On 12/01/2019 15:05, Huxing Zhang wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:48 PM Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 10/01/2019 08:59, chenwei qi wrote: >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Thanks for your kindly review. I will answer your questions orderly as >>> following: >>> >>>> Who is the "we" that will be checking? >>> The PPMC members will check the list and they will decide the checking >>> date. As the meetup will be held on Jan.19, I suggest the check works from >>> Jan.14 to Jan.16, last 3 days. >>> >>>> What will they be checking for? >>> As it is the 1st time Apache Dubbo™ Meetup will be held in Guangzhou, face >>> to face discussion among deep users there can be useful. But the meetup >>> registration can be up to 300-400, too many for discussion. Check from the >>> registration information is to select out the deep user. >>> >>>> Where is the on-list discussion that decided a) that checking was >>> required and b) what to check for? >>> The criteria of user selection is not suitable to be discussed publicly, I >>> think it is better to discuss with Dubbo PPMC privately. >> >> You appear to have missed the key point. >> >> A whole bunch of decisions appear to have been made about a Dubbo event >> with ZERO discussion of those decisions on any Dubbo mailing list. >> Public or private. > > The discussion happened on mailing list from initializing the > event[1], calling for talks [2] to the schedule[3]. > The process for invite a small group of users was discussed there[3].
No, it wasn't. The decision to have an "End User Discussion" session was made entirely off-list. There was no discussion of the criteria that would be used to select invites either yet from somewhere (i.e. not on list) a survey was developed that attendees had to fill in if they wanted to be invited to this session. Neither was there any discussion of which talks to select or any other aspect of the schedule on-list before the final schedule was presented. > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff3a0797e15256738280647f6604e7f5f8eaf6299efe859ced85b5f0@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/45364fe72f1b2c7bfb1d01f736316775c9ca99a0d9964c68dfa043e3@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E > [3] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ef1b4e039954554082a15faa78bc04b234d04348aaa46d816a690339@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E > >> That is simply not how podlings are expected to >> operate. What is most worrying is that at no point did any PPMC member >> say during these off-list discussions "Hang on. We should be doing this >> on the mailing list." > > I think there is some misunderstanding about who should be running the > event. It is the PPMCs who should be running this event, but the fact > is that most of the work are done by organizers, rather than PPMCs. If an event is to presented as a podling meet-up then it needs to be organised by the podling, on list. If it is organised by a third-party then it should be presented as a third-party event, not a podling event. The original message claimed that the PPMC would be organising the event. I can find every little evidence of that being the case in either the public or private archives. > I > didn't pay too much attention on this, which is my fault I don't view this as a failing of any one individual. Learning how this stuff works is part of being a podling. I did think that the podling was further along in this than appears to be the case. > and I agree > that the event organizers should work more closely with the PPMC. The > organizers are fresh to Apache way, which is quite different from > their day-to-day work, so I think it may take some time for them to > get used to it. I will keep an eye on this, and trying my best to > encourage them to be on the list. > > >> >> I also disagree that the criteria need to be discussed in private but >> that point is debatable. > > I am not sure it should go public or not until I see the criteria, so > I think we should discuss it privately first, if the PPMC decides that > it can go publicly, then we can announce it later. Fair enough. Mark
