Thanks Lenni. If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth, he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems. Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for instance, which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see the rhyme or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using.
I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are being resolved, but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about planning and such should be taking place on-list. David has echoed these concerns as well. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <lsk...@cloudera.com> wrote: > 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 > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
