On 10/05/2015 01:27 AM, Stephen Mallette wrote:
> Wow, lots of stuff here - I'll just make a few points I think are important:
>
>> getting influence because you are employed by a software vendor is problem
>
> I don't see where any particular "vendor" is getting special influence in
> TinkerPop. If you think you see that, then I think there continues to be a
> misunderstanding. To me, that's just a word that's not so different than
> "Powered By" which you see used in other Apache projects. If the word
> "vendors" continues to be misunderstood then let's make a concerted effort
> to eradicate it from TinkerPop usage. I tend to use the word "TinkerPop
> implementer", but there are other words out there that might be better.
>
>> Decision-making is happening elsewhere.
>
> Since our release of GA and the community decision to use JIRA to generate
> the CHANGELOG on release, I'd say virtually all dev discussion is happening
> via JIRA. Most all commits relate to a JIRA ticket in some way. I think
> we've made honest effort to get everything else on the dev list, which
> includes stuff like discussions on when to release, major design changes
> (i.e. the DISCUSS/VOTE to go to hadoop 2), and how to improve on our
> transparency (i.e. the discussion about using a public real-time chat).
>
> As an aside, I feel like we continue to get mixed messaging on what is
> allowed here. Daniel Gruno put it very specifically - you guys hate:
>
>> Foo and I discussed this and we wanna do this and that, please vote
>
> but then in our discussion to use a public chat for dev work, Rich wrote:
>
>> The "rule" is that decisions should be relayed back to the list, for the
> community to comment on. But off list discussion itself isn't a problem.
>
> Those two statements are not compatible in my mind. I have a feeling you
> are both right on the matter, but there's clearly some gray area we don't
> understand. It would be great if you could clarify this issue for us once
> and for all (especially if we end up going with this public chat route).
>
I think (hope?!) Rich has been quoted out of context here. Decisions
about where the project is headed is NOT something you merely relay back
for a vote. You can discuss "how do I solve this specific bit of
functionality" or "how do I stop it from crashing >:(", sure - but
changing fundamental ways in which the program works NEEDS to be
discussed on the list. You can have informal discussions beforehand,
yes, but the decision-making discussion MUST be done on the list before
you start calling a vote. Examples of this are API-breaking changes,
minor/major version changes, new/updated roadmaps etc.
With regards,
Daniel.
