Thanks for your input Stephan, very much appreciated! Replies inline: On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Stephan Erb <stephan....@blue-yonder.com> wrote:
> 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. > Fully agree on this. I will even go as far as making unofficial builds available for the time being if no one is opposed and if it's not against Apache policy to do so. > > 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. > Noted, thanks for bringing this up! > > 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. > I think this is a very valid way forward at this point. How does everyone else feel about this? > > Best regards, > Stephan > -Renan > > 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 > >> > >> > > > >
