Hi folks, Warning up front, parsing this mail will take some time, there are many external references that will need to be read, feel free to stop now and get coffee, tea, or $beverage first. :)
It struck me right before I got on a plane early this morning that we were doing a lot of saying there are problems, without providing good examples of projects who do it right, so at best it's frustrating, and at worse we'll turn it into a Sisyphean task with no end in sight. So - I specifically want to talk about my concerns about project direction. I am going to pull some examples out, if you are affected, my apologies, I am not picking on you as an individual, I just want to provide explicit case points that we can talk about and compare with some other projects: So - lets starts with SENTRY-621 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-621 https://reviews.apache.org/r/30267/ So from my perspective - I see the ticket created. It has the very simple description: "Add new thrift interface for import/export in sentry" ~20 minutes later the code was uploaded to review board, and is several thousand lines of code, which suggests to me it wasn't developed in the 20 intervening minutes. Looking at dev@ mailing list, I can't find a discussion about this, which gives me pause to wonder where was it decided that this functionality was needed? I also wonder who decided that it was needed. I should also disclaim - I know I have several biases, I have those because of projects I've worked on both here at the ASF and elsewhere. I also tend to be a bit cynical, and I work for a company that develops and sells software, and so my mind interprets the above as: $company product manager decided (via whatever process) that a Thrift interface for import/export into Sentry was needed. A developer was tasked with working on the issue. The project community, appears to not have been consulted, but The result is code being developed, several thousand lines worth. Then a ticket being created so that it could be tracked, and then the patch submitted. Does this make sense? I may be completely off base, my biases may be reading into it, and I'd be thrilled to be wrong. To reiterate the questions: 1. Where was it decided that Sentry needed this functionality (link please) 2. Who decided it? 3. When was it decided? So - lets talk about one method of this happening in another Apache project: Implementing Azure in jclouds: There are multiple threads on the mailing list about this: http://jclouds.markmail.org/thread/2tp3szzv7bqumlzb http://jclouds.markmail.org/thread/tr7lmaozq45nvkp2 http://jclouds.markmail.org/thread/c37peurxkp6qrazd http://jclouds.markmail.org/thread/3kcfdrupmd6he3li Admittedly this is a much larger feature. It involves many more people, but take a look at the differences. Perhaps a smaller feature is in order, let's look at a smaller one: This is a bug fix: http://cloudstack.markmail.org/thread/n3gn3w4dawivw6gh Here's the original user complaining about it on a mailing list: http://markmail.org/message/nth7qck27s2chwoc?q=VMsync+issues+with+VRs%3F Look at the amount of discussion that's going on. Does it bother me that SENTRY-621 didn't have that level of discussion. Not inherently, but when I see virtually none of that kind of discussion going on for weeks at a time, but I see a dev list with virtually nothing but Review Requests, it causes me some concern. And just for the record, jclouds and CloudStack aren't perfect. And they occasionally get it wrong. Here's a great link if you want to read about one such occurrence of it going horribly wrong (and some of the resulting ire): http://blog.remibergsma.com/2015/05/23/making-xenserver-and-cloudstack-sing-and-dance-together-again/ Releases: Releases are another big warning flag, and specifically how the project is deciding when to release: Some projects, have a fixed schedule for releases. Every n weeks they release a new version. Some projects wait until there's enough change and discuss it. I'm not aware of either happening in Sentry. Here's a couple of examples: This is the 4.4.4 release of CloudStack being discussed: http://cloudstack.markmail.org/thread/on3n3mllxoxcc5gb CloudStack in general strives for a feature release every 4 months (it rarely runs on time, but it gives a general sense for people to know what to expect). Bug fix releases are generally on demand based on feedback from users or developers finding a particularly nasty bug. Jclouds on the other hand is different, feature versions are fluid, but planned, while bug fix releases tend to be on a pretty regular schedule of a few weeks: In example, here's the 1.7.0 timing thread. http://jclouds.markmail.org/thread/oju2le7afs6gh2p6 I can't find anything like that for Sentry. Has Sentry discussed and agreed upon a predefined schedule? How does the user community know what to expect out of a project for upcoming releases? How would a new developer, for instance, know how to plan development work to target a specific release? I'd love to find links here, but I am coming up empty. The very cynical side of me worries that someone outside of the PPMC is deciding 'we need Sentry 1.5.0' or something similar. Thanks for reading this far; I hope this makes sense. If not PLEASE ask questions. I am sorry your coffee or tea is now cold :) I'll also say, this is NOT a task list. This is really about discussing and defining how the project plans to operate. --David On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for putting together this list Prasad, let's start knocking these > items off. It seems like there is a lot of low hanging fruit. > > Thanks, > Lenni > On Jun 5, 2015 10:44 AM, "Prasad Mujumdar" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @Mentors, monthly reports are fine if that's helping to show the >> progress in the project. >> >> As discussed on the private@, here's the summary of the action items for >> the community in order to address the concerns - >> - Update the website for status file. - Tracked via SENTRY-759 >> - Fix the mailing list archive link on Sentry page - Tracked via SENTRY-759 >> - Review and Update 'How to xxx' steps - Tracked via SENTRY-759 >> - Start discussion thread on dev@ about adding a project roadmap page on >> wiki - Pending >> - Add/improve committer/ppmc responsibilities listing on the wiki - Tracked >> via SENTRY-760 >> - Add release discussion step in how to release - Tracked via SENTRY-760 >> - Create checklist for how to vote on release - Tracked via SENTRY-760 >> >> Based on the current feedback, we will add monthly reporting to the PPMC >> responsibilities. Patrick's suggestion of community members volunteering in >> advance for next report sounds good. We could try that for next few >> reports. >> >> thanks >> Prasad >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 for the idea. >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I suspect that not getting the report out early is a side effect of not >> > > having a specific person assigned to generate the report. Everyone >> > assumes >> > > everyone else will do it. Perhaps it would help if you