Agreed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Will Stevens
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:41 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Steve Wilson
> Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process
> 
> I am speaking as a committer who has limited insight into the 'correct' way 
> to do
> this via Apache (so be gentle).  :)
> 
> I like the idea of a wiki page to help get everyone on the same page and to 
> track
> the consensus as we move forward...
> 
> I also agree that it is hard to come to a consensus on the list because it is 
> really
> hard to have a constructive conversation on here in a timely manner where the
> different voices can be heard.
> 
> I think it would be interesting to schedule sessions/meetings on the list so 
> any
> interested party can join.  These sessions/meetings would happen in a format
> like IRC where the transcript of the session can be later posted to the list 
> as well
> as a summary of the transcript so it can be reviewed by any member who could
> not make the meeting.  This way we keep all of the actual conversation in the
> list, but we also make it easier to actually have a 'conversation' at the 
> same time.
> It is hard to beat real time when working through this sort of stuff.
> 
> Does this make sense to others?  Thoughts?
> 
> Will
> 
> 
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
> 
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw
> @CloudOps_
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wearing my PMC hat and with past experience on these discussions we
> > have not made much progress on mailing list despite agreeing on the
> > goals and have locked horns. One possibility after reading Chip's
> > email and concerns I see is that, we create a wiki outlining the
> > problem space, possible
> > solution(s) and their specific pros and cons and have people collaborate.
> > Once a general consensus is there and wiki is stable we can bring it
> > back to the mailing list for final approval. This is open as well as
> > requires participant a higher degree of commitment to collaborate and
> > will be more structured.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Animesh
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Chip Childers
> > > <chipchild...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > Steve,
> > > >
> > > > (Speaking with my PMC hat on, but not as someone that has the time
> > > > to help with this process)
> > > >
> > > > I love the idea of moving forward with resolving some of the
> > > > quality process / tooling / etc... challenges that we face as a
> > > > project and community. I also love the idea that companies getting
> > > > commercial value from this project are talking (as companies)
> > > > about how to best support the project through either directing
> > > > their employees to work on this problem, allowing those interested
> > > > the time to do so, and / or offering (as Citrix did) required
> > > > hardware/software resources to make improvements for the common
> > > > good.  Importantly, I like that the companies involved are
> > > > mutually agreeing that this is for the common good.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I have a concern about the outline below, specifically
> > > > in how the definition of approach and eventual execution are handled.
> > > > The proposal of taking this off-list until there is a "proposal to
> > ratify"
> > > > is what I'd like to see changed. I would fully expect that a
> > > > fleshed out proposal hitting the list would be met with more
> > > > discussion than you would like (and perhaps even met with frustration).
> > > >
> > > > What has worked well for us in the past, where there is a need to
> > > > have those interested in "doing work" to be able to focus on that
> > > > work, has been to start with a call for interested parties (as you
> > > > did). Then, using a combination of threads on this list and "live"
> > > > meetings, make progress on defining the requirements and approach
> incrementally.
> > > > Execution of any work should similarly be open and shared on this list.
> > > > Throughout that process, allowing comments and openings for
> > > > participants are critical.
> > > >
> > > > One of the things we learned about using "live" meetings to speed
> > > > up the consensus process in the past is to make sure that while
> > > > they are fantastic at allowing the participants to understand each
> > > > other, it's critical to remember that (1) there are no project
> > > > decisions made outside of the mailing lists and (2) that it's
> > > > important to have minutes or notes from those live meetings shared
> > > > with the community as
> > a
> > > whole.
> > > >
> > > > Now a very real concern that some of us have is getting bogged
> > > > down in arguments based on opinion, especially the "drive by"
> > > > opinions. This issue (plus challenges with people violently
> > > > agreeing with each other, yet talking past each other), is what I
> > > > believe has held up meaningful progress. To deal with this, I
> > > > suggest we all remember that projects at the ASF are about
> > > > supporting those that "DO", while giving opportunity for
> > > > participation and comment from those that might not currently be
> > > > "DOING". But those that are doing the work, and collaborating to
> > > > reach a shared goal, shouldn't let a lack of 100% consensus on every
> aspect hold back progress.
> > > >
> > > > As someone who will not be "doing" anything for this effort, but
> > > > has an interest in maintaining this community's health and seeing
> > > > it continue to succeed, I hope my suggestions and comments are helpful.
> > > >
> > > > -chip
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:12:27PM +0000, Steve Wilson wrote:
> > > >> Hi Everyone,
> > > >>
> > > >> It was great to get to see a number of you at the recent CCC in
> > Budapest.
> > > While I was there, I got to meet face to face with individuals
> > > working
> > for several
> > > companies that have a real stake in the commercial success of the
> > CloudStack
> > > project.
> > > >>
> > > >> After joining Citrix (and becoming involved in CloudStack) about
> > > >> a
> > year ago,
> > > I’ve come to believe that we need to do more to mature our quality
> > practices
> > > around this codebase.  We all like to say #cloudstackworks (and it’s
> > true), but
> > > this is a massive codebase that’s used in the most demanding
> > situations.  We
> > > have large telecommunications companies and enterprises who are
> > > betting
> > their
> > > businesses on this software.  It has to be great!
> > > >>
> > > >> There has been quite a bit of discussion on the mailing list in
> > recent months
> > > about how we improve in this area.  There is plenty of passion, but
> > > we
> > haven’t
> > > made enough concrete progress as a community.  In my discussions
> > > with key contributors as CCC, there was general agreement that the
> > > DEV list isn’t
> > a good
> > > forum for hashing out these kinds of things.  Email is too
> > > low-bandwidth
> > and too
> > > impersonal.
> > > >>
> > > >> At CCC, I discussed with several people the idea that we
> > > >> commission a
> > small
> > > sub team to go hash out a proposal for how we handle the following
> > > topics within the ACS community (which can then be brought back to
> > > the larger community for ratification):
> > > >>
> > > >>   *   Continuous integration and test automation
> > > >>   *   Gating of commits
> > > >>   *   Overall commit workflow
> > > >>
> > > >> We are looking for volunteers to commit to being part of this team.
> > This
> > > would imply a serious commitment.  We don’t want hangers on or observers.
> > > This will entail real work and late night meetings.  We’re looking
> > > for
> > people who
> > > are serious contributors to the codebase.
> > > >>
> > > >> From Citrix, David Nalley and Animesh Chaturvedi have booth told
> > > >> me
> > they’re
> > > willing to commit to this project.  They’ve both managed ACS
> > > releases
> > and have
> > > a really good view into the current process — and I know both are
> > passionate
> > > about improving our process.  From my CCC discussions, I believe
> > > there
> > are
> > > individuals from Schuberg Philis, Shape Blue and Cloud Ops who are
> > willing to
> > > commit to this process.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you are willing to be part of this team to drive forward our
> > community,
> > > please reply here.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> -Steve
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve Wilson
> > > >> VP & Product Unit Manager
> > > >> Cloud Software
> > > >> Citrix
> > > >> @virtualsteve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> >

Reply via email to