OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Jacopo,

I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases (see
here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you addressed
aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to inviting
committers.

In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and trust
are not not mentioned.

Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
regarding this right attitude and trust?

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:

> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite committers
> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right
> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate enough
> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to a
> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but of
> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know, without
> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can only
> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux 
> wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting idea.
> >
> > Now it also means more administration and we are already a bit sparse on
> the volunteering front.
> >
> > A simpler solution the OFBiz project used was to allow write access to
> only parts of the repo.
> > This was before the Apache era. We gave up this way of doing because it
> was not the Apache way.
> >
> > I have not read it all yet but for instance I read in
> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
> > < commit access. This will be resolved during the vote discussion. >>
> >
> > I don't know how technically this is possible in OFBiz trunk and
> branches, apart maybe asking the infra team? Which would most probably
> faces a veto...
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > Le 01/10/2014 16:46, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
> >> The sub-project is a very useful Apache tool for helping projects grow.
> >> http://db.apache.org/newproject.html  is interesting reading.
> >> http://ant.apache.org/antlibs/ very minimal description about Ant
> sub-projects but we all use their work.
> >>
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Close-of-Apache-Lucene-s-Open-Relevance-sub-project-td4141160.html
> a note about the official closure of a sub-project - very clear about why
> and what closure means.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Ivy  another popular sub-project.
> Description implies that it started in incubation and graduated to a
> top-level package and then became a sub-project of Ant.
> >>
> http://icodebythesea.blogspot.ca/2009/04/apache-servicemix-kernel-subproject.html
> is an example of a sub-project moving between two top-level projects.
> >>
> >> The sub-project structure allows for more specialization within the
> project resources so that people who are wizards with databases, kernels,
> etc get to worry about data access, performance, scalability, reliability,
> security while others who have more domain interest get to worry about
> features, usability, graphic design, workflow, reporting without getting in
> each other's hair.
> >>
> >> It also ensures a clearer demarcation between framework, core ERP and
> modules.
> >> I suspect that it would clean up project communication since people
> could subscribe to the sub-project lists that pertained to their interests.
> >>
> >> It might be easier for the existing community to accept new committers
> if the new people were part of a sub-project and were not committing to the
> particular codebase (framework, core, etc.) that the current committers are
> working on.
> >>
> >> It probably would help clarify the documentation since there would be a
> much clearer separation of framework from core from modules since each
> sub-project would have its own section in the project documentation.
> >> Each sub-project would have a much better defined target audience so
> writing docs would be a bit simpler and the language and terminology could
> be more relevant to the target audience.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/10/2014 10:17 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> >>> Ron,
> >>>
> >>> In the past there was a WIKI page decribing who was interested and who
> was willing to work on what. I don't know whether that page still exists.
> >>>
> >>> In the past we also had a system of having committers dedicated and
> committed to a subset of the trunk. This should still be feasible. But for
> that you need more committers. And to get more committers, this project
> 

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

Hi Pierre,

Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an extremely 
important point.

There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however they 
feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our own personal 
guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.

Regards
Scott

On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Jacopo,
> 
> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases (see
> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you addressed
> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to inviting
> committers.
> 
> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and trust
> are not not mentioned.
> 
> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
> regarding this right attitude and trust?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
>> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite committers
>> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right
>> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate enough
>> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to a
>> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but of
>> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know, without
>> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can only
>> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
>> On Oct 2, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's an interesting idea.
>>> 
>>> Now it also means more administration and we are already a bit sparse on
>> the volunteering front.
>>> 
>>> A simpler solution the OFBiz project used was to allow write access to
>> only parts of the repo.
>>> This was before the Apache era. We gave up this way of doing because it
>> was not the Apache way.
>>> 
>>> I have not read it all yet but for instance I read in
>> https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
>>> <> commit access. This will be resolved during the vote discussion. >>
>>> 
>>> I don't know how technically this is possible in OFBiz trunk and
>> branches, apart maybe asking the infra team? Which would most probably
>> faces a veto...
>>> 
>>> Jacques
>>> 
>>> Le 01/10/2014 16:46, Ron Wheeler a écrit :
 The sub-project is a very useful Apache tool for helping projects grow.
 http://db.apache.org/newproject.html  is interesting reading.
 http://ant.apache.org/antlibs/ very minimal description about Ant
>> sub-projects but we all use their work.
 
