015 report shows a link (
https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community.html#list) that is pointing
nowhere. I assume that it should have been this page:
http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people.

So we have (per today):

   - http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite , aka ASF
   list,
   - http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite , aka Incubator list,
   - http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html#people
   (showing affiliation), aka podling list

And there are discrepancies between the pages. E.g.

   - http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite shows Ryan Rawson as a
   committer, but is not in
   http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#ignite

If we substract the mentors (4 according to
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ignite, though we can argue whether
Henry Saputra should also be in there as he is listed in the March 2015
report to the IPMC as one of the report signers) from any list, we see the
following changes:

   1. Rayn Rawson (external, Apache Drill committer),
  1. Incubator list
   2.  Sergey Khisamov (external - Fitech Source),
   1. ASF list
  2. Incubator list,
  3. podling list
   3. Ilya Sterin (external - ChronoTrack),
  1. ASF list,
  2. Incubator list,
  3. podling list
   4. Evans Ye (external - TrendMicro),
  1. ASF list,
  2. Incubator list,
  3. podling list
   5. Ognen Duzlevski (external - Shoutlet),
  1. ASF list,
  2. Incubator list,
  3. podling list
   6. Gianfrano Murador (external - Engiweb Security)
  1. ASF list
  2. Incubator list
  3. podling list

Adding 5 or 6 new committers isn't many. That is a start (regarding
diversity). It for sure doesn't scream independence, when the majority (of
committers, intended PMC members) is affiliated to one company.

As for building the community of the podling, a mentor has the
responsibility to keep tabs on contributions to ensure that everything goes
according to the policies of the ASF, of the incubator and of the podling
and assess (together with the community) everything whether it is in line
with those policies. And report.

As examples:

   - Statements (on podling pages re StackOverflow, or on external fora,
   e.g. Nabble) that questions can be raised via those media, isn't in line
   with how contributions to an ASF project (or podling) should be done. ASF
   mailing lists are the primary source for non-JIRA (including code patches)
   / non-wiki contributions. External sources are a nicety, but unreliable
   when it comes to feeding back into the ASF mailing lists or identifying
   active contributors or assessing potential additions to list of the
   privileged few;
   - Community pages should reflect how the on-boarding process is,
   including pointing out/stressing that an iCLA is required (when
   contributing anything above the level of question or comment);
   - Committed non-privileged contributors (at least those who have
   registered an iCLA) should be listed in the pages of the podling, in order
   to assess who (beyond committers) are enabled to make changes to e.g. wiki
   pages, and who are eligible for commit privileges.

And diversity is not only about the aspect of affiliation. It is also about
having (privileged) contributors of another kind other than just those who
contribute code changes (or register with JIRA). The pages of the podling
should reflect such. And mentors should point that out to the community of
the podling. Otherwise the podling might imply (through its pages) that the
other kind of contributors aren't welcome, and/or that principles of the
ASF (e.g. 'All contributions are equal', 'Contributions buys privileges')
aren't applicable in the podling.

Apart from the above, the podling could and should do a bit more regarding
building an open, transparent project. Having done a cursory review of the
mailing list archives of the podling I have found no announcements of
organisational changes (e.g. adding the new committer/ppmc changes/mentor
changes).

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 22.07.2015 22:10, Pierre Smits wrote:
> @Branko: are referring to TEZ in your last posting, or Ignite?

I'm a mentor for Ignite; this thread is about Ignite; of course I'm
talking about Ignite.

> If you are talking about ignite, have a look at:
> http://markmail.org/search/incubator.ignite+list:org.apache.ignite.dev and
> http://markmail.org/search/incubator.ignite+list:org.apache.ignite.user and
> check out the 'Who sent it' overviews of each and compare that to the list
> of names (and affiliations). in
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html

I frankly don't know what you're talking about. Are you telling me to
review the mailing list traffic and verify that anyone who ever sent a
mail to the lists is mentioned as a contributor? Are you saying that the
correctness of the contributor list is a graduation requirement?


> Then you have the basis for assessing how well the podling has been doing
> the community building aspect and embedding diversity and independence
> during the incubation phase up to now.

Having been a pretty nitpicking mentor, I'm well aware how the community
has been doing, thanks. And I'll restate my opinion that it's been doing
amazingly well. Not only has it gained committers many from outside the
company that donated the code, they've also established working
relationships with other ASF projects that can be integrated with
Ignite. In light of this, anyone who persists in saying that the
community is not open and diverse enough had better come up with some
hard data corroborating that.

-- Brane



>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
>
>> On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
>>> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming
>> that
>>> the 37% are actually active, that is).
>> Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
>> the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
>>
>> I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
>> "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
>> community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
>> wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
>> graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
>> rather than the other way around.
>>
>> I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
>> community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
>> months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
>> incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
>> using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
>> effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 23.07.2015 03:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:50AM, jan i wrote:
>> Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
>> left open ?
>> Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
>> seems to be left open ?
> I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind commits
> aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?

I think there are a couple things to consider here:

 1. Off-list discussions, and commits made based on such discussions:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The resultant code is
public and can be reviewed. If the reasons behind a change are not
clear, well, it's up to the devs to document the code and/or explain
on the dev@ list; but forbidding off-list discussions implies
forbidding hackathons and ApacheCons, for example.

 2. Committing changes that were made by someone else: this is
potentially a bit shadier, but in general, the committer is
responsible for the change, not the author. A committer might even
hire someone to develop stuff for them ... that'd be a bit fishy,
but not invalid. The only objection I can think of is if a committer
shares her ASF account with someone else. I've seen no indication of
that happening.

Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day when the IPMC
starts telling podlings how their development workflow should look like.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Thanks a bunch for the detailed explanation of how git object model works, 
Jochen!
Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to rest.

Cos

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:11AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 23.07.2015 05:13, schrieb Ted Dunning:
> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
> >>that
> >>>seems to be left open ?
> >>>
> >>
> >>The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
> >>actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
> >>different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
> >>separate branch for every ticket.
> >>
> >
> >How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?
> 
> just to give the general idea and not claiming that the Ignite
> people do it like that.. normally what you do is the following:
> 
> 1) create a bug-fix branch based on master
> 2) commit your changes to the bug-fix branch
> 3) test/verify by the community and CI
> 4) merge bug-fix branch to master
> 5) delete bug-fix branch
> 
> In this process there is no loss of commits, the information stays
> in the master branch. In git you normally keep only the branches
> people work on, or you use tags.
> 
> Step 4 can be done in multiple ways. Of course normally the first
> choice is the git based merge, but you can also work with a patch
> set (the author/date information is not lost by this) or cherry-pick
> (which is like duplicating the commit on another branch). branching
> off and merging again, can be seen in tools like for example gitk or
> with for example "git log --graph". Examples can for example be seen
> on 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1838873/visualizing-branch-topology-in-git
> using different tools. Noteworthy here is that normal commits are
> handled similar to branches. In other words, git does not really
> know a concept like a branch as it was with svn/cvs. Instead it is
> an elementary part of the system, that every commit has a parent and
> possibly a child and from this results a commit graph. A branch is
> only a commit noted as head. Deleting a branch thus means only to
> delete that meta information. And unlike CVS/SVN git is based on a
> database. Even if you do "git rm" to delete a file, it is still in
> the database and not removed from history.
> 
> bye blackdrag
> 
> -- 
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Jochen Theodorou


Am 23.07.2015 05:13, schrieb Ted Dunning:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:


Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,

that

seems to be left open ?



The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
separate branch for every ticket.



How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?


just to give the general idea and not claiming that the Ignite people do 
it like that.. normally what you do is the following:


1) create a bug-fix branch based on master
2) commit your changes to the bug-fix branch
3) test/verify by the community and CI
4) merge bug-fix branch to master
5) delete bug-fix branch

In this process there is no loss of commits, the information stays in 
the master branch. In git you normally keep only the branches people 
work on, or you use tags.


Step 4 can be done in multiple ways. Of course normally the first choice 
is the git based merge, but you can also work with a patch set (the 
author/date information is not lost by this) or cherry-pick (which is 
like duplicating the commit on another branch). branching off and 
merging again, can be seen in tools like for example gitk or with for 
example "git log --graph". Examples can for example be seen on 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1838873/visualizing-branch-topology-in-git 
using different tools. Noteworthy here is that normal commits are 
handled similar to branches. In other words, git does not really know a 
concept like a branch as it was with svn/cvs. Instead it is an 
elementary part of the system, that every commit has a parent and 
possibly a child and from this results a commit graph. A branch is only 
a commit noted as head. Deleting a branch thus means only to delete that 
meta information. And unlike CVS/SVN git is based on a database. Even if 
you do "git rm" to delete a file, it is still in the database and not 
removed from history.


bye blackdrag

--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/


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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
> > that
> > > seems to be left open ?
> > >
> >
> > The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge).
> We
> > actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
> > different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
> > separate branch for every ticket.
> >
>
> How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?
>

Branch is removed after it's merged to master. Merge process in Git implies
applying all commits made in branch one by one preserving the full history.
All these commits will be visible in master (including comments, authors,
timestamps, etc.).

