Let's fixed the time off the ML: http://doodle.com/xhp57mymv7hyim55
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > having said so, I propose to set a date for our first (irc/goto) meeting; > > wednesday 10 december 16:00 UTC? > [Animesh] Can we push it out by 1 hour to 17:00 UTC, the current time > falls out on my time for dropping kids to school. If it does not work for > others I can join @14:00 UTC (6:00 AM PST) > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Will Stevens <wstev...@cloudops.com> > > wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan >