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Close-of-Apache-Lucene-s-Open-Relevance-sub-project-td4141160.html
>> a note about the official closure of a sub-project - very clear about why
>> and what closure means.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Ivy  another popular sub-project.
>> Description implies that it started in incubation and graduated to a
>> top-level package and then became a sub-project of Ant.
 
>> http://icodebythesea.blogspot.ca/2009/04/apache-servicemix-kernel-subproject.html
>> is an example of a sub-project moving between two top-level projects.
 
 The sub-project structure allows for more specialization within the
>> project resources so that people who are wizards with databases, kernels,
>> etc get to worry about data access, performance, scalability, reliability,
>> security while others who have more domain interest get to worry about
>> features, usability, graphic design, workflow, reporting without getting in
>> each other's hair.
 
 It also ensures a clearer demarcation between framework, core ERP and
>> modules.
 I suspect that it would clean up project communication since people
>> could subscribe to the sub-project lists that pertained to their interests.
 
 It might be easier for the existing community to accept new committers
>> if the new people were part of a sub-project and were not committing to the
>> particular codebase (framework, core, etc.) that the current committers are
>> working on.
 
 It probably would help clarify the documentation since there would be a
>> much clearer separation of framework from core from modules since each
>> sub-project would have its own section in the project documentation.
 Each sub-project would have a much better defined target audience so
>> writing docs would be a bit simpler and the language and terminology could
>> be more rele

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Scott,

You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in direct
relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about just
his own feelings but about the collective perception.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

> Hi Pierre,
>
> Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
> extremely important point.
>
> There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however
> they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our own
> personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>
> > Jacopo,
> >
> > I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases (see
> > here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you addressed
> > aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to inviting
> > committers.
> >
> > In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> > ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
> trust
> > are not not mentioned.
> >
> > Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
> > regarding this right attitude and trust?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
> >> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
> committers
> >> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right
> >> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
> enough
> >> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to
> a
> >> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but
> of
> >> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know,
> without
> >> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can
> only
> >> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
> >>
> >> Jacopo
> >>
>

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

Pierre,

Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion too 
(in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC members are 
individuals and each have different opinions about what makes a good committer.

I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.

Regards
Scott

On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in direct
> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about just
> his own feelings but about the collective perception.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Pierre,
>> 
>> Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
>> extremely important point.
>> 
>> There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however
>> they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our own
>> personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>> 
>>> Jacopo,
>>> 
>>> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases (see
>>> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you addressed
>>> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to inviting
>>> committers.
>>> 
>>> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
>> trust
>>> are not not mentioned.
>>> 
>>> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
>>> regarding this right attitude and trust?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Pierre Smits
>>> 
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
>>> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
>>> 
 In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
 committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
>> committers
 when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the right
 attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
>> enough
 technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited to
>> a
 subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos but
>> of
 course they will limit their field of action to the area they know,
>> without
 requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can
>> only
 work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
 
 Jacopo
 
>> 

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding potential
committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).

Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by Jacopo
- is it just about potential committers having the right mindset towards
the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing? And
that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
community?

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

> Pierre,
>
> Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion
> too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
> members are individuals and each have different opinions about what makes a
> good committer.
>
> I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
> direct
> > relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about
> just
> > his own feelings but about the collective perception.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Pierre,
> >>
> >> Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
> >> extremely important point.
> >>
> >> There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however
> >> they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our own
> >> personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jacopo,
> >>>
> >>> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases
> (see
> >>> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you
> addressed
> >>> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to
> inviting
> >>> committers.
> >>>
> >>> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> >>> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
> >> trust
> >>> are not not mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
> >>> regarding this right attitude and trust?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> >>> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >>>
>  In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
>  committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
> >> committers
>  when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the
> right
>  attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
> >> enough
>  technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited
> to
> >> a
>  subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos
> but
> >> of
>  course they will limit their field of action to the area they know,
> >> without
>  requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can
> >> only
>  work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
> 
>  Jacopo
> 
> >>
>
>

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything pretty 
well.  

I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is able to 
trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined roles and 
responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the potential committer 
is willing to follow advice and work well with others.  Neither of these things 
are so strange that they'd need to be further documented IMO.