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for some late responses. It so happens that most of the community
> members are on european time zones.
>

Thanks so much for jumping in!

> > I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
> > Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
> > left open ?
> >
>
> As Dmitry has already responded, there is absolutely no separate Jira
> maintained for Ignite. Denis accidently sent his employer's Jira ticket
> status to the dev list. In fact he is so used to send the most of his
> emails to the dev list, that he sent this one to the dev list by accident
> as well.
>

Valentin,

As an interesting test of point of view, could you approach the project as
if a stranger?

Look at the mailing list.  Look at JIRA.  Try to understand what was
resolved from the evidence you see.  Look for evidence of how the design
for the solution was arrived at.

Take for instance IGNITE-1134.  This is a hang after some stimulating
event.  This sort of problem is often caused by subtle consistency issues
in distributed systems.  This JIRA was resolved 21 hours after it was filed
with no discussion or review as far as I can tell.  It was closed 20
seconds after resolution. How can an outsider be part of this process?

After take a look from that perspective, please tell us what you think
about whether design decisions are being made on the list. My view is that
they appear not to be, but you can probably say more from the inside of the
project.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
> that
> > seems to be left open ?
> >
>
> The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
> actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
> different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
> separate branch for every ticket.
>

How are they preserved when the bug branch is deleted as per guidelines?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

Hi,

I will jump in as I'm also on Ignite PMC.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:50 PM, jan i  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
> personal pow), too many
> questions remain unanswered.
>
> I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
> answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
> e.g. the concerns from Daniel.
>
>
Sorry for some late responses. It so happens that most of the community
members are on european time zones.


> It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
> simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.
>
> I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
> Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
> left open ?
>

As Dmitry has already responded, there is absolutely no separate Jira
maintained for Ignite. Denis accidently sent his employer's Jira ticket
status to the dev list. In fact he is so used to send the most of his
emails to the dev list, that he sent this one to the dev list by accident
as well.


> Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
> seems to be left open ?
>

The identity of the committers is never lost (at least to my knowledge). We
actually have the opposite problem of too many commits happening in
different branches because of our branching policy which requires a
separate branch for every ticket.


> Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?
>
>
I'm not sure what concerns were raised about the homepage (I actually like
the design ;-). Can you point me to the thread, if I missed it? To my
knowledge, there were some stale links that were noted, but those were
quickly fixed. We will be happy to address any open issues with the web
site.


> When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
> answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
>
> > After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> > questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> > being
> > properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
> >
> > This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
> > the
> > community is making changes as we speak
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
> >
> > specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of
> taste
> > and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
> > although I
> > surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
> >
> > Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
> > the
> > community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any
> new
> > contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
> > do -
> > the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
> > figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@
> and
> > user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
> > of a
> > > > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
> > the
> > > > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > > > difficult to decipher.
> > > >
> > > > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > > > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
> > cases
> > > > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
> > that
> > > > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > > >
> > > > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> > developers,
> > > > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > > > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> > > mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would
> love
> > > for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> > > based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> > > hosted at the ASF.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> > > description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> > > changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with n

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

>
>
> On 2015-07-23 00:31, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
>> Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it
>> improve.
>> Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
>> graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature
>> to an
>> archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my
>> professional
>> view ;)
>>
>> As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the
>> trends of
>> the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
>> discussed.
>>
>> Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC
>> asks
>> right questions: sure!
>>
>> Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new
>> PMC
>> with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside
>> committers,
>> thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
>> communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
>> might have the consensus.
>>
>>  If the podling has to be tasked with fixing procedures after graduation,
> the podling is not ready to graduate, in my view.
> The incubator is tasked with ensuring that podlings adhere to the
> guidelines for open source development we have in the ASF, and if we let
> podlings graduate before they have consistently proven that they do just
> that, it diminishes the value of the incubator.
>
> There should be no rush here. If the IPMC has reasonable concerns (as is
> mentioned by several IPMC members) and can list specific procedures and/or
> philosophies that need to change, I think it best that the podling works
> towards this and seeks to graduate at a later time when these issues are
> considered resolved in a manner that the IPMC agrees with. This is and
> should be a consensus issue, and as such, I think it would be best for the
> podling to take a step back, address the issues, and then come back to the
> IPMC when they believe they have incorporated the necessary changes.
>

Hi Daniel, I agree. However, while I believe that every project can improve
in many ways, I think that our processes are very open and community
friendly. So far we have had many new contributors submit patches that have
been accepted or in progress:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1059
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1055
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1017
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-428
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-788
etc...

Also, I believe I have addressed the concerns you have raised in my reply
to your other email. Happy to discuss further.


>
> For the reasons stated above, I am -1 on this as it stands.


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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:50AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
> personal pow), too many
> questions remain unanswered.
> 
> I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
> answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
> e.g. the concerns from Daniel.
> 
> It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
> simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.
> 
> I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
> Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
> left open ?
> Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
> seems to be left open ?

I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind commits
aren't the same ppl as making the fixes? Am I reading this right?

> Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?

The other two are being/were answered.

> When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
> answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,

And thank you for that: these are actionable. I wouldn't expect anything less! 

Cos

> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
> On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> > questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> > being
> > properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
> >
> > This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
> > the
> > community is making changes as we speak
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
> >
> > specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
> > and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
> > although I
> > surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
> >
> > Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
> > the
> > community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
> > contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
> > do -
> > the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
> > figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
> > user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
> > of a
> > > > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
> > the
> > > > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > > > difficult to decipher.
> > > >
> > > > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > > > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
> > cases
> > > > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
> > that
> > > > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > > >
> > > > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> > developers,
> > > > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > > > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> > > mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> > > for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> > > based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> > > hosted at the ASF.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> > > description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> > > changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
> > > explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
> > > about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
> > > actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
> > >
> > > I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
> > > some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
> > > development process.
> > >
> > > With regards,
> > > Daniel.
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > -

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:46PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Actually, that document just makes me more dubious.
> 
> The problems I see are:
> 
> 1) the identity of the original person doing the work is obscured by the
> squash commits

No. Besides, I am not talking about rebases and force-pushes. I am talking
about branching models in the local environment.

> 2) the deletion of the bug branch after integration involves deletion of
> important information from git (and I thought that rewriting of history is
> outlawed on the apache git repo in any case)

No and no. Removing a merged branch doesn't remove a thing, but a reference
(called 'branch' in git)

> 3) the mention of deleting branches makes me worry that development is
> going on using a separate repos that aren't visible to the apache repo

And no again. See above. Besides, I fail to find how branching practices are
relevant to the discussion at hands? E.g why IPMC (or the foundation) would
put itself in the seat of the development practices' adviser? How can a
branching model or commit practices be decided by anyone but the community
developing the project?

Cos

> I still see the problem of understanding what happened.  I just reviewed a
> dozen or so of the most recent JIRA's and found only the slightest
> discussion in the comments on any of them (1 had a round or two, another
> had a little less and all the rest had none at all).
> 
> Here[1,2,3] are searches for discussions on a sample JIRA.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that these bugs are being resolved clairvoyantly
> and have to conclude that there is considerable discussion of these issues
> going on somewhere other than JIRA or the mailing list.
> 
> [1]
> https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095
> 
> [2]
> https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1031
> 
> [3]
> https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1100
> 
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> > questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> > being
> > properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
> >
> > This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
> > the
> > community is making changes as we speak
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
> >
> > specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
> > and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
> > although I
> > surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
> >
> > Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
> > the
> > community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
> > contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
> > do -
> > the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
> > figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
> > user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
> > of a
> > > > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
> > the
> > > > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > > > difficult to decipher.
> > > >
> > > > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > > > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
> > cases
> > > > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
> > that
> > > > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > > >
> > > > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> > developers,
> > > > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > > > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> > > mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> > > for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commi

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of
> a split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
> Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult
> to decipher.
> >
> > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
> that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
> development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> >
> > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> developers, I think they need to make their commits more transparent to
> match the excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> >
> >
>
> The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> hosted at the ASF.
>

Let me clarify this.

Denis is a GridGain employee and, apart from Ignite, he also works on
GridGain product fixing various issues. At the end of the day he sent an
email notifying other GridGain team members about the work he has done and
by accident sent it to the dev list. This has nothing to do with the Ignite
project and we do not maintain any separate Jiras for the Ignite project.

