On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 02:05 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > Thanks for the explanation Joe. It seems like you are suggesting a > process > that you have seen work in the past and that is great. But every project > is > different and not every project community will adopt the same process. > Hence I think this is not a valid ask.
Every "project" is not my concern. My concern is giving a thumbs up to a project and saying "this is ready to be a self-governing and self-perpetuating TLP at Apache where all people have a level playing ground to contribute." I don't see that with Sentry. The process currently seems non-transparent to me, and non-friendly to people currently not in the community. > If I extrapolate or read between the lines, I feel another issue being > pointed out or which has been eluded to in the past is - who decides > which > Jiras should be fixed, what features to create etc, specially when they > show up as Jira issues directly with patches that follow soon. It seems > that in some ways the lack of using mailing lists directly for discussion > is linked to this behavior of filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as > if following a roadmap that the community does not have control over. Please > pardon me if my interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. > But if it is right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in > my opinion at all. And here is why: So, basically you're saying "yes, direction for Sentry is being guided outside of Apache, but so what?" > When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to > comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the > project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be > quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If > that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community > participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that knows > where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them > intuitively. I know this because I too have been on the side of a project > much like Sentry - which was accused of not having a diverse community, > lack of email communication, and overload of Jira issues, and possibly > being guided by a silent hand that was not open to the community. Those > were wrong and misplaced concerns, and the project has always behaved in > the same way - even till today. Who is this project team of which you speak? Sorry, but no - when someone files a Jira, they're inviting people already involved in Sentry development to comment on it and provide feedback. If you're saying "hey, if somebody files a Jira and someone else objects, we'll listen" - that's great. If you're saying "this process is scalable and friendly to outsiders who might want to become part of the Sentry community, who are outside the current development team(s)," I strongly disagree. However, this is the standard that Apache projects should be held to - not merely "existing contributors/PMC members can provide feedback and object" but "newcomers can follow development and become involved without unreasonable barriers." > Going back to Sentry - I feel that the project team is desperately trying > to mend their ways to accommodate mentor requests but I don't think they > can, despite their best intentions. The whole idea of hangouts and calls > for the community seems like an unnecessary attempt at building community > when in fact they have a great community to begin with! The project was > functioning great as it was before, but our lack of appreciation for > their process has led to these efforts which I don't think are helping at all. > In fact these could be more damaging than before. Basically, "we're happy with Sentry the way it was before it came to Apache, why can't we be an Apache TLP without changing?!" I think it's fair to ask at this point why Sentry wants so badly to be an Apache project? You're basically saying "we know how other Apache projects work, but we don't want to do that." > Yes, we as mentors can guide them to a certain behavior but if what they > are doing works for them, complies with the Apache Way, then who are we > to question it? My point is, I don't believe that it does comply with the Apache Way. Sentry does not seem to be placing "community over code" in its processes. Technical decisions are not being made publicly. You've pretty much admitted as much here. We basically seem to be at an impasse. I can't in good conscience vote +1 or even +0 for Sentry to graduate at this point. I think at this point I'd like to open a discussion on general@ to see what other folks in the IPMC think -- if I'm way off base, then you can hold a vote and Sentry can graduate. But I'm now strongly -1 on Sentry graduating, and I don't see any value in continuing to offer advice or assistance that is unwanted. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier [email protected] Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
