[toooo much text, cropping it all out] There hasn't been made a 'decision' to kick out TinkerPop - where'd you get that idea from, folks? David chatting to Rich and me in an informal way as a mentor is not in any way an openness issue, he's making a personal statement about what he believes is best for the project, it's not a done deal or anything remotely close to that.
Furthermore, you will have to accept that mentors discuss the project off-the-record (as is done in all podlings!), much like potential new committers are discussed on the private list - it may contain sensitive information about the project or individuals that we don't want to shove in peoples' faces, and it allows us to be very frank about matters. As for 'vendors', I would prefer to use a term similar to downstream distributions/implementations, so as to not make it sound too corporate. We are a 501c3 non-profit, and when you use terms like 'vendors', it goes against the "for the public good" mission of the foundation (at least as seen by certain people/govt branches) As for transparency, it irks us when we get yet-another-email saying "Foo and I discussed this and we wanna do this and that, please vote", or ESPECIALLY "I discussed committership with bar, and he/she has accepted". First, a very specific rant: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE YOU TO EVER DISCUSS COMMITTERSHIP WITH A POTENTIAL NEW COMMITTER PRIVATELY UNLESS A MENTOR SAYS IT'S OKAY. You should only ever discuss this under special circumstances or after (s)he has formally accepted the role. If we find out that people are discussing such things without informing the mentors/PPMC first and getting an ack, it is bordering on getting kicked out of the PPMC for not following the rules. Then, a few more notes: - If you have any questions, please ask your mentors. We are here to provide oversight, but we are generally not nearly as invested in the project as you may be. We have, on average, 10+ other projects we also have to deal with every day, plus our actual jobs, so keeping up with the dev list alone is not an easy task. If you are in doubt or need clarification on processes, please ask on the ML with [Mentors] or similar tag added to the subject line, so we know you need assistance - otherwise, it is to be expected that we might not read the email (I get around 4,000 emails per day, just to put things into perspective). - Please have discussions before you start a vote. Votes are fine, but if you go straight to a vote (as has happened), you take away peoples' ability to say "what about option C?". - Mentors are generally reactive and descriptive, not proactive and normative/prescriptive. Again, this is in part due to the amount of time we have available to devote on the podling process, and also because we'd like podlings to sort out their own mess. David's email should be seen in this light. While I may not agree fully with the wording, I agree with the sentiment that if TinkerPop is to survive and eventually get a "ready to graduate" recommendation from the mentors, it needs to _proove_ that to the mentors, and not just to themselves. We describe and react to what we see, and if David sends a concerned letter like the one he sent, it's because the project (or at least prominent PPMC members) are doing/saying things that really irks him (and me as well). I fully understand that you get defensive about your project, but I will also note that you have only responded to the things you feel you can defend, you have yet to react to the issues that might be more 'embarrassing' to you, such as the now complete lack of diversity in the project. I could go into details here, but I'll save you that bit of tinfoil-hat-story. - On a more curious note: Why is the entire TinkerPop CTR and not RTC? It strikes me as very odd that no code is ever voted upon, which is one of the core tenants of the ASF, I just see commits straight to a release candidate branch and then eventually a vote on the entire release, which is NOT a veto-able vote. I will go as far as to say; If a RTC system is not adopted (or at least the laissez faire method is documented), we will enforce this on the PPMC. As seen from the outside, you do not have a proper quality control of your code base, which makes me very concerned about the quality of your releases. I could go on, but....beer and such. With regards, Daniel. PS: It might be a good idea for the mentors to post a monthly or quarterly status update, so we can discuss our expectations and impressions and see where we differ.