As far as Ignite project is concerned, all Ignite work is being done in the
open and all the issues/questions related to the Ignite are discussed on
the dev list.

>
> Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
> explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
> about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
> actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
>

There are certainly tickets like that, but most of them were early in the
incubation process. As we started learning the Apache way, the Jira
communication has significantly improved and most tickets have relatively
good commentary and description. If you find anything to the contrary, it
is definitely not the norm.

For example, I have looked through the ticket flow for the past several
days and most of them have comments. Here are some examples:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-79
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1100
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1137
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1097
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1131
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1106

etc.

Also, there are some tickets that are self explanatory and do not require
explanation (you can grasp the meaning from the title). Case in hand is
this ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1095 . Granted
some commentary would not hurt and I will advise for that on the dev list,
but it is clear that the ticket has been reviewed without comments and
closed.

Also, keep in mind that every ticket is worked on in a separate branch, and
every branch is named consistently after the ticket. Some reviews happen in
the branch, and that is why not every ticket has a patch attached to it.
This is documented on the website and Wiki:

https://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/contribute.html#contribute
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute

Additionally, all the discussions about any issue occurring throughout
working on the ticket usually take place on the dev list:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Unstructured-object-format-td1685.html
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-950-new-marshaller-mode-preliminary-review-td1732.html

etc...

>
> I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
> some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
> development process.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread jan i

Hi

I am concerned, seen from my POW (and please excuse it is of course my
personal pow), too many
questions remain unanswered.

I am concerned because I would have expected the community to have clear
answers (independent of whether I agree or not) to
e.g. the concerns from Daniel.

It seems to me (and I am sorry, being busy, I do not research thing, I
simply read this thread), that there are issues with the community.

I recognize that the activity on the ML is diverse FINE !
Concerns have been raised about a off-list issue system, that seems to be
left open ?
Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits, that
seems to be left open ?
Concerns have been raised about the homepage, that seems to be left open ?

When it comes to voting time, those are the questions I will check if
answered in an acceptable apache way, if so I am  +1,
rgds
jan I.


On 23 July 2015 at 01:16, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> being
> properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
>
> This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
> the
> community is making changes as we speak
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
>
> specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
> and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
> although I
> surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
>
> Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
> the
> community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
> contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
> do -
> the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
> figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
> user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
>
> Regards,
>   Cos
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
> of a
> > > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
> the
> > > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > > difficult to decipher.
> > >
> > > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
> cases
> > > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
> that
> > > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > >
> > > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> developers,
> > > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> > mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> > for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> > based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> > hosted at the ASF.
> >
> > Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> > description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> > changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
> > explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
> > about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
> > actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
> >
> > I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
> > some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
> > development process.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Actually, that document just makes me more dubious.

The problems I see are:

1) the identity of the original person doing the work is obscured by the
squash commits

2) the deletion of the bug branch after integration involves deletion of
important information from git (and I thought that rewriting of history is
outlawed on the apache git repo in any case)

3) the mention of deleting branches makes me worry that development is
going on using a separate repos that aren't visible to the apache repo

I still see the problem of understanding what happened.  I just reviewed a
dozen or so of the most recent JIRA's and found only the slightest
discussion in the comments on any of them (1 had a round or two, another
had a little less and all the rest had none at all).

Here[1,2,3] are searches for discussions on a sample JIRA.

I find it hard to believe that these bugs are being resolved clairvoyantly
and have to conclude that there is considerable discussion of these issues
going on somewhere other than JIRA or the mailing list.

[1]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095

[2]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1031

[3]
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1095#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fincubator-ignite-dev%2F201507.mbox+IGNITE-1100

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
> questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not
> being
> properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.
>
> This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact,
> the
> community is making changes as we speak
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process
>
> specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
> and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another,
> although I
> surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.
>
> Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by
> the
> community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
> contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they
> do -
> the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
> figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
> user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?
>
> Regards,
>   Cos
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression
> of a
> > > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following
> the
> > > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > > difficult to decipher.
> > >
> > > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx
> cases
> > > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me
> that
> > > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > >
> > > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of
> developers,
> > > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> > mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> > for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> > based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> > hosted at the ASF.
> >
> > Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> > description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> > changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
> > explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
> > about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
> > actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
> >
> > I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
> > some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
> > development process.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > ---

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

After a quick walk through the master log I see that a bunch of the
questionable commits are resulted from the dev. branches histories not being
properly squashed before the feature is merged into the master.

This is something that mentors have asked to address before and, in fact, the
community is making changes as we speak
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Sprint+Process

specifically under 'git workflow'. Arguably, squashing is a matter of taste
and I would refrain from pushing the community one way or another, although I
surely don't like non-squashed histories like that.

Development process is actually documented on the wiki and is followed by the
community. I don't see why it is looks closed or off-list, really. Any new
contributor can start picking up things using these tools. In fact, they do -
the community has new committers and active users that have no problems
figuring out how to contribute into the project (according to the dev@ and
user@ lists). Does it answer your concerns, Ted?

Regards,
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:07PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a
> > split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
> > Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least)
> > difficult to decipher.
> > 
> > In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> > 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> > typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
> > that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
> > development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> > 
> > If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers,
> > I think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> > excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> > 
> > Julian
> > 
> > [1] 
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
> >  
> > 
> 
> The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
> mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
> for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
> based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
> hosted at the ASF.
> 
> Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
> description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
> changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
> explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
> about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
> actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.
> 
> I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
> some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
> development process.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Daniel Gruno




On 2015-07-23 00:31, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it improve.
Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature to an
archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my professional
view ;)

As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the trends of
the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
discussed.

Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC asks
right questions: sure!

Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside committers,
thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
might have the consensus.

If the podling has to be tasked with fixing procedures after graduation, 
the podling is not ready to graduate, in my view.
The incubator is tasked with ensuring that podlings adhere to the 
guidelines for open source development we have in the ASF, and if we let 
podlings graduate before they have consistently proven that they do just 
that, it diminishes the value of the incubator.


There should be no rush here. If the IPMC has reasonable concerns (as is 
mentioned by several IPMC members) and can list specific procedures 
and/or philosophies that need to change, I think it best that the 
podling works towards this and seeks to graduate at a later time when 
these issues are considered resolved in a manner that the IPMC agrees 
with. This is and should be a consensus issue, and as such, I think it 
would be best for the podling to take a step back, address the issues, 
and then come back to the IPMC when they believe they have incorporated 
the necessary changes.


For the reasons stated above, I am -1 on this as it stands.

With regards,
Daniel.


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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
> with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside
> committers,
> thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
> communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
> might have the consensus.
>
> Is it a reasonable course of action?
>

I think that there is a reasonable question about whether the community is
ready to graduate.  That question hinges on whether the development is
really being done in the open.

I think that there is good evidence of good will in the mailing list
history.  That probably means that any defect in behavior is inadvertent.

Until the first question about off-list development is resolved, I would
like to change my vote to -1.  This is purely for the purpose of spurring
the resolution of the development process question.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Thanks Julian - that's something that this community would have it improve.
Although I don't see if a particular way of using (or not using) JIRA is a
graduation's requirement. If there's a way to trace a particular feature to an
archived discussion - ie mailing list - there's no problem in my professional
view ;)

As Brane said above: perhaps not the still snapshot, but rather the trends of
the improvements have to be considered when the future graduation is
discussed. 

Do we have a disagreement about the graduation criteria? Yes. Does IPMC asks
right questions: sure!

Shall we agree that the community is ready to graduate and task the new PMC
with a couple of the action items such as keep recruiting outside committers,
thus growing the viability of the project, and improving the JIRA
communication process? If we can agree on this last proposal then we just
might have the consensus.

Is it a reasonable course of action?
  Cos

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:23PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a
> split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the
> Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult
> to decipher.
> 
> In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch
> 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are
> typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases
> that could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that
> development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> 
> If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I
> think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the
> excellent transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> 
> Julian
> 
> [1] 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
>  
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
> 
> > On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
> >> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
> >> the 37% are actually active, that is).
> > 
> > Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
> > the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
> > 
> > I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
> > "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
> > community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
> > graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
> > rather than the other way around.
> > 
> > I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
> > community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
> > months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
> > incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
> > using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
> > effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
> > 
> > -- Brane
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Daniel Gruno

On 07/22/2015 09:23 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a 
> split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the 
> Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult 
> to decipher.
> 
> In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch 
> 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are 
> typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that 
> could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that 
> development is been driven by off-list meetings.
> 
> If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
> think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
> transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
> 
> Julian
> 
> [1] 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
>  
> 

The GG-10559 commit log (along with the 'oops' email sent to dev by
mistake today) seems to indicate (this is just speculation, I would love
for someone to answer whether this is the case) that commits are being
based off an internal JIRA instance (or other bug tracking system) not
hosted at the ASF.

