Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be posted on a wiki someplace.
I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big, small, new, old) more frequently moving forward. Thanks, Lenni On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Chris. So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now includes > new committers and new community members following along for which their > voices have not been heard from on this matter. Once you recognize that > the > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like this > on- > list. > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > +1 to the below. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > Chief Architect > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and > > graduation > > > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here, > > >including past decisions. > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try > to > > >move with near > > >unanimous consent. It is generally hard to figure out what roles people > > >have without some formal > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it. > > > > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't > > >matter what roles people have > > >unless we need to be looking at a release. > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable > of > > >> considering anything. > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC > or > > >> the community, all > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being > > >> taken. I would consider > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation > > >> like this or other related > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time. > > >> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of > the > > >> project. That is why > > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer > to > > >> on list decisions. > > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in > any > > >> consensus-based decision > > >> making. Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective > decision > > >> making requires > > >> open communication, preferably on public channels. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never > > >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to > help > > >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not > the > > >>> result of any decision being made. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Lenni > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz > > >>><ptgo...@gmail.com> > > >>> > >> wrote: > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> > > >>>wrote: > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private > list > > >>> and > > >>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and > > >>>discussions > > >>> > >>> about the project in general. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> I took a look. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new > > >>> committers, > > >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at > all > > >>> about > > >>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to > > >>>go > > >>> the > > >>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], > > >>>it > > >>> is > > >>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was > > >>> Committer > > >>> > == > > >>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At > that > > >>> point > > >>> > >> it > > >>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. > > >>>From > > >>> > that > > >>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and > there > > >>> were > > >>> > no > > >>> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting > > >>> committers to > > >>> > >> the > > >>> > >>> PMC role. > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem > to > > >>>be > > >>> any > > >>> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why > > >>>that’s > > >>> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial > > >>> > committers > > >>> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the > > >>>project > > >>> > unable > > >>> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they > > >>> understand > > >>> > >> the > > >>> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of > new > > >>> PPMC > > >>> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are > > >>>also > > >>> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can > > >>>become > > >>> PPMC > > >>> > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of > the > > >>> last > > >>> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no > > >>> progress > > >>> > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can > > >>>do a > > >>> > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are also > > >>> > encouraging > > >>> > > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, > and > > >>> really > > >>> > > striving to build a community around the project. > > >>> > > > >>> > Fair enough. > > >>> > > > >>> > Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go > > >>>with > > >>> > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC? > > >>> > > > >>> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a > > >>>single > > >>> > commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns > > >>> others > > >>> > have raised about decisions being made in private. > > >>> > > > >>> > -Taylor > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