I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.

Regards
Scott

On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
> respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding potential
> committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).
> 
> Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by Jacopo
> - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset towards
> the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
> document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing? And
> that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
> community?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray 
> wrote:
> 
>> Pierre,
>> 
>> Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion
>> too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
>> members are individuals and each have different opinions about what makes a
>> good committer.
>> 
>> I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>> 
>>> Scott,
>>> 
>>> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
>> direct
>>> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about
>> just
>>> his own feelings but about the collective perception.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Pierre Smits
>>> 
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Pierre,
 
 Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
 extremely important point.
 
 There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote however
 they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our own
 personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
 
 Regards
 Scott
 
 On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits 
>> wrote:
 
> Jacopo,
> 
> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases
>> (see
> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you
>> addressed
> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to
>> inviting
> committers.
> 
> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> 
 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
 trust
> are not not mentioned.
> 
> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations are
> regarding this right attitude and trust?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
>> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
 committers
>> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the
>> right
>> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
 enough
>> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited
>> to
 a
>> subset of the OFBiz codebase they will get full access to the repos
>> but
 of
>> course they will limit their field of action to the area they know,
 without
>> requiring us to enforce commit rights limitations. As I said this can
 only
>> work if we trust them 100% as persons at first.
>> 
>> Jacopo
>> 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Of course you can't.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

> From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything
> pretty well.
>
> I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is
> able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined
> roles and responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the
> potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with others.
> Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further
> documented IMO.
>
> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>
> > So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
> > respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding potential
> > committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).
> >
> > Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by
> Jacopo
> > - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset towards
> > the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
> > document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing?
> And
> > that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
> > community?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pierre,
> >>
> >> Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion
> >> too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
> >> members are individuals and each have different opinions about what
> makes a
> >> good committer.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott,
> >>>
> >>> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
> >> direct
> >>> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about
> >> just
> >>> his own feelings but about the collective perception.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray <
> scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Pierre,
> 
>  Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
>  extremely important point.
> 
>  There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote
> however
>  they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our
> own
>  personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
> 
>  Regards
>  Scott
> 
>  On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Jacopo,
> >
> > I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases
> >> (see
> > here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you
> >> addressed
> > aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to
> >> inviting
> > committers.
> >
> > In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> >
> 
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> > ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
>  trust
> > are not not mentioned.
> >
> > Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations
> are
> > regarding this right attitude and trust?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
> >> committers with limited access; instead I would prefer to invite
>  committers
> >> when we trust them as individuals, when they have demonstrated the
> >> right
> >> attitude and skills to work in our community etc... and demonstrate
>  enough
> >> technical skills for the work they have to do; even if it is limited
> >> to
>  a
> >> subset of the OFBiz codebase they wi

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Scott,

Am I correct in understanding that any contributor with ambitions to be a
committer should interpret your 'willing to follow advice' as 'willingness
to take good advice into consideration when acting within the community or
dealing with issues, but don't follow bad advice blindly'? Your 'willing to
follow' sounds a lot like 'must follow'. I trust that wasn't your
intention...

Or am I misinterpreting this?

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

> From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything
> pretty well.
>
> I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is
> able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined
> roles and responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the
> potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with others.
> Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further
> documented IMO.
>
> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>
> > So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
> > respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding potential
> > committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).
> >
> > Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by
> Jacopo
> > - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset towards
> > the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
> > document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing?
> And
> > that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
> > community?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pierre,
> >>
> >> Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion
> >> too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
> >> members are individuals and each have different opinions about what
> makes a
> >> good committer.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott,
> >>>
> >>> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
> >> direct
> >>> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about
> >> just
> >>> his own feelings but about the collective perception.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray <
> scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Pierre,
> 
>  Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
>  extremely important point.
> 
>  There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote
> however
>  they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our
> own
>  personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
> 
>  Regards
>  Scott
> 
>  On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Jacopo,
> >
> > I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases
> >> (see
> > here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you
> >> addressed
> > aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to
> >> inviting
> > committers.
> >
> > In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
> >
> 
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
> > ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
>  trust
> > are not not mentioned.
> >
> > Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain what the vision and expectations
> are
> > regarding this right attitude and trust?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Jacopo Cappellato <
> > jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion we should avoid reconsidering the idea of creating
> >> committers with limited access; instead I w

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Jacopo Cappellato]

On Oct 17, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray  wrote:

> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.