Furthermore, I have found that there are 207 JIRA tickets with NO
description, discussion or useful information other than ownership
changing hands and then suddenly the tickets have been resolved with no
explanation, suggesting that either people have not been properly taught
about how to share information and collaborate as a community, or the
actual discussions and 'ping-pong' happen elsewhere, outside our view.

I naturally hope there is no reason for concern, and I would love to get
some insight into why these things pop into view when you examine the
development process.

With regards,
Daniel.

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Pierre Smits

Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1015

This also happens in other projects I visited. Issues start out small, and
over time they grow towards completeness (description, better subject, etc)
based on the feedback provided via comments and via on and off list
interactions. One issue shouldn't be worrisome.

But if there are more that don't get enhanced explanation-wise, or even
many similar issues but resolved and closed as fixed or implemented, over a
longer period of time then it looks like more is at play.

Maybe it is something innocent that can be easily cured, such as ignorance.
But it might also an indication of in-crowd behaviour, that there is no
need to inform the outside or worse. Mentors should have an eye for this
and report and address it.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Pierre Smits

@Branko: are referring to TEZ in your last posting, or Ignite?

If you are talking about ignite, have a look at:
http://markmail.org/search/incubator.ignite+list:org.apache.ignite.dev and
http://markmail.org/search/incubator.ignite+list:org.apache.ignite.user and
check out the 'Who sent it' overviews of each and compare that to the list
of names (and affiliations). in
http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/community/resources.html

Then you have the basis for assessing how well the podling has been doing
the community building aspect and embedding diversity and independence
during the incubation phase up to now.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
> > this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming
> that
> > the 37% are actually active, that is).
>
> Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
> the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
>
> I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
> "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
> community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
> wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
> graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
> rather than the other way around.
>
> I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
> community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
> months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
> incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
> using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
> effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
>
> -- Brane
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Hmm...

Also, if you look at the JIRA in question, the question of what is
happening is also not resovled:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1015

There are no comments, nor any linkage to the commit history.

This could definitely be improved.  It is important to take the course
that Julian has done and see the project as an outsider would.  Can
this hypothetical outsider decipher what happened?

It sounds from Julian and Brane's input that the mailing list works
for this, but that there is no good way to correlate that back to the
code.  I would be happy to be contradicted on this, but I can't easily
connect starting from the JIRA to the commit logs.

This should be easy to fix.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Julian Hyde  wrote:
> I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a 
> split personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the 
> Apache Way. Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult 
> to decipher.
>
> In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch 
> 'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are 
> typical. Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that 
> could provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that 
> development is been driven by off-list meetings.
>
> If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
> think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
> transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.
>
> Julian
>
> [1] 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
>
>> On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
>>> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
>>> the 37% are actually active, that is).
>>
>> Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
>> the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
>>
>> I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
>> "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
>> community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
>> wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
>> graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
>> rather than the other way around.
>>
>> I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
>> community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
>> months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
>> incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
>> using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
>> effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Julian Hyde

I reviewed Ignite’s commit log and email lists. I got the impression of a split 
personality: The dev list[1] is very open and clearly following the Apache Way. 
Meanwhile, the commit log[2] is (to my eyes at least) difficult to decipher.

In the commit log, messages such as "Merge remote-tracking branch 
'origin/master’” and "# master minor”, "GG-10559 - Improvements.” are typical. 
Very few descriptive comments or references to IGNITE-xxx cases that could 
provide further explanation. Those are indications to me that development is 
been driven by off-list meetings.

If the Ignite committers want to build a diverse community of developers, I 
think they need to make their commits more transparent to match the excellent 
transparency they have achieved on their mailing list.

Julian

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201507.mbox/browser
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/commits/master

On Jul 22, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
>> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
>> the 37% are actually active, that is).
> 
> Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
> the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.
> 
> I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
> "outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
> community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
> wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
> graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
> rather than the other way around.
> 
> I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
> community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
> months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
> incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
> using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
> effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.
> 
> -- Brane
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-22 Thread Branko Čibej

On 21.07.2015 21:04, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Actually, given that this project was a spin-out of an internal project,
> this is a stunningly low number to have achieved so quickly (assuming that
> the 37% are actually active, that is).

Indeed. And yes, they're active; that's easily established by reading
the dev@ list, commit log and Jira log.

I was quite surprised by how quickly the project got contributors from
"outside", and anyone who takes the trouble to actually look at how the
community operates will find that it is very helpful and receptive. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few TPLs and even recently
graduated podlings that could take the Ignite community as an example
rather than the other way around.

I suggest that everyone who doubts that this is an "open and diverse
community" should go and read the mailing list archives for the last few
months or so instead of making uninformed statements based on some
incidental numbers. If, on the other hand, you prefer running the IPMC
using statistics instead of facts, you could at least have made the
effort to look at the trends instead of a point-in-time snapshot.

-- Brane

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Ted Dunning

Chris,

Thanks for bringing up the Tez discussion.  I think that it was a great
example of a community responding to questions and criticisms in a very
open and evidence based manner.

I was strongly -1 on that proposal originally based on similar grounds to
what has been raised in this thread.  The community responded and showed me
how I was in error.  The discussion was civil, but there were strong
disagreements that were worked out over time. On my side, I was working
enormously hard at the time and subject to jet-lag which made it very hard
to respond well.

My vote in the ensuing VOTE thread was +1 because of how the community
responded.

I was convinced that the community was open and welcoming and trying to
build.  The raw numbers about affiliation weren't the whole story by any
stretch.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Chris Douglas  wrote:

> Daniel-
>
> This has been discussed recently in graduations for Tez [1], Drill
> [2], and other projects whose continued incubation serves no purpose.
> They've completed a curriculum that clears their IP and introduces
> them to the ASF's infrastructure, procedures, and culture. The project
> must be open, and not threatened by the challenges that open
> development poses. We encourage transparency by creating a climate for
> projects to report honestly about diversity, rather than incentivizing
> corruption of that metric.
>
> As this thread demonstrates, the IPMC cannot do more. -C
>
> P.S. Please fix your quoting, or delete the tail of the message as you
> reply.
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/uT4
> [2] http://s.apache.org/m2u
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Diversity policy (WAS: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

2015-07-21 Thread Chris Douglas

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> If by this you mean the Incubator has taught the podling what it needs
> to know, and the podling is following the best practices of the Apache
> Way, then we are in full agreement. I don't see the need to single me
> out here, I am not disagreeing with that.

Please don't feel singled out. The response was addressed to you
because you had raised the question.

> There was a discussion 3 years ago about this, but it did not result in
> a change in our published policy. The policy is still there.

Since the policy doesn't document the current consensus, could you
draft an update? A discussion of specific text is more likely to
converge. -C

> If we are interested in changing that policy, we should agree on a
> change in a discussion with that as the main topic, and then _write it
> down_. We should not have to refer to discussions where this _may have
> come up off-topic or as a side note_, that is not fair to people trying
> to find out what our practices are.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
>> They've completed a curriculum that clears their IP and introduces
>> them to the ASF's infrastructure, procedures, and culture. The project
>> must be open, and not threatened by the challenges that open
>> development poses. We encourage transparency by creating a climate for
>> projects to report honestly about diversity, rather than incentivizing
>> corruption of that metric.
>>
>> As this thread demonstrates, the IPMC cannot do more. -C
>>
>> P.S. Please fix your quoting, or delete the tail of the message as you reply.
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/uT4
>> [2] http://s.apache.org/m2u
>>
>> -
>> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

>
>
> On 2015-07-22 01:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Gruno 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Nitpicking time.
>>>
>>> Your supposedly vendor-neutral web site says:
>>> "GridGain Community Edition is a binary build of Apache Ignite created
>>> by GridGain, which includes optional LGPL dependencies, such as
>>> Hibernate L2 cache integration and Geospatial Indexing. It benefits from
>>> continued testing by GridGain engineers and may contain latest bug fixes
>>> and features that will be included into the future official Apache
>>> Ignite releases."
>>>
>>> - I consider this very biased towards a single company (especially
>>> considering it is the _only_ 3rd party listed, and you do _not_ specify
>>> how other 3rd parties may get listed on the page).
>>>
>>
>> Good point. I have added text specifying how other companies can provide
>> their community editions for Apache Ignite.
>>
>
> Excellent!
>
>
>> You start off by saying you don't endorse it, and then you praise it -
>> it's
>>
>>> either or.
>>>
>>
>> We started out by providing just a blank link, but it became very
>> confusing
>> to our users, and we allowed GridGain to add a brief description.
>>
>> I have just updated the text of the description to strip it out of
>> anything
>> other than facts. I don't think it conflicts with Ignite not officially
>> endorsing this edition.
>>
> Thanks :)
> I still find it a bit problematic that the text infers that GridGain's 3rd
> party binary is somehow "potentially upstream" from Apache Ignite, but I
> will defer to Shane to decide whether that is allowed or not.
>
>
>>  Your web site also lists the organizational affiliation of PMC members.
>>> While this may be useful internally in the ASF, I fail to see why this
>>> is mentioned on the web site. This should have no relevance to the
>>> project whatsoever.
>>>
>>>  Although I see your point, I don't think it's harmful one way or
>> another.
>> All the community members voluntarily and willingly provided their company
>> affiliation.
>>
>
> To be clear, I am not about to veto a graduation vote because of company
> affiliations, I just don't think it belongs on the page.
> If/when you graduate, the PMC has every right to decide this for
> themselves, I believe.
>

Looking at how this discussion is going, I think we should leave it as is
for now in the interest of transparency.


