+1 To what Chip had to say on this thread. My use of ownership was wrong and I actually meant "interest". I have also started on the producingoss.com as suggested by Rohit, looks like a good way to understand the working of a voluntary community.
So now that I am positive on the community feedback, I realise some of these may not work in the $dayjob but a good understanding can benefit both worlds. On 11/04/13 9:35 PM, "prasanna" <t...@apache.org> wrote: >Abhi - not to gang up on you and I'm glad to see you share your >opinions, concerns about release management and such. > >I see the problem you might be facing though. I think it would be >better to have your internal JIRA mirror the ASF JIRA. That way you >can triage as you please corporate style ;) in your internal JIRA and >not let that spill over into the Apache JIRA which should be left to >work community style. If a bug is assigned to someone on your internal >JIRA, then that person will come and assign the bug to themselves in >the community ASF JIRA when they have time to fix it. That, I think, >works well for both the community and corporates invested in the >project. > >HTH, > >On 11 April 2013 19:17, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> I believe it is possible to "mention" someone in a JIRA ticket in such a >> way that they get notified. Might this be an effective way of CCing >>someone >> into the conversation, without prescribing who should fix it? Might >>there >> be some room for exploration here? >> >> >> On Thursday, 11 April 2013, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: >> >>> Yes, I think we need to space our releases further apart. >>> I had big trouble when master was unstable for a while and specially on >>> VMware it was difficult to deploy and test features. Yes for each >>>issue I >>> could have shouted on mail list I saw people doing that but the fact is >>> that instability was around for a while. Doesn't it make sense that in >>>such >>> scenarios we could do things in a more pro active manner. Again I >>>donot see >>> much difference in asking someone on Jira to pick a issue vs sending a >>> email, but will agree to whatever the community decides here. >>> >>> Also community members should volunteer to own some part so that in >>>above >>> circumstances a person looking for some fix can approach that member, >>>once >>> again a suggestion. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Apr-2013, at 5:17 PM, "Noah Slater" >>><nsla...@apache.org<javascript:;>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Of course releases are important. >>> > >>> > But if our current cadence is putting too much pressure on the >>>community, >>> > one option might be to do our releases further apart from each >>>other. Or, >>> > we get strict about the principal of time based releases: i.e. if >>>your >>> > feature is not ready for the freeze, then it doesn't make it in. No >>>big >>> > deal. If it's ready for the next freeze, then we'll ship it then. >>> > >>> > Also, I may be reading your message wrong, but there's no need for >>>this >>> to >>> > be a divisive argument. There are no "sides" to this. As a >>>community, it >>> is >>> > up to us all to identify our problems, and figure out solutions. >>> > >>> > So what problems do you think we'll run in to if we stop assigning >>>the >>> > majority of bugs, and how do you think we can mitigate those >>>problems? Or >>> > do you have another idea in mind altogether? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 11 April 2013 12:40, Abhinandan Prateek < >>> abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com <javascript:;>>wrote: >>> > >>> >> I think it will be good if we also find out a process so that the >>> release >>> >> cycle is not affected by unclaimed bugs sitting out there. Here I am >>> >> assuming the releases are important. >>> >> >>> >> I guess the discussion has turned into keeping things free without >>> >> offering solutions to problems that that system will create. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 11/04/13 5:04 PM, "John Burwell" <jburw...@basho.com >>><javascript:;>> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 11, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Noah Slater >>><nsla...@apache.org<javascript:;>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11 April 2013 11:22, Abhinandan Prateek >>> >>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com <javascript:;>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 7-8 days is a huge time lost. I was suggesting that this to be 3 >>> days. >>> >>>>> Let >>> >>>>> other community members chime in too. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I should have replied to this in my previous missive. But I want >>>to >>> >>>> reenforce how unhealthy I believe this practice is. 7-8 days, or >>>even >>> 3 >>> >>>> days "being a huge time loss" makes absolutely no sense to me at >>>all. >>> >>>> Assigning a bug should not mean it gets fixed any faster. If it >>>does, >>> >>>> then >>> >>>> we need to change the way we are working. (And if this means >>>changing >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> JIRA ticket workflow, then so be it. If something isn't working >>>for >>> us, >>> >>>> we >>> >>>> change it.) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should think of >>>assigning >>> >>>> bugs >>> >>>> as an exclusionary practice. Every time you assign a bug, you're >>> >>>> shutting >>> >>>> out the community. That's how we should think about it. Assign the >>> bug, >>> >>>> shut out the community. And so, I would say we should try to avoid >>> doing >>> >>>> it, unless it is absolutely necessary. (Such as when you're >>> >>>> co-ordinating >>> >>>> some release critical work, or when you, yourself, are about to >>>start >>> >>>> work >>> >>>> on something. Of course, it's perfectly fine to shut out the >>> community, >>> >>>> if >>> >>>> you're doing that at the same time as starting work on something!) >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> NS >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > NS >>> >> >> >> -- >> NS
