Based on Doodle. Meeting is schedule for Dec 10th, 17h00 UTC. freenode: #cloudstack-meeting unless someone have a GTM.
Regards, On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