>
>
>>  You point to gridgain.org for several of your documentation segments,
>>> this is also not acceptable.
>>>
>>>  This is not on purpose. The documentation was initially migrated from
>> GridGain and some old links might have sneaked in.
>>
>> I cannot find any places with gridgain.org links you are referencing. Can
>> you please point those out, so I can quickly fix them?
>>
>
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/features/datagrid.html
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/features/igniterdd.html
> etc.
> I think you should just grep for it in your features directory, there may
> be more pages that refer to it.
>

I fixed it in a bunch of places by doing a grep. If you find anything I
missed, please let me know.

[DISCUSS] Diversity policy (WAS: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)

On 07/22/2015 01:36 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> Daniel-
> This has been discussed recently in graduations for Tez [1], Drill
> [2], and other projects whose continued incubation serves no purpose.

If by this you mean the Incubator has taught the podling what it needs
to know, and the podling is following the best practices of the Apache
Way, then we are in full agreement. I don't see the need to single me
out here, I am not disagreeing with that.

I am saying that we have a published policy which states that a podling
SHALL "demonstrate an active and diverse development community". Some
people are having concerns about this particular item, some are saying
it's irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant when it is in our policy. If the IPMC
feels this policy is too vague or outright wrong, then we should have a
discussion about what we're going to do about that, and then act on it.

But as it stand, the policy states that for a project to be considered
for graduation, it shall demonstrate diversity, and people are in their
right to raise that as a concern, as it is _in the policy_, regardless
of what a segment of the IPMC have decided in other graduation
discussions or votes.

There was a discussion 3 years ago about this, but it did not result in
a change in our published policy. The policy is still there.

If we are interested in changing that policy, we should agree on a
change in a discussion with that as the main topic, and then _write it
down_. We should not have to refer to discussions where this _may have
come up off-topic or as a side note_, that is not fair to people trying
to find out what our practices are.

With regards,
Daniel.

> They've completed a curriculum that clears their IP and introduces
> them to the ASF's infrastructure, procedures, and culture. The project
> must be open, and not threatened by the challenges that open
> development poses. We encourage transparency by creating a climate for
> projects to report honestly about diversity, rather than incentivizing
> corruption of that metric.
> 
> As this thread demonstrates, the IPMC cannot do more. -C
> 
> P.S. Please fix your quoting, or delete the tail of the message as you reply.
> 
> [1] http://s.apache.org/uT4
> [2] http://s.apache.org/m2u
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread P. Taylor Goetz

(Sorry if the placement of this reply is wrong, but this thread is getting long 
and tarting to branch a bit...)

Maybe the question we should be asking is:

Has the ignite podling demonstrated sufficient dedication to diversity that it 
can survive as a TLP, and not be overly influenced by a single corporate entity?

If the answer is "yes," then I would vote +1.

-Taylor

> On Jul 21, 2015, at 7:21 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The question of diversity in this case is not "are we enough
>>> men/women/whatever", the question here is "is there a single corporate
>>> entity with a deciding vote in the project?".
>> 
>> Actually, I would hope that the criterion is whether there is a single
>> corporate entity, the distraction of which would effectively kill the
>> project.
>> 
>> And we do need to look at Ambari as a precedent.  Even now the PMC has 30
>> members from one company and 7 from other companies.  No other company has
>> more than two PMC members and all of the top 24 contributors are from the
>> majority company.  I would be very surprised if this project could survive
>> a withdrawal of support from that one company.
>> 
>> Yet we graduated Ambari without a peep.  Not surprisingly, most of the
>> votes were cast by employees of that one company.  But nobody complained at
>> all.
>> 
>> So it behooves us as some critique Ignite for lack of diversity to ask
>> whether precedent matters at all here.
>> 
>> Does it?
> 
> Speaking generally:
> I don't think so.
> No one noticed or complained is hardly reason to ignore problems, (if
> it is indeed a problem) or to say that such decisions are now binding.
> It might be a different matter if it was explicitly acknowledged.
> 
> --David
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Chris Douglas

Daniel-

This has been discussed recently in graduations for Tez [1], Drill
[2], and other projects whose continued incubation serves no purpose.
They've completed a curriculum that clears their IP and introduces
them to the ASF's infrastructure, procedures, and culture. The project
must be open, and not threatened by the challenges that open
development poses. We encourage transparency by creating a climate for
projects to report honestly about diversity, rather than incentivizing
corruption of that metric.

As this thread demonstrates, the IPMC cannot do more. -C

P.S. Please fix your quoting, or delete the tail of the message as you reply.

[1] http://s.apache.org/uT4
[2] http://s.apache.org/m2u

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator




On 2015-07-22 01:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:


Nitpicking time.

Your supposedly vendor-neutral web site says:
"GridGain Community Edition is a binary build of Apache Ignite created
by GridGain, which includes optional LGPL dependencies, such as
Hibernate L2 cache integration and Geospatial Indexing. It benefits from
continued testing by GridGain engineers and may contain latest bug fixes
and features that will be included into the future official Apache
Ignite releases."

- I consider this very biased towards a single company (especially
considering it is the _only_ 3rd party listed, and you do _not_ specify
how other 3rd parties may get listed on the page).


Good point. I have added text specifying how other companies can provide
their community editions for Apache Ignite.


Excellent!



You start off by saying you don't endorse it, and then you praise it - it's

either or.


We started out by providing just a blank link, but it became very confusing
to our users, and we allowed GridGain to add a brief description.

I have just updated the text of the description to strip it out of anything
other than facts. I don't think it conflicts with Ignite not officially
endorsing this edition.

Thanks :)
I still find it a bit problematic that the text infers that GridGain's 
3rd party binary is somehow "potentially upstream" from Apache Ignite, 
but I will defer to Shane to decide whether that is allowed or not.





Your web site also lists the organizational affiliation of PMC members.
While this may be useful internally in the ASF, I fail to see why this
is mentioned on the web site. This should have no relevance to the
project whatsoever.


Although I see your point, I don't think it's harmful one way or another.
All the community members voluntarily and willingly provided their company
affiliation.


To be clear, I am not about to veto a graduation vote because of company 
affiliations, I just don't think it belongs on the page.
If/when you graduate, the PMC has every right to decide this for 
themselves, I believe.





You point to gridgain.org for several of your documentation segments,
this is also not acceptable.


This is not on purpose. The documentation was initially migrated from
GridGain and some old links might have sneaked in.

I cannot find any places with gridgain.org links you are referencing. Can
you please point those out, so I can quickly fix them?


http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/features/datagrid.html
http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/features/igniterdd.html
etc.
I think you should just grep for it in your features directory, there 
may be more pages that refer to it.


With regards,
Daniel




I would very much like to see this rectified before we get to an actual
vote, or I will possibly be casting a -1.

With regards,
Daniel.


On 07/21/2015 10:48 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.

So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."?

I think not.



What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
understand how to make releases and are building community.



On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits 
wrote:


Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
nowhere.

If we take away the names of the mentors from the list (Branko, Roman

and

yours) as well as those in other projects (Evans) from the list of

intended

project members, the situation even grows worse. Then the number grows

to

77%. That doesn't look promising regarding independence, and neither
regarding healthiness.

Best regards,


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
wrote:


The so-called diversity requirement has been discussed on this list

for a

number of times. Most recent is the graduation of Flume project (back

in

2012). Here's a quote from that thread (kudos to Roy; for those who

want

to look it up in the archives MessageId is
73db2e64-87d5-4dd5-91fb-403464895...@gbiv.com):

[quote]
There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a
diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
and I have no cycles to spare.