identified a >> > > particular person, at the start of each period, who is responsible for >> > the >> > > next report? >> > > >> > > Patrick >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Sravya Tirukkovalur < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > My sincere apologies for not being able to put together the report >> much >> > > in >> > > > advance. I did send out the email one day prior, so that members of >> all >> > > > time zones get a chance to review though, but I agree sooner would >> have >> > > > been definitely better. Also I was not really sure if the concerns >> > raised >> > > > should be listed in the board report or they were mostly for the >> > podling >> > > > members to keep track, rectify and improve on it. >> > > > >> > > > Community has started working on the concerns raised and hoping to >> > > resolve >> > > > most of it soon. And I see that most of the product discussions >> happen >> > on >> > > > jira/review board, but I agree that it will be good to start >> > discussions >> > > > first on dev list for more community involvement. >> > > > >> > > > As we cannot edit the report now, I think it is fair enough to submit >> > > > monthly reports for a bit until we resolve all the concerns raised. >> > > > >> > > > Thanks! >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, at 03:44 AM, David Nalley wrote: >> > > > > > Hi folks: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I apologize for a lack of engagement of late. That has caused >> > > > > > problems. (lack of oversight on the release vote for instance) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I left comments on the board report about concerns I have, and >> > wanted >> > > > > > to ensure that it's a conversation we continue and that it >> doesn't >> > > > > > just get lost. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So here are my comments - and one of the links will not work for >> > you, >> > > > > > but do work for the board members and IPMC members reviewing the >> > > board >> > > > > > report. My goal is not to beat up, or complain, but ensure that >> > > things >> > > > > > improve and that this projects successfully graduates. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > dn: Recently during the conversation around graduation, mentors >> > have >> > > > > > raised a number of concerns. The gravest of these is concerns >> > > > > > around where project direction is occurring. >> > > > > > See http://s.apache.org/sentrygraddiscussion for more detail. >> > > > > > Additionally, it was discovered that Sentry did not follow the >> > > > > > Incubator release process for the 1.5.0 release - though that is >> > now >> > > > > > being rectified on general@ - see: >> > > > > > http://s.apache.org/sentryreleaseissue >> > > > > > I am somewhat concerned that the report mentions neither of these >> > > > > > things and for that reason, I am withholding signoff. >> > > > > >> > > > > Full agreement here. Also, I'm disappointed after the feedback I've >> > > > > given elsewhere that -- once again -- the board report is being >> > pulled >> > > > > together at the last minute without the opportunity for actual >> > > community >> > > > > review of the report. The community should have at least 72 hours >> to >> > > > > review something like this for proper discussion. >> > > > > >> > > > > I see an enormous disconnect between the project's report and the >> > > > > reality. There are very serious concerns about the podling that >> have >> > > > > been expressed to the project and they are not reflected here. >> > > > > >> > > > > > I also think it would be reasonable for the podling to report >> > monthly >> > > > > > for the next three months or so to report on progress dealing >> with >> > > > > > these issues. >> > > > > >> > > > > +1 >> > > > > >> > > > > > --David >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > Thank you all for proof reading! I just posted the report to >> > > > incubator >> > > > > wiki. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Gregory Chanan < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> lgtm. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Greg >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Lenni Kuff < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > +1 - lgtm, thanks for writing this up Sravya. >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Prasad Mujumdar < >> > > > > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > Looks fine to me. Thanks Sravya. >> > > > > > >> > > +1 >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > thanks >> > > > > > >> > > Prasad >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Sravya Tirukkovalur < >> > > > > > >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you Prasad for the feedback! Made the changes. >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Prasad Mujumdar < >> > > > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks Sravya for putting this together! Looks >> mostly >> > > > > fine. A >> > > > > > >> few >> > > > > > >> > > > minor >> > > > > > >> > > > > comments/suggestions below - >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > bq. Sentry community is getting ready for graduation. >> > > > > > >> > > > > I am not sure if we want to mention that under >> "issues" >> > > > > section. >> > > > > > >> How >> > > > > > >> > > > about >> > > > > > >> > > > > adding that to community or project section ? >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Date of last release - IMO we should wait for IPMC >> vote >> > > for >> > > > > new >> > > > > > >> > > release. >> > > > > > >> > > > We >> > > > > > >> > > > > can mention the new release vote underway in the >> > community >> > > > > section. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > thanks >> > > > > > >> > > > > Prasad >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur < >> > > > > > >> > [email protected] >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Here is a draft of report [1]. Please let me know if >> > you >> > > > > have any >> > > > > > >> > > > > > suggestions. As we need to submit this today, I will >> > > wait >> > > > > for >> > > > > > >> > > another 6 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > hours before submitting it on incubator page. If I >> > > receive >> > > > > > >> feedback >> > > > > > >> > > > after >> > > > > > >> > > > > > that I will update it directly there. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1]: >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/June+2015 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > > > >> > > > Sravya Tirukkovalur >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > Sravya Tirukkovalur >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > >> > > > > jzb >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Joe Brockmeier >> > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > Twitter: @jzb >> > > > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Sravya Tirukkovalur >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sravya Tirukkovalur >> > >>