Thank you Scott, you have provided a good summary of my personal point of view 
about this topic.

Jacopo

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

Perhaps "accept" is a better word than "follow", no one has ever questioned it 
in such detail.  

If there's disagreement about advice given then there only needs to be a 
willingness to discuss the matter.  Obviously there are votes if things get out 
of hand but it's rare for things to go that far.  If committers are unwilling 
to approach a disagreement with an open mind then it makes life difficult for 
everyone.

Regards
Scott

On 18/10/2014, at 1:04 am, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Am I correct in understanding that any contributor with ambitions to be a
> committer should interpret your 'willing to follow advice' as 'willingness
> to take good advice into consideration when acting within the community or
> dealing with issues, but don't follow bad advice blindly'? Your 'willing to
> follow' sounds a lot like 'must follow'. I trust that wasn't your
> intention...
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting this?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray 
> wrote:
> 
>> From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything
>> pretty well.
>> 
>> I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is
>> able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined
>> roles and responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the
>> potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with others.
>> Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further
>> documented IMO.
>> 
>> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>> 
>>> So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
>>> respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding potential
>>> committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).
>>> 
>>> Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by
>> Jacopo
>>> - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset towards
>>> the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
>>> document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing?
>> And
>>> that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
>>> community?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Pierre Smits
>>> 
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Pierre,
 
 Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct opinion
 too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
 members are individuals and each have different opinions about what
>> makes a
 good committer.
 
 I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss it.
 
 Regards
 Scott
 
 On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits 
>> wrote:
 
> Scott,
> 
> You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
 direct
> relation to the words attitude and trust. So, he is not talking about
 just
> his own feelings but about the collective perception.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Scott Gray <
>> scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Pierre,
>> 
>> Jacopo's first words in that email were "In my opinion".  That's an
>> extremely important point.
>> 
>> There are no guidelines because each PMC member is free to vote
>> however
>> they feel would best serve the project.  Any of us could provide our
>> own
>> personal guidelines but they would still just be personal opinions.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 17/10/2014, at 10:55 pm, Pierre Smits 
 wrote:
>> 
>>> Jacopo,
>>> 
>>> I your posting regarding the vote to keep the PROJECTMGR in releases
 (see
>>> here: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/maha6pwlatlxbb64 ) you
 addressed
>>> aspects as ' the right attitude' and 'trust them' in respect to
 inviting
>>> committers.
>>> 
>>> In the committers role and responsibilities page (see here:
>>> 
>> 
 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilities
>>> ) we can read about the responsibilities. But words like attitude and
>> trust
>>> are not not mentioned.
>>> 
>>> Can you, as the PMC Chair, explain 

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Scott,

I can image that you would feel that 'accept' is better than 'follow' with
respect to advice. But it still sounds that you want a contributor to
comply to your advice. We are dealing with people here who can make sound
judgement calls whether or not to accept and act accordingly. The
participants within this community are not sheep.

You are making more of this than it should be. We have enough mitigating
procedures in place for the occasional committer that doesn't comply to
responsibilities outlined in the wiki page.

If you have trust issues you should propose changes to the wiki document.
That way all participants in this project can increase their insights and
express their viewpoint about how and when contributors should be
considered and accepted or rejected by the PMC.

Remember, this is a project for everybody participating. That you have
trust issues and therefor reject any committer who doesn't comply to your
advice, shouldn't lead to an increasing number of issues not getting
resolved. That way you are stifling the growth of our project.

My advice to you is to relax your viewpoint on this and any contributor
showing commitment to the project.

Regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Scott Gray 
wrote:

> Perhaps "accept" is a better word than "follow", no one has ever
> questioned it in such detail.
>
> If there's disagreement about advice given then there only needs to be a
> willingness to discuss the matter.  Obviously there are votes if things get
> out of hand but it's rare for things to go that far.  If committers are
> unwilling to approach a disagreement with an open mind then it makes life
> difficult for everyone.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 18/10/2014, at 1:04 am, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>
> > Scott,
> >
> > Am I correct in understanding that any contributor with ambitions to be a
> > committer should interpret your 'willing to follow advice' as
> 'willingness
> > to take good advice into consideration when acting within the community
> or
> > dealing with issues, but don't follow bad advice blindly'? Your 'willing
> to
> > follow' sounds a lot like 'must follow'. I trust that wasn't your
> > intention...
> >
> > Or am I misinterpreting this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *ORRTIZ.COM *
> > Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> > Based Manufacturing, Professional
> > Services and Retail & Trade
> > http://www.orrtiz.com
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything
> >> pretty well.
> >>
> >> I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is
> >> able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined
> >> roles and responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the
> >> potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with
> others.
> >> Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further
> >> documented IMO.
> >>
> >> I can't speak for Jacopo or anyone else, that's just my interpretation.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2014, at 11:49 pm, Pierre Smits 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, you - as any PMC member - can also elaborate on the consensus with
> >>> respect to the attitude and trustability requirements regarding
> potential
> >>> committers (above and beyond the responsibilities, if these exist).
> >>>
> >>> Or - as it may be possible that I have misinterpreted the posting by
> >> Jacopo
> >>> - is it just about potential committers having the right mindset
> towards
> >>> the execution of tasks as described in the roles and responsibilities
> >>> document? Meaning that they can apply due diligence before committing?
> >> And
> >>> that they can make their own interests subordinate to those of the
> >>> community?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Pierre Smits
> >>>
> >>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> >>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> >>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> >>> Services and Retail & Trade
> >>> http://www.orrtiz.com
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Scott Gray <
> scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Pierre,
> 
>  Yes, in his opinion that is what we do.  It's probably a correct
> opinion
>  too (in my opinion).  But at the end of the day my point stands, PMC
>  members are individuals and each have different opinions about what
> >> makes a
>  good committer.
> 
>  I'm not trying to be combative, if you disagree I'm happy to discuss
> it.
> 
>  Regards
>  Scott
> 
>  On 17/10/2014, at 11:19 pm, Pierre Smits 
> >> wrote:
> 
> > Scott,
> >
> > You are correct. Yet, you forgot to mention that Jacopo used 'we' in
>  direct
> > relation to the words attitude and

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

> I can image that you would feel that 'accept' is better than 'follow' with
> respect to advice. But it still sounds that you want a contributor to
> comply to your advice.

Then your interpretation is incorrect.  A willingness to discuss contentious 
changes with an open mind is all I asked for.

> We are dealing with people here who can make sound
> judgement calls whether or not to accept and act accordingly. The
> participants within this community are not sheep.

No they aren't and I haven't said anything to imply that they are.

> You are making more of this than it should be.

I am?  I'm just trying to answer your questions, I'm really not making anything 
out of this.

> My advice to you is to relax your viewpoint on this and any contributor
> showing commitment to the project.

Are you saying we should accept contributors who aren't willing to discuss 
contentious changes with an open mind?  That would seem strange to me.

One big issue with adding more committers is that we currently have a very low 
commit:review ratio.  Reviewing commits and dealing with any ensuing discussion 
is a very time consuming affair and very few existing committers and almost no 
contributors participate in that effort.  Increasing the number of committers 
only increases that burden on the few reviewers we have and leads to a 
situation where committers can make almost any changes they like without being 
questioned.  This potentially decreases the quality of the code base and 
results in a less maintainable and usable project.  The problem is only 
exacerbated if we have lots of committers who aren't willing to discuss their 
work with an open mind.

