Hi, On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Right, since there is still one week before the event, let's discuss it from now. > > 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. In next meetup, we should discuss the schedule privately before announcing the schedule. > > > [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 -- Best Regards！ Huxing
