As I stated (hopefully clearly) on the recent general@ list I believe this podling is ready to graduate. I don't feel I have much to add at this point.
Patrick On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > IMO, this is a non issue for Sentry as current approach is working out > very well, and I do not see a reason changing it. > > > > 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. > > > > I agree this is a non issue for the graduation, but some thing which > helps > in getting a perspective on path to graduation especially for the folks who > are not involved in the community on a day to day basis. Any volunteers to > take a stab at it? > > 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. > > > > +1 here. I agree we should formally promote folks to PPMC, although we > implicitly have all long time contributors(committers) participating in > most of the PMC responsibilities[1]. Would love to hear thoughts from > others here, especially around reasons why PPMC = Committer worked out well > (or not?) in other podlings. And also thoughts on making all committers > PPMCs at the time of graduation. > > 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 > > > > [1]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members > > Regards, > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sravya Tirukkovalur >
