Done
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pd...@cloudops.com] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:57 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process > > 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 > >
