When do we call the result of the doodle? wait for wednesday? On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for listening to my concerns folks... and I'll be rooting for those > of you that are "doing" to come up with some better practices for the > community to adopt! > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > >>
-- Daan