Regards
Scott

On 22/10/2014, at 1:21 am, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> I can image that you would feel that 'accept' is better than 'follow' with
> respect to advice. But it still sounds that you want a contributor to
> comply to your advice. We are dealing with people here who can make sound
> judgement calls whether or not to accept and act accordingly. The
> participants within this community are not sheep.
> 
> You are making more of this than it should be. We have enough mitigating
> procedures in place for the occasional committer that doesn't comply to
> responsibilities outlined in the wiki page.
> 
> If you have trust issues you should propose changes to the wiki document.
> That way all participants in this project can increase their insights and
> express their viewpoint about how and when contributors should be
> considered and accepted or rejected by the PMC.
> 
> Remember, this is a project for everybody participating. That you have
> trust issues and therefor reject any committer who doesn't comply to your
> advice, shouldn't lead to an increasing number of issues not getting
> resolved. That way you are stifling the growth of our project.
> 
> My advice to you is to relax your viewpoint on this and any contributor
> showing commitment to the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM *
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
> 
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Scott Gray 
> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps "accept" is a better word than "follow", no one has ever
>> questioned it in such detail.
>> 
>> If there's disagreement about advice given then there only needs to be a
>> willingness to discuss the matter.  Obviously there are votes if things get
>> out of hand but it's rare for things to go that far.  If committers are
>> unwilling to approach a disagreement with an open mind then it makes life
>> difficult for everyone.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Scott
>> 
>> On 18/10/2014, at 1:04 am, Pierre Smits  wrote:
>> 
>>> Scott,
>>> 
>>> Am I correct in understanding that any contributor with ambitions to be a
>>> committer should interpret your 'willing to follow advice' as
>> 'willingness
>>> to take good advice into consideration when acting within the community
>> or
>>> dealing with issues, but don't follow bad advice blindly'? Your 'willing
>> to
>>> follow' sounds a lot like 'must follow'. I trust that wasn't your
>>> intention...
>>> 
>>> Or am I misinterpreting this?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Pierre Smits
>>> 
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM *
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Scott Gray 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 From my perspective the confluence document seems to outline everything
 pretty well.
 
 I think the 'trust' aspect would simply be that a voting PMC member is
 able to trust that a potential committer would fulfill the the outlined
 roles and responsibilities.  The 'attitude' would simply be that the
 potential committer is willing to follow advice and work well with
>> others.
 Neither of these things are so strange that they'd need to be further
 docume

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Pierre Smits]

Scott,

I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a
PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community.

For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss
contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best
interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus
of all within this community.

We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as
only one member of the PMC.

I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by
any kind of numbers? And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not
the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? Why is
this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason
for concern? And is this a concern of all PMC Members?

We have had very little complaints about such code commits up to now. And
if there were any, these issues were resolved quite fast. Isn't it so that
committers review code patches by contributors? And that it is part of the
responsibilities of committers. But we also know that committers review
committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to
do the right thing when committing changes, don't we?

Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be
concerned about? And that all within this community should be concerned
about this? That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes
to committing changes? And that we must have some kind of super-committer
policing the committers? With as a result of not having enough
super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more
eligible contributors are invited to be a committer?

I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC
Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his
viewpoint on this?

The controversy regarding commits I can think of (at the top of my head) is
that the PMC allows major extensions (improvements) to be committed without
prior review.

The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to
explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting
new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings
in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml,  and about 11 patches submitted and 2
publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and
PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years..

Though welcome the addition is, this contradicts anything of the concerns
you expressed.

Again, I understand and accept that you are expressing only your viewpoint.
So again, I invite every other PMC Member to share her or his viewpoint as
well. So that the entire community can learn how this issue, this
controversy is regarded in the entire PMC.

As always, and discussing with an open mind,

Best regards,


Pierre Smits

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

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Ron Wheeler]

I wonder if some of this could be solved by breaking the project into 
sub-projects.
This would allow the "super-committers" to focus on those projects where 
the risk of incorrect code being submitted is high or where the impact 
of coding missteps would have the biggest impact on the overall 
stability and reliability of the entire suite.


The projects where code errors are more easily detected or have only 
local impact could be tested and reviewed by people with different skills.
It would also encourage a clear delineation between projects which would 
reduce the scope of the impact of code errors.


It would also attract more reviewers and contributors since the scope of 
one's involvement would be clearer and would allow people to get active 
in areas that interest them.


At the moment it seems that the project is too big and too complex so 
that the current committers have too many areas to watch and are unsure 
about how to attract and vet new people.


It might also make the process of fiddling with the core much cleaner. 
If a committer on a sub-project needs to have a change to the core, they 
would have to request this and there would be a discussion about the 
impact on the core and other dependent projects.
It appears that this might be missing in the current setup and some of 
the "trust" issues have come about from experience where changes made to 
support a particular business case have had impacts that the contributor 
did not anticipate.



Ron


On 21/10/2014 9:27 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:

Scott,

I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a
PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community.

