The key concern that triggered the Sentry graduation mega-thread and its offshoots was that decisions were being made outside of mailing list by a select few people in the hallways. That concern was put to rest by clarification of how Sentry has been using JIRA as a primary means of discussion. From a graduation perspective, I feel this issue is resolved.
The issue about RTC/CTR is for the project to decide and as long as code is getting committed, contributions are welcome from all, and releases are being made - that too is not a issue from graduation perspective. The use of maturity model is a good thing to turn a subjective read into a measurable/objective score and is a great idea, but as has been established in the discussions, not a requirement for graduation. Which leaves us to the final issue which is truly concerning - the lack of new PPMC members. I took the time to go through the history of all PPMC conversations on the private list to see if there was any systemic issue stopping the inclusion of new PPMC members. What I found however was quite to the contrary - that all the PPMC discussions have mostly been around getting new committers in or creating board reports. The one time that the PPMC did talk about changing a policy - it cited a thread that was already voted on by the dev list [1]. This implies to me that the PPMC has driven project direction by broader consensus, and thus effectively empowered all committers and even contributors to guide it's direction already. Hence, for Sentry moving to the model where Committer == PPMC is the right thing for the project, and is perhaps happening implicitly already. By making this explicit, these new committers will be able to participate in the committer votes which will greatly benefit the project further. Last but not least - I am aware that not all mentors of the project think alike. Hence I don't want to make any representation on behalf of other mentors but would strongly encourage them to participate in this thread and share their views in case they disagree with any of my assessments above. [1] http://s.apache.org/nyp Regards, Arvind Prabhakar On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for summarizing things Sravya. > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Hi Sentry community, > > > > We have had discussions about Sentry on general@ as well as dev@ around > > its > > readiness to graduate and current project workflows. It was good to see > > many folks on IPMC chiming in the discussion (~150 long thread). There > are > > multiple discussions happening on that thread [1] , including more > general > > discussions about the state of the Incubator. I want to summarize some of > > the topics discussed so we can discuss how these relate to Sentry. Would > > also like to hear from the mentors if there is anything I missed here: > > > > 1. Importance of PPMC growth - should committer == PMC? > > > > Agree that building a successful community involves both growing committers > as well as growing the PPMC. We should consider how we can encourage > community growth at both the committer and PMC level. One topic brought up > in the general@ thread was around the distinction between Committer and > PMC > member. Sentry currently treats committer != PPMC. However, there are many > other projects that treat committer == PPMC while in incubation. It's been > two years since the project started and we have many new community members > - it would be good to revisit whether our initial model is still what makes > sense. Perhaps we should move to a Committer == PPMC model? This can > probably be spun off into its own discussion thread, interested to hear > other people's thoughts. > > > > > 2. Balance of discussions on Jira versus email > > > > This was interesting. For Sentry, we have been having lots of good > discussions on JIRA and Review Board. This seems to have worked well. One > thing I think we should really encourage is for design discussions, roadmap > discussions, etc all be held on the dev list rather than on JIRA. If you > are solving a hard problem leverage the community to get input. > > > > 3. CTR (Commit then Review) versus RTC (Review then commit) > > > > There is a great discussion continuing on this topic on general@ right > now. > I'm think it is very project dependent. If you are interested I encourage > taking a look and jumping in to this thread: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3CCADY20s7VZzHA2BVN7oERHFA6AfeCeKj3MMtLb%2BNv-HX6uyvhkw%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > 4. Should podlings fill the maturity model template. > > > > IMO, this seems like a useful thing to go through prior to graduation. It > seems like it has some good topics to think through and see how those apply > to Sentry. I'm not in favor of having all graduating project fill this out, > but given the healthy discussion that has been going on around Sentry > (including some misconceptions) maybe we should do this. > > > > > > It would be good to start discussing these within our community to get > > every ones thoughts on these topics and if we want to consider any > changes > > based on all the input we received. Ultimately, it's up to the community > to > > decide what works best for them. > > > > [1]: > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3C1446465555.3149570.426574697.76AAA52B%40webmail.messagingengine.com%3E > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Sravya Tirukkovalur > > >
