Hey Renan, thanks again for bringing this up. In my experience, the pain comes from building, testing & voting rather the packaging scripts themselves. I therefore think we should discontinue building, but continue to maintain the scripts so that users can build them on their own when necessary.
We must be careful though with linking the ‘nightly jenkins builds’ on the website. We got called out for this once in the past and had to take the link down. We also see a lack of involvement in code reviews. I think we should consider setting up a more formal lazy consensus policy https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus : For example, patches maybe merged even with a single ‘ship it’ from a committer, if there is neither a ship-it nor a veto from other committers within 7 days. Best regards, Stephan From: Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham <sshanmug...@twitter.com> Reply-To: "user@aurora.apache.org" <user@aurora.apache.org> Date: Thursday, 17. May 2018 at 22:13 To: "d...@aurora.apache.org" <d...@aurora.apache.org> Cc: "user@aurora.apache.org" <user@aurora.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] State of the Community Hello Renan, I understand your frustration. I am a strong +1 for automating the release and voting process. I performed a release a while back and the process definitely needs it improve documentation at the least. If one of the members who are more familiar with this process can create a backlog, I will be happy to chip in. -Santhosh On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org<mailto:re...@apache.org>> wrote: All, Discussion has been open for 13 days and only one user has chimed in. Unfortunately it looks like talking point number one will be a serious concern going forward. I will give until tomorrow 12 PM San Francisco time for folks to voice their opinion on these issues. After tomorrow I will call a vote to cease distributions of official binary packages from versions 0.21.0 onwards until the process is automated and voting for the voting for the binary packages can be combined with the tar.gz release. Since no feedback was received regarding talking point three, the idea will be dropped. -Renan On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Renan DelValle <renanidelva...@gmail.com<mailto:renanidelva...@gmail.com>> wrote: > In some ways, that's some of the best feedback we can get. Very happy to > hear that Aurora is working fo well for Chartbeat. > > I do hope that you guys find some time to help us maintain the project. > Every little bit counts! > > -Renan > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Rick Mangi > <r...@chartbeat.com<mailto:r...@chartbeat.com>> wrote: > >> As strong users of aurora but weak contributors, we at Chartbeat >> apologize for our lack of participation. We’re several versions behind on >> mesos/aurora upgrades and that’s honestly because it works for us :) >> >> Going forward we’re hoping to be able to participate more, at least with >> testing new releases. >> >> We thank you though! >> >> Rick and the rest of Chartbeat Engineering >> >> >> > On May 4, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Renan DelValle >> > <re...@apache.org<mailto:re...@apache.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Hello all, >> > >> > I wanted to bring up a few points for discussion with the community. I'd >> > really like to hear what the community's thoughts are on these issues >> and >> > how can resolve them. >> > >> > 1. Lack of participation. This is due to many members moving on from the >> > project and becoming dormant. More concerning is the fact that our PMC >> > roster sits at 21 members [1] of which fewer than half have >> participated in >> > the project during the last 6 months. >> > >> > This inactivity has led the voting process for releases to be held up by >> > the inability to reach the required minimum 3 votes for releases (both >> > tar.gz and binary). Our latest binary packaging vote has been going on >> for >> > more than a month. [2] >> > >> > With the recent additions of Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham and Jordan Ly to >> the >> > Aurora PMC, we hope to mitigate this issue. >> > >> > It would be fantastic to see some initiative from long contributing >> members >> > to make a case for themselves for being considered for committer and/or >> PMC >> > membership. >> > >> > 2. Binary packages. While we have been struggling to get enough votes >> for >> > making the release official, the voting process has been marked by a >> lack >> > of enthusiasm from the community. >> > >> > I know that many folks are using these packages (including myself), but >> we >> > need to hear feedback when we call votes. It is not enough to stand by >> > silently if everything works; please let us know about it. >> > >> > As it stands, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for binary packages >> doesn't >> > justify the overhead involved in releasing them. Therefore I propose >> that >> > we drop official binary packages for the next release. This is up for >> > discussion and I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this. >> > >> > An alternative to ending binary packages would be to automate the >> process >> > on tar.gz releases, but that would most likely need to be a community >> > contribution. >> > >> > 3. Version 1.0. I realize this is a touchy subject. While other projects >> > that were started around the same time as Aurora, such as Mesos itself, >> > have gone on to make a 1.0 release (indicating the projects maturity), >> we >> > have stuck to our 0.X.0 releases. >> > >> > Aurora is a mature project wether it is labeled 0.X.0 or X.0.0, but I >> > wanted to bring up for discussion how everyone felt about making our >> next >> > release a 1.0 release to reflect the stability and maturity of the >> project. >> > >> > That is all from me, if anyone else has any other concerns regarding the >> > Aurora community, feel free to bring it up in this thread! >> > >> > -Renan >> > >> > >> > [1] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?aurora >> > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9df9d142408efffd11a1cdc5e4c1e3 >> > 67208cf8e618730f7c761b0f35@%3Cdev.aurora.apache.org<http://3Cdev.aurora.apache.org>%3E >> >> >