For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss
contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best
interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus
of all within this community.

We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as
only one member of the PMC.

I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by
any kind of numbers? And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not
the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? Why is
this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason
for concern? And is this a concern of all PMC Members?

We have had very little complaints about such code commits up to now. And
if there were any, these issues were resolved quite fast. Isn't it so that
committers review code patches by contributors? And that it is part of the
responsibilities of committers. But we also know that committers review
committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to
do the right thing when committing changes, don't we?

Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be
concerned about? And that all within this community should be concerned
about this? That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes
to committing changes? And that we must have some kind of super-committer
policing the committers? With as a result of not having enough
super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more
eligible contributors are invited to be a committer?

I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC
Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his
viewpoint on this?

The controversy regarding commits I can think of (at the top of my head) is
that the PMC allows major extensions (improvements) to be committed without
prior review.

The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to
explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting
new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings
in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml,  and about 11 patches submitted and 2
publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and
PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years..

Though welcome the addition is, this contradicts anything of the concerns
you expressed.

Again, I understand and accept that you are expressing only your viewpoint.
So again, I invite every other PMC Member to share her or his viewpoint as
well. So that the entire community can learn how this issue, this
controversy is regarded in the entire PMC.

As always, and discussing with an open mind,

Best regards,


Pierre Smits

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




--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Scott Gray]

How is it that you are able to extract so many paragraphs out of the few 
sentences I wrote?

What are you trying to achieve here?  As far as I can tell you're the only one 
who has questions about how a contributor becomes a committer.  How much detail 
is required for something that requires a nomination and then a vote?  It's a 
pretty straightforward process.

I'll try and respond quickly to sentences posed at questions but I'd really 
rather not continue to this spiral into deeper and deeper discussion.

> I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by
> any kind of numbers?

it isn't but it's historically been the case and I haven't noticed it change.  
Feel free to look up some numbers if you like.

> And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not
> the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof?

No, it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and 
it doesn't require any special access to perform.

> Why is
> this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason
> for concern?

It always been a concern of mine, nothing new in it.  I didn't know we were 
discussing how to get more committers, the thread started out with you querying 
some of Jacopo's wording.

> And is this a concern of all PMC Members?

I have no idea, we don't hold secret meetings to discuss such things.

> Isn't it so that
> committers review code patches by contributors?

Of course the committer that intends to commit the patch reviews it.  But who 
reviews the committer?

> But we also know that committers review
> committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to
> do the right thing when committing changes, don't we?

It's not about doing the "right thing", it's about reviewing each others work 
to ensure quality.  Reviews are not about catching a committer intentionally 
doing something wrong, that's a silly idea.

> Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be
> concerned about?

No, I'm saying it is something I'm concerned about.  

> And that all within this community should be concerned
> about this?

I guess so.

> That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes
> to committing changes?

You're stretching a long bow on that one and I never said anything like that.  
This is one of the frustrating parts of discussing anything with you, you like 
to take small statements and make outrageous claims based on them. 
No one commits perfect code and code review is an important part of open source.

> And that we must have some kind of super-committer
> policing the committers?

Not at all, anyone can review a commit, there is no hierarchy in this community 
dictating that one must somehow be superior to another in order to question 
them.  Surely this thread is proof of that?

> With as a result of not having enough
> super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more
> eligible contributors are invited to be a committer?

The bow stretches further and further.  I have no idea how the entire PMC 
feels.  I was merely stating that I think it is a bigger problem than a lack of 
committers.

> I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC
> Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his
> viewpoint on this?

I've quite clearly stated a few times in this thread that I don't speak for 
Jacopo.  That statement feels like you're trying to troll me when I'm taking 
time out to discuss your questions with you and I don't appreciate it.

> The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to
> explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting
> new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings
> in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml,  and about 11 patches submitted and 2
> publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and
> PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years..

You've obviously spent some time doing some serious counting there.  To what 
end?  Do you have some issue with the outcome of those votes?  Keep in mind 
however that a few numbers don't in themselves mean anything.  The value of a 
contribution can't be measured by how many emails were sent.