A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
[/quote]

Regards,
   Cos

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread David Nalley

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
>
>> The question of diversity in this case is not "are we enough
>> men/women/whatever", the question here is "is there a single corporate
>> entity with a deciding vote in the project?".
>>
>
> Actually, I would hope that the criterion is whether there is a single
> corporate entity, the distraction of which would effectively kill the
> project.
>
> And we do need to look at Ambari as a precedent.  Even now the PMC has 30
> members from one company and 7 from other companies.  No other company has
> more than two PMC members and all of the top 24 contributors are from the
> majority company.  I would be very surprised if this project could survive
> a withdrawal of support from that one company.
>
> Yet we graduated Ambari without a peep.  Not surprisingly, most of the
> votes were cast by employees of that one company.  But nobody complained at
> all.
>
> So it behooves us as some critique Ignite for lack of diversity to ask
> whether precedent matters at all here.
>
> Does it?

Speaking generally:
I don't think so.
No one noticed or complained is hardly reason to ignore problems, (if
it is indeed a problem) or to say that such decisions are now binding.
It might be a different matter if it was explicitly acknowledged.

--David

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> Nitpicking time.
>
> Your supposedly vendor-neutral web site says:
> "GridGain Community Edition is a binary build of Apache Ignite created
> by GridGain, which includes optional LGPL dependencies, such as
> Hibernate L2 cache integration and Geospatial Indexing. It benefits from
> continued testing by GridGain engineers and may contain latest bug fixes
> and features that will be included into the future official Apache
> Ignite releases."
>
> - I consider this very biased towards a single company (especially
> considering it is the _only_ 3rd party listed, and you do _not_ specify
> how other 3rd parties may get listed on the page).


Good point. I have added text specifying how other companies can provide
their community editions for Apache Ignite.

You start off by saying you don't endorse it, and then you praise it - it's
> either or.


We started out by providing just a blank link, but it became very confusing
to our users, and we allowed GridGain to add a brief description.

I have just updated the text of the description to strip it out of anything
other than facts. I don't think it conflicts with Ignite not officially
endorsing this edition.


>
> Your web site also lists the organizational affiliation of PMC members.
> While this may be useful internally in the ASF, I fail to see why this
> is mentioned on the web site. This should have no relevance to the
> project whatsoever.
>

Although I see your point, I don't think it's harmful one way or another.
All the community members voluntarily and willingly provided their company
affiliation.


>
> You point to gridgain.org for several of your documentation segments,
> this is also not acceptable.
>

This is not on purpose. The documentation was initially migrated from
GridGain and some old links might have sneaked in.

I cannot find any places with gridgain.org links you are referencing. Can
you please point those out, so I can quickly fix them?


>
> I would very much like to see this rectified before we get to an actual
> vote, or I will possibly be casting a -1.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> On 07/21/2015 10:48 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >
> > On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >> Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.
> >
> > So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
> > major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
> > meritocratic community."?
> >
> > I think not.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
> >> understand how to make releases and are building community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
> >>> nowhere.
> >>>
> >>> If we take away the names of the mentors from the list (Branko, Roman
> and
> >>> yours) as well as those in other projects (Evans) from the list of
> intended
> >>> project members, the situation even grows worse. Then the number grows
> to
> >>> 77%. That doesn't look promising regarding independence, and neither
> >>> regarding healthiness.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  The so-called diversity requirement has been discussed on this list
> for a
>  number of times. Most recent is the graduation of Flume project (back
> in
>  2012). Here's a quote from that thread (kudos to Roy; for those who
> want
>  to look it up in the archives MessageId is
>  73db2e64-87d5-4dd5-91fb-403464895...@gbiv.com):
> 
>  [quote]
>  There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
>  requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
>  We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a
>  diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
>  out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
>  I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
>  and I have no cycles to spare.
> 
>  A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
>  status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
>  create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
>  [/quote]
> 
>  Regards,
>    Cos
> 
>  On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:55PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > It seems that 63% of the podling's PMC is affiliated to 1
> organisation
> > (Gridgrain).
> >
> > Have sufficient grounds been covered to ensure diversity and
> >>> independece?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 20

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Ted Dunning

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> The question of diversity in this case is not "are we enough
> men/women/whatever", the question here is "is there a single corporate
> entity with a deciding vote in the project?".
>

Actually, I would hope that the criterion is whether there is a single
corporate entity, the distraction of which would effectively kill the
project.

And we do need to look at Ambari as a precedent.  Even now the PMC has 30
members from one company and 7 from other companies.  No other company has
more than two PMC members and all of the top 24 contributors are from the
majority company.  I would be very surprised if this project could survive
a withdrawal of support from that one company.

Yet we graduated Ambari without a peep.  Not surprisingly, most of the
votes were cast by employees of that one company.  But nobody complained at
all.

So it behooves us as some critique Ignite for lack of diversity to ask
whether precedent matters at all here.

Does it?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:38AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2015-07-22 00:41, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:17AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >>Is this a reply to me or to Pierre?
> >>
> >>I have not mentioned 63% anywhere. I have stated that we have a
> >>policy that states that a podling must have an open and diverse
> >>meritocratic community.  The link you put in your reply says exactly
> >>that.
> >it was question to Daniel because I don't see where proposed podling fails to
> >have "an open and diverse meritocratic community"; alas I don't see where the
> >alleged "policy scraping" is happening. The only quantitative data point I
> >have seen so far is these "63%" - hence my reference.
> I wrote "scrap", not "scrape". They are two different words with
> different meanings.

Sorry, of course "scrap" - damn phone auto-incorrect ;)

> I was referring to Ted's argument that diversity was not a bar to
> graduation, which seems to contradict our policy.

I let Ted to address your comment.

> Either that published policy needs to be changed (and that should be
> done outside this podling discussion), or the graduation needs to
> adhere to that policy. But simply ignoring it is not something I am
> willing to do.

Ignoring what exactly? The "diverse" language in the Incubator guidelines
(again, not the policy) is extremely vague and is evidently a subject to all
sorts of interpretations. But let's have a further discussion about the exact
semantics of it elsewhere, if desired.

Cos

> WIth regards,
> Daniel.
> 
> >
> >If this conversation has any attempt to be actionable - let's at least try to
> >be fact-of-matter. So far it was just a vague pointing to the out-of-context
> >quotes from the Incubator's guidelines.
> >
> >Regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> >>With regards,
> >>Daniel.
> >>
> >>On 2015-07-22 00:16, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>>Sorry, which part of the quoted policy the 63% is allegedly scraping out?
> >>>
> >>>For easy reference, here's the link
> >>> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html
> >>>
> >>>to the document containing the section of "Creating an Open and Diverse
> >>>community". So far I haven't heard a single matter of fact evidence 
> >>>supporting
> >>>your claim.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks
> >>>   Cos
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:48PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.
> So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
> major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
> meritocratic community."?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> 
> >What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
> >understand how to make releases and are building community.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits 
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
> >>nowhere.
> >>
> >>If we take away the names of the mentors from the list (Branko, Roman 
> >>and
> >>yours) as well as those in other projects (Evans) from the list of 
> >>intended
> >>project members, the situation even grows worse. Then the number grows 
> >>to
> >>77%. That doesn't look promising regarding independence, and neither
> >>regarding healthiness.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>Pierre Smits
> >>
> >>*ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>Services and Retail & Trade
> >>http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>
> >>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>The so-called diversity requirement has been discussed on this list 
> >>>for a
> >>>number of times. Most recent is the graduation of Flume project (back 
> >>>in
> >>>2012). Here's a quote from that thread (kudos to Roy; for those who 
> >>>want
> >>>to look it up in the archives MessageId is
> >>>73db2e64-87d5-4dd5-91fb-403464895...@gbiv.com):
> >>>
> >>>[quote]
> >>>There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
> >>>requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
> >>>We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a
> >>>diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
> >>>out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
> >>>I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
> >>>and I have no cycles to spare.
> >>>
> >>>A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
> >>>status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
> >>>create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
> >>>[/quote]
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>   Cos
> >>>
> >>>On T

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Pierre Smits

The following page of the Incubator project states 'The project is not
highly dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3 legally
independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is
vital to the success of the project)'.

https://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements

The latter part of that statement ( there is no single company or entity
that is vital to the success of the project) in the policy document is very
clear. Proposing a group of privileged contributors of which 63% is
affiliated to one organisation can not be regarded as anything else than
that a single company has a disproportional influence on the project.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator




On 2015-07-22 00:47, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:33AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

On 2015-07-22 00:15, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

Accusation of what exactly?

Quoting Roy out of context.

Here's what you said: "Quoting Roy out of context is not a Hail Mary you can
just throw out there when someone disagrees with you."


To the best of my knowledge, Roy has not been a part of the Ignite
discussion, nor is he quoting policy in that particular sentence, but
stating his opinion that the published Incubator policy should be overlooked
(to which I disagree). Yes, he explains in rigorous detail why he thinks the
way he thinks, but that is still an _opinion_, and quoting it as if it is
policy (our published policy still begs to differ) is something I will
consider as being out of context,

Then you should've said "quoting it as if it is policy". Because you see:
"quoting it as if it is policy" != "Quoting Roy out of context"

Precision of language in contentious online discussions is of paramount
importance.

This time I'll chalk up our misunderstanding to your sloppy use of language
in that particular sentence.

I don't believe I was being sloppy in my use of language, but I
don't want to turn this into a battle over which dictionary is the
best, despite your counter-accusation of my sloppy verbal skills.


Which brings us back to what you actually wanted to say, which is: "quoting it
as if it is policy". That was NOT my intent. My intent was to *highlight* what
I took as a very insightful statement made in discussion extremely similar
to the one we're having here 3 years after the original discussion.

Roy's statement changed the way I think about ASF and IPMC. That was all I
was trying to communicate.

Be that as it may, if people have concerns about it, and it's still
in the policy docs, you either acknowledge and try your best to deal
with these concerns, or you work to change the policy, preferably in
a _separate channel_, you don't just dismiss it.

The guidelines - not the _policy_ mind you - says exactly this:

"A major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."
The policy says the podling SHALL "Demonstrate an active and diverse 
development community".

One can argue that this is somewhat open to interpretation.



So far there wasn't a single fact showing that the proposed podling has failed
to do this.
While there is a high concentration of PMC members from one company, 
yes, it is not axiomatic that this leads to bad things.

I have not stated that this particular issue is a problem.


If such facts aren't brought to the attention of the IPMC I'd
suggest we just drop the matter and/or move the further "policy" discussions to
a separate thread to establish the semantics of that statements, if so
desired.


I would very much like that :)
Clearly there is disagreement in the Incubator on the importance and 
meaning of this specific element of the published policy.


With regards,
Daniel.


Cos


I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with whether it is the _right_
policy, I am merely stating that it IS in our published policy and
that concerns have been raised relating to this. This particular bit
has nothing to do with Ignite, but graduation in general.

With regards,
Daniel.


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


-
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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:33AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> 
> On 2015-07-22 00:15, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> >>Accusation of what exactly?
> >Quoting Roy out of context.
> >
> >Here's what you said: "Quoting Roy out of context is not a Hail Mary you can
> >just throw out there when someone disagrees with you."
> >
> >>To the best of my knowledge, Roy has not been a part of the Ignite
> >>discussion, nor is he quoting policy in that particular sentence, but
> >>stating his opinion that the published Incubator policy should be overlooked
> >>(to which I disagree). Yes, he explains in rigorous detail why he thinks the
> >>way he thinks, but that is still an _opinion_, and quoting it as if it is
> >>policy (our published policy still begs to differ) is something I will
> >>consider as being out of context,
> >Then you should've said "quoting it as if it is policy". Because you see:
> >"quoting it as if it is policy" != "Quoting Roy out of context"
> >
> >Precision of language in contentious online discussions is of paramount
> >importance.
> >
> >This time I'll chalk up our misunderstanding to your sloppy use of language
> >in that particular sentence.
> 
> I don't believe I was being sloppy in my use of language, but I
> don't want to turn this into a battle over which dictionary is the
> best, despite your counter-accusation of my sloppy verbal skills.
> 
> >
> >Which brings us back to what you actually wanted to say, which is: "quoting 
> >it
> >as if it is policy". That was NOT my intent. My intent was to *highlight* 
> >what
> >I took as a very insightful statement made in discussion extremely similar
> >to the one we're having here 3 years after the original discussion.
> >
> >Roy's statement changed the way I think about ASF and IPMC. That was all I
> >was trying to communicate.
> Be that as it may, if people have concerns about it, and it's still
> in the policy docs, you either acknowledge and try your best to deal
> with these concerns, or you work to change the policy, preferably in
> a _separate channel_, you don't just dismiss it.

The guidelines - not the _policy_ mind you - says exactly this:

"A major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."

So far there wasn't a single fact showing that the proposed podling has failed
to do this. If such facts aren't brought to the attention of the IPMC I'd
suggest we just drop the matter and/or move the further "policy" discussions to
a separate thread to establish the semantics of that statements, if so
desired.

Cos

> I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with whether it is the _right_
> policy, I am merely stating that it IS in our published policy and
> that concerns have been raised relating to this. This particular bit
> has nothing to do with Ignite, but graduation in general.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel.
> 
> >
> >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
> 

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On 2015-07-22 00:41, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:17AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

Is this a reply to me or to Pierre?

I have not mentioned 63% anywhere. I have stated that we have a
policy that states that a podling must have an open and diverse
meritocratic community. The link you put in your reply says exactly
that.

it was question to Daniel because I don't see where proposed podling fails to
have "an open and diverse meritocratic community"; alas I don't see where the
alleged "policy scraping" is happening. The only quantitative data point I
have seen so far is these "63%" - hence my reference.
I wrote "scrap", not "scrape". They are two different words with
different meanings.
I was referring to Ted's argument that diversity was not a bar to
graduation, which seems to contradict our policy.

Either that published policy needs to be changed (and that should be
done outside this podling discussion), or the graduation needs to adhere
to that policy. But simply ignoring it is not something I am willing to do.

WIth regards,
Daniel.

If this conversation has any attempt to be actionable - let's at least try to
be fact-of-matter. So far it was just a vague pointing to the out-of-context
quotes from the Incubator's guidelines.

Regards,
Cos

With regards,
Daniel.

On 2015-07-22 00:16, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

Sorry, which part of the quoted policy the 63% is allegedly scraping out?

For easy reference, here's the link
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html

to the document containing the section of "Creating an Open and Diverse
community". So far I haven't heard a single matter of fact evidence supporting
your claim.

Thanks
Cos

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:48PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.

So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."?

I think not.

What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
understand how to make releases and are building community.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits
wrote:

Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
nowhere.

If we take away the names of the mentors from the list (Branko, Roman and
yours) as well as those in other projects (Evans) from the list of intended
project members, the situation even grows worse. Then the number grows to
77%. That doesn't look promising regarding independence, and neither
regarding healthiness.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik
wrote:

The so-called diversity requirement has been discussed on this list for a
number of times. Most recent is the graduation of Flume project (back in
2012). Here's a quote from that thread (kudos to Roy; for those who want
to look it up in the archives MessageId is
73db2e64-87d5-4dd5-91fb-403464895...@gbiv.com):

[quote]
There is no diversity requirement at the ASF. There is a behavior
requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a
diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
and I have no cycles to spare.

A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
status impacts their ability to participate here. IOW, it would
create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
[/quote]

Regards,
Cos

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:55PM, Pierre Smits wrote:

It seems that 63% of the podling's PMC is affiliated to 1 organisation
(Gridgrain).

Have sufficient grounds been covered to ensure diversity and

independece?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <

dsetrak...@apache.org>

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:08 AM, amareshwarisr . <

amareshw...@gmail.com>

wrote:

Seems the DESCRIPTION_AND_SCOPE of the project is set to " the

automated

and managed flow of information between systems."

I dont see any such on project website -
http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/
Looks like a copy from NIFI's graduation discussion -

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4PD%2B3qGGQbbHHyLfY8Ut9BP9VyEDwtnZDSWjpMKiwk9w%40mail.gmail.com%3E

.
You might want to correct it.

Yup, copy-n-paste never works :) Corrected below.

Correct me if description is fine and I'm wrong in understanding

the

description

Thanks
Amareshwari

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <

dsetrak...@apache.org>

wrote:

Hello Apache Incubator,

At the suggestion of ou

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

> Another minor nitpick:
>
> On the people page of the ignite website, some are tagged as "PMC" and
> there is a tag for "PMC Chair." Until official graduation, that should
> probably change to "PPMC" and the "PMC Chair" tag be removed, since AFAIK
> podlings don't have VPs.
>

Done.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:17AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Is this a reply to me or to Pierre?
> 
> I have not mentioned 63% anywhere. I have stated that we have a
> policy that states that a podling must have an open and diverse
> meritocratic community.  The link you put in your reply says exactly
> that.

it was question to Daniel because I don't see where proposed podling fails to
have "an open and diverse meritocratic community"; alas I don't see where the
alleged "policy scraping" is happening. The only quantitative data point I
have seen so far is these "63%" - hence my reference.

If this conversation has any attempt to be actionable - let's at least try to
be fact-of-matter. So far it was just a vague pointing to the out-of-context
quotes from the Incubator's guidelines.