On 22/10/2014, at 2:27 pm, Pierre Smits  wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a
> PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community.
> 
> For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss
> contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best
> interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus
> of all within this community.
> 
> We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as
> only one member of the PMC.
> 
> I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of 

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Adrian Crum]

I am not speaking for Scott, but I want to clarify something here.

Many times these discussions imply that there is some kind of hierarchy 
in the community - with the PMC being in charge. As has been stated 
before, the PMC has very little authority, and the hierarchy that is 
implied in these discussions goes against the spirit of this community - 
where we are all peers.


So, the PMC does not "allow" things, nor does it "prohibit" things. At 
most, the PMC will advise - and that advice carries with it the 
collective experience of its members. But, like any advice, it can be 
ignored.


I know there are some in the community who would like to see the PMC 
take on a statist role and exercise more control over the community, but 
that is not going to happen.


Regarding commit review: There are no metrics for commit review other 
than the messages on the dev mailing list. When you see a reply to a 
commit message, that reply is a de-facto commit review. Looking through 
the dev mailing list history will give you a good sense of the review 
activity. Even then, the metric is not accurate because commits might be 
reviewed without generating a reply.


Personally, I try to review framework commits. My free time is very 
limited, so I need to prioritize what I review. From my perspective, a 
regression introduced in an application (where it affects only one 
application) is not as serious as a regression introduced in the 
framework (where it affects ALL applications).


This is my review strategy based on my preference - it has nothing to do 
with the PMC. The PMC does not tell me what to review and how much to 
review.


So, when you say things like: "the PMC allows major extensions 
(improvements) to be committed without prior review" - you are 
misunderstanding how this community works. The PMC does not "allow" or 
"prohibit" commits.


If there is a concern about a commit, the PMC will offer advice about 
that commit. That advice can be ignored. If anyone strongly objects to 
the commit, then the commit can be vetoed by a PMC member - in which 
case the commit SHOULD be reverted (this depends on the cooperation of 
the committer).


There was one case of a committer who refused to revert a vetoed commit, 
and threatened a commit war if anyone else tried to revert it. That 
resulted in a year-long discussion, and eventually the committer 
grudgingly agreed to let someone else revert the commit. That episode 
resulted in hurt feelings and it seriously undermined the cooperation in 
the community. I mention it because I want to stress the importance of 
mutual cooperation - without it, the community breaks down. It also 
illustrates the self-imposed limitations the PMC has - the PMC did not 
"kick out" the uncooperative committer, but instead continued to plead 
for common sense and cooperation.


So, that is how this community works. We are all volunteers, we are all 
members of a minarchist community, and we all need to compromise and get 
along with each other for the benefit of the common good.


Adrian Crum
Sandglass Software
www.sandglass-software.com

On 10/22/2014 2:27 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:

Scott,

I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a
PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community.

For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss
contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best
interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus
of all within this community.

We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as
only one member of the PMC.

I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by
any kind of numbers? And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not
the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? Why is
this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason
for concern? And is this a concern of all PMC Members?

We have had very little complaints about such code commits up to now. And
if there were any, these issues were resolved quite fast. Isn't it so that
committers review code patches by contributors? And that it is part of the
responsibilities of committers. But we also know that committers review
committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to
do the right thing when committing changes, don't we?

Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be
concerned about? And that all within this community should be concerned
about this? That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes
to committing changes? And that we must have some kind of super-committer
policing the committers? With as a result of not having enough
super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more
eligible contributors are invited to be a committer?

I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[Jacques Le Roux]

Le 22/10/2014 08:17, Scott Gray a écrit :
it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. 


A very important point, thanks to highlight that Scott!

jacques
PS: sorry if I tore too much parts apart, I just want to highlight it even more!

Re: OFBiz and Attitude & Trust

[gil portenseigne]

Hi Jacques, i felt the same !

So +1 !

Gil
Le 22/10/2014 11:59, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :


Le 22/10/2014 08:17, Scott Gray a écrit :
it's a community issue, code review is an important part of 
open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. 


A very important point, thanks to highlight that Scott!

jacques
PS: sorry if I tore too much parts apart, I just want to highlight it 
even more!



--



Gil Portenseigne
Consultant ERP OFBiz
Société Néréide
3b Les isles
37270 Veretz
Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61
Mob : 06 82 740 444
www.nereide.fr 

Membre d'OFBiz France
www.ofbiz-fr.org