Regards,
  Cos

> With regards,
> Daniel.
> 
> On 2015-07-22 00:16, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >Sorry, which part of the quoted policy the 63% is allegedly scraping out?
> >
> >For easy reference, here's the link
> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html
> >
> >to the document containing the section of "Creating an Open and Diverse
> >community". So far I haven't heard a single matter of fact evidence 
> >supporting
> >your claim.
> >
> >Thanks
> >   Cos
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:48PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >>On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >>>Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.
> >>So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
> >>major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
> >>meritocratic community."?
> >>
> >>I think not.
> >>
> >>
> >>>What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
> >>>understand how to make releases and are building community.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
> nowhere.
> 
> If we take away the names of the mentors from the list (Branko, Roman and
> yours) as well as those in other projects (Evans) from the list of 
> intended
> project members, the situation even grows worse. Then the number grows to
> 77%. That doesn't look promising regarding independence, and neither
> regarding healthiness.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik 
> wrote:
> 
> >The so-called diversity requirement has been discussed on this list for a
> >number of times. Most recent is the graduation of Flume project (back in
> >2012). Here's a quote from that thread (kudos to Roy; for those who want
> >to look it up in the archives MessageId is
> >73db2e64-87d5-4dd5-91fb-403464895...@gbiv.com):
> >
> >[quote]
> >There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
> >requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
> >We must not confuse the two. If the Incubator says that there is a
> >diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
> >out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
> >I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
> >and I have no cycles to spare.
> >
> >A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
> >status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
> >create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
> >[/quote]
> >
> >Regards,
> >   Cos
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:55PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>It seems that 63% of the podling's PMC is affiliated to 1 organisation
> >>(Gridgrain).
> >>
> >>Have sufficient grounds been covered to ensure diversity and
> independece?
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Pierre Smits
> >>
> >>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >dsetrak...@apache.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:08 AM, amareshwarisr . <
> >amareshw...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> Seems the DESCRIPTION_AND_SCOPE of the project is set to " the
> >automated
> and managed flow of information between systems."
> 
> I dont see any such on project website -
> http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/
> Looks like a copy from NIFI's graduation discussion -
> 
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4PD%2B3qGGQbbHHyLfY8Ut9BP9VyEDwtnZDSWjpMKiwk9w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> .
> You might want to correct it.
> 
> >>>Yup, copy-n-paste never works :) Corrected below.
> >>>
> >>>
> Correct me if descr

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator




On 2015-07-22 00:15, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

Accusation of what exactly?

Quoting Roy out of context.

Here's what you said: "Quoting Roy out of context is not a Hail Mary you can
just throw out there when someone disagrees with you."


To the best of my knowledge, Roy has not been a part of the Ignite
discussion, nor is he quoting policy in that particular sentence, but
stating his opinion that the published Incubator policy should be overlooked
(to which I disagree). Yes, he explains in rigorous detail why he thinks the
way he thinks, but that is still an _opinion_, and quoting it as if it is
policy (our published policy still begs to differ) is something I will
consider as being out of context,

Then you should've said "quoting it as if it is policy". Because you see:
"quoting it as if it is policy" != "Quoting Roy out of context"

Precision of language in contentious online discussions is of paramount
importance.

This time I'll chalk up our misunderstanding to your sloppy use of language
in that particular sentence.


I don't believe I was being sloppy in my use of language, but I don't 
want to turn this into a battle over which dictionary is the best, 
despite your counter-accusation of my sloppy verbal skills.




Which brings us back to what you actually wanted to say, which is: "quoting it
as if it is policy". That was NOT my intent. My intent was to *highlight* what
I took as a very insightful statement made in discussion extremely similar
to the one we're having here 3 years after the original discussion.

Roy's statement changed the way I think about ASF and IPMC. That was all I
was trying to communicate.
Be that as it may, if people have concerns about it, and it's still in 
the policy docs, you either acknowledge and try your best to deal with 
these concerns, or you work to change the policy, preferably in a 
_separate channel_, you don't just dismiss it.


I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with whether it is the _right_ 
policy, I am merely stating that it IS in our published policy and that 
concerns have been raised relating to this. This particular bit has 
nothing to do with Ignite, but graduation in general.


With regards,
Daniel.



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: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

Is this a reply to me or to Pierre?

I have not mentioned 63% anywhere. I have stated that we have a policy
that states that a podling must have an open and diverse meritocratic
community. The link you put in your reply says exactly that.

With regards,
Daniel.

On 2015-07-22 00:16, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:

Sorry, which part of the quoted policy the 63% is allegedly scraping out?

For easy reference, here's the link
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html

to the document containing the section of "Creating an Open and Diverse
community". So far I haven't heard a single matter of fact evidence supporting
your claim.

Thanks
Cos

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:48PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:

On 07/21/2015 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:

Present time diversity or lack of same is not a bar to graduation.

So we should just scrap the bit in the Incubator policy that says "A
major criterion for graduation is to have developed an open and diverse
meritocratic community."?

I think not.

What is important is that the committers and PMC of the new project
understand how to make releases and are building community.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits
wrote:

Thanks, Konstantin, for the enlighting quote. And the link leading to
nowhere.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM *
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Konstantin Boudnik
wrote:

A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
status impacts their ability to participate here. IOW, it would
create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
[/quote]

Regards,
Cos

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:55PM, Pierre Smits wrote:

It seems that 63% of the podling's PMC is affiliated to 1 organisation
(Gridgrain).

Have sufficient grounds been covered to ensure diversity and

independece?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <

dsetrak...@apache.org>

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:08 AM, amareshwarisr . <

amareshw...@gmail.com>

wrote:

Seems the DESCRIPTION_AND_SCOPE of the project is set to " the

automated

and managed flow of information between systems."

I dont see any such on project website -
http://ignite.incubator.apache.org/
Looks like a copy from NIFI's graduation discussion -

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4PD%2B3qGGQbbHHyLfY8Ut9BP9VyEDwtnZDSWjpMKiwk9w%40mail.gmail.com%3E

.
You might want to correct it.

Yup, copy-n-paste never works :) Corrected below.

Correct me if description is fine and I'm wrong in understanding

the

description

Thanks
Amareshwari

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <

dsetrak...@apache.org>

wrote:

Hello Apache Incubator,

At the suggestion of our mentors the Ignite community established

consensus

and held a successful vote with 14 +1 votes in favor of proposing
graduation to TLP.

Vote thread:

http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Graduate-Apache-Ignite-from-Incubation-td1539.html

Summary of the vote results:
+1 (non-binding) = 14

1. Yakov Zhdanov (PMC)
2. Gianfranco Murador (PMC)
3. Ira Vasilinets (PMC)
4. Nikolai Tichinov (PMC)
5. Semyon Boikov (PMC)
6. Sergi Vladykin (PMC)
7. Alexey Goncharuk (PMC)
8. Ognen Duzlevski (PMC)
9. Valentin Kulichenko (PMC)
10. Nikita Ivanov (PMC)
11. Dmitriy Setrakyan (PMC)
12. Andrey Novikov (Committer)
13. Alexey Kuznetsov (Committer)
14. Milap Wadwa

We’d like to initiate this discussion/proposal to establish a

consensus

within the incubator and if appropriate will initiate a vote.

Below is our proposed resolution:

Thank you
Dmitriy Setrakyan(on behalf of the Apache Ignite PPMC)

SUBJECT: Establish the Apache Ignite TLP

WHEREAS, the Board of Director

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

2015-07-21 Thread Roman Shaposhnik

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> Accusation of what exactly?

Quoting Roy out of context.

Here's what you said: "Quoting Roy out of context is not a Hail Mary you can
just throw out there when someone disagrees with you."

> To the best of my knowledge, Roy has not been a part of the Ignite
> discussion, nor is he quoting policy in that particular sentence, but
> stating his opinion that the published Incubator policy should be overlooked
> (to which I disagree). Yes, he explains in rigorous detail why he thinks the
> way he thinks, but that is still an _opinion_, and quoting it as if it is
> policy (our published policy still begs to differ) is something I will
> consider as being out of context,

Then you should've said "quoting it as if it is policy". Because you see:
   "quoting it as if it is policy" != "Quoting Roy out of context"

Precision of language in contentious online discussions is of paramount
importance.

This time I'll chalk up our misunderstanding to your sloppy use of language
in that particular sentence.

Which brings us back to what you actually wanted to say, which is: "quoting it
as if it is policy". That was NOT my intent. My intent was to *highlight* what
I took as a very insightful statement made in discussion extremely similar
to the one we're having here 3 years after the original discussion.

Roy's statement changed the way I think about ASF and IPMC. That was all I
was trying to communicate.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator