+1 Mike
http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've seen several people note that "IRC is not logged". Fine. LOG IT. >> >> I see absolutely no reason for you guys not to set up logging for the >> channel that you use. We do this for Subversion development: >> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/svn-dev >> >> If IRC is posing so much of a problem, then just log it. I saw a >> comment about civility on the channel. Well... if it is logged, then >> you may see that fixed. Discussions can then be referenced when it is >> brought to the dev list. And people can always refer back to the log >> to read about the nuances around some particular discussion. >> >> Seems to be a simple solution to me. > huge +1! IRC is so powerful we should not put it down just because we > don't log the channel. > > We already have a logged channel #lucene-dev and its logged here > > http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_logs/lucene-dev > > having tech discussion there should be ok I think and for major > decisions we can still send a mail to dev@l.a.o referencing the > discussion. I think we all have the discipline to do that right? > > I am moving there now... we should also eventually add this channel to > the website and maybe mark #lucene as the user channel? > > Simon >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> >> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:17:07PM +0300, Shai Erera wrote: >>> bq. shall I say required reading? >>> >>> You should ! If only so that people don't miss that great article :) >>> >>> On IRC, I agree with Grant (and partly w/ Mike). IMO, we should scale down >>> the amount of discussion on IRC. While there are several advantages to IRC >>> (faster response time, easier to hash things out etc.), I think there are >>> several drawbacks: >>> >>> * As Grant mentioned, TimeZone -- IRC makes it hard for people to follow >>> discussions that happened while they were asleep >>> >>> * IRC is not logged >>> >>> * Even trying to follow discussions on IRC, the nature of the UI sometimes >>> makes it too hard. Many times I've seen two and more discussions happen >>> simultaneously, and the way the UI is constructed, they're all mixed with >>> each other. This is not so with email threads. >>> >>> * I myself have too many communication mediums I need to follow today: my >>> job's email and messaging system, Gmail (Lucene and other mailing lists, as >>> well as private stuff), phone, people stopping by for questions .. IRC is a >>> very busy and demanding channel. You're kinda expected to respond >>> immediately (which is why, I think, it's easier to hash things out -- the >>> response time is instantaneous). If you only want to follow, you must stay >>> tuned to it. If I turn on "flash the taskbar for new messages", it drives me >>> crazy. If I turn it off, I miss important discussions ... it's impossible >>> :). >>> With emails, I can prioritize things. At least, Gmail helps to some extent. >>> That that we now receive all JIRA emails under one thread is a great >>> progress too. >>> With emails, I can always go back when I have time, and re-read the >>> discussion. I can respond to it 2 days after the last email, and people will >>> immediately know what I respond about, because we can include quoted text. >>> And if people's memory is very bad, they can (at least in Gmail) scan >>> quickly previous messages. Hack ... I can do that 1 month after the email >>> was sent, and most people will be able to quickly pick up from where we >>> left. This is not so with IRC ... >>> >>> * Getting in the middle of a discussion is practically impossible on IRC. I >>> have nothing to read for reference (unless I had my IRC client open and I >>> turned on the 'logging' feature). >>> >>> * Is it really that easier to hash things out on IRC? I mean, the response >>> time is great, so you get answers really quick. But then, there are usually >>> only a handful of participants in that discussion, which makes hashing out >>> and agreeing much easier anyway. If the same group of people (usually <=3) >>> communicated in email, they'd hash things out in almost the same speed. >>> After all, IRC mandates they are all awake at the same time, so they could >>> also email each other in NRT :). >>> >>> * Imagine this discussion happening on IRC. Most of us would have been able >>> to pick only shards of it. At some point, maybe Grant or another PMC member >>> would 'summarize' the discussion to the list. The summary could be "we've >>> decided to not use IRC because email is better", followed by some points >>> he's able to pull back from his memory and maybe IRC log. Would *you* >>> (people reading this growing-by-the-minute note) want to get a summary like >>> that? Would you be satisfied? >>> I think that most of us wouldn't and all that would happen is that such >>> email would start its own thread, repeating mostly what have been said on >>> IRC, b/c people would want answers ... >>> >>> I'm not against IRC, don't get me wrong. I think it's useful b/c the >>> turnaround time is great. But we should not have so many discussions there, >>> as we do today. I don't know where to draw the line. I trust the great >>> people of this community to know when it's better to discuss something in >>> email. An example, if a new feature is being discussed, then it's ok if two >>> people want to hash few things out quickly, before they send a detailed and >>> organized proposal to the list -- the details to hash out are the initial >>> proposal's details. The rest should be followed on list, even if it means >>> slightly slower response time. >>> >>> Today's list and JIRA volume always look to me like the response time is >>> instantaneous. We have very active people from around the globe, so you have >>> a high chance receiving response in no time. In the worse case, it will take >>> a couple of hours, but I don't remember when did that happen (which is an >>> amazing thing !) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shai >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> > More reading (shall I say required reading?). Benson does a good job of >>> > explaining some of the concepts around consensus and why we also should be >>> > primarily using mailing lists: >>> > https://blogs.apache.org/comdev/entry/how_apache_projects_use_consensus >>> > >>> > -Grant >>> > >>> > On May 5, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > I'd like to throw out another idea: >>> > > >>> > > I think we should standardize on rotating the PMC Chair every year. I >>> > think to date, there have been two Chairs: Doug and me. Back when Doug >>> > left, no one wanted to do it (both Hoss and I said we would if no one else >>> > wanted to) and so I took it on. For the most part, it's a thankless task >>> > of >>> > herding cats (albeit low volume, thankfully), despite the important >>> > sounding >>> > name that marketing types love. I would like us to share the burden >>> > across >>> > the PMC by rotating it on an annual basis. Many other ASF projects do >>> > exactly this and I think it removes any political pressure. Have I sold >>> > it >>> > enough? ;-) Besides, I just know others are dying to file board reports >>> > on >>> > a quarterly basis! >>> > > >>> > > More inline below... >>> > > >>> > > On May 5, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> 2. I think we need to prioritize getting patch contributors more >>> > feedback sooner. I think some of this can be automated much like what >>> > Hadoop has done. This should help identify new committers sooner and >>> > encourage them to keep contributing. >>> > >> >>> > >> Big +1. We should be using automation everywhere we can. >>> > >> >>> > >> But, really, we (as all projects do) need more devs. Growing the >>> > >> community should be job #1 of all committers. >>> > > >>> > > Agreed, but this dovetails w/ the use of IRC. I realize live collab is >>> > nice, but it discourages those who aren't "in the know" about the channel >>> > being used from ever contributing. Say, for instance, I'm interested in >>> > DWPT (DocWriterPerThread), how am I supposed to know that at 8 am EDT on >>> > May >>> > 5th (made up example), three of the committers are going to be talking >>> > about >>> > it on IRC? If there is email about it, then I can participate. Nothing >>> > we >>> > do is so important that it can't wait a few hours or a day, besides the >>> > fact, that email is damn near instantaneous these days anyway. >>> > > >>> > > Also, keep in mind that until about a year ago, most everything was done >>> > on the mailing list and I think we progressed just fine. Since then, >>> > dev@has almost completely dried up in terms of discussions (factoring out >>> > JIRA >>> > mails which have picked up -- which is good) and the large majority of >>> > discussion takes place on IRC. I agree, however, we should have the IRC >>> > discussion on another thread. >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> So, what other ideas do people have? I'll leave this thread open for >>> > >>> a >>> > week or so and then add what we think are good things to >>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt >>> > The board meeting is on May 19th. I plan on attending. >>> > >> >>> > >> How about also "PMC members will be more proactive in tackling issues >>> > >> that erode the community? I think this would start with a thread on >>> > >> general@. We need to get in the habit of discussing even tiny >>> > >> elephants as soon as they appear, somehow. >>> > > >>> > > Yeah, I agree. The hard part for me, is I often feel like people on the >>> > outside make big deals about this stuff and don't get that even having the >>> > discussion is a very healthy sign. Besides the fact, that no one likes >>> > confrontation and uncomfortable topics. We also, I think, are all tired >>> > of >>> > endless debates that go on and on w/ no resolution. It's one of the big >>> > downsides (and, of course, upsides) to consensus based open source as >>> > opposed to the dictatorial approach. >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > >> Here's an example: "Is Lucid abusing their too-strong influence over >>> > >> Lucene/Solr"? It's a great question, and I personally feel the answer >>> > >> today is "no", but nevertheless we should be able to discuss it and >>> > >> similar could-be-controversial topics. >>> > > >>> > > I hopefully would agree we are good stewards of the fact that we employ >>> > > a >>> > good number of committers (but not nearly all the active ones), but I know >>> > some disagree. I do, however, think that the recent spat shows that we at >>> > Lucid are still free to speak our minds when it comes to open source, as >>> > clearly not all Lucid employees agree on the issue and were pretty >>> > outspoken >>> > about it. I firmly believe we baked this into the company from Day 1 and >>> > I >>> > consider it one of our best strengths, but of course, most can't see that >>> > from the outside. Does that mean we are perfect? Of course not, but I >>> > think we try to follow the ASF guidelines and show up as individuals. I >>> > also know we work pretty hard to mind the ASF TM policy, etc. (just ask >>> > our >>> > marketing folks how much I remind them.) I think we all realize that >>> > there >>> > would be no such thing as Lucid if it weren't for the ASF and for >>> > Lucene/Solr, so why would we want to hurt that? >>> > > >>> > > The fact is, every single committer here and a good number of >>> > contributors are paid to work on Lucene all day, (most) every day or have >>> > some other financial stake (i.e. via a book, consulting biz, etc.) Any of >>> > us could be accused of only acting in our own financial interest. At the >>> > end of the day, I like to think that instead, the cool thing is we all >>> > have >>> > a great opportunity to have our financial interests aligned with a great >>> > project that we like to work on. >>> > > >>> > > For the record, we have pretty diverse PMC and committer base. As I >>> > > said >>> > in our Dec. 2010 Board Report, we are comprised of: >>> > > "[a] total to 17 PMC members from 12 different >>> > > companies, spanning the globe. The flagship Lucene/Solr >>> > > has 26 total committers from 20 different companies, again >>> > > spanning the globe." >>> > > >>> > > The only one that has changed since then is Robert has joined Lucid. >>> > Now, one can argue that some of those members from other companies are >>> > not >>> > active, but that isn't Lucid's fault. ASF development has always been >>> > about >>> > those who do the work and we do a fair amount of that. Those who are not >>> > active, should, ideally, leave on their own by stating they wish to go >>> > Emeritus. Beyond that, we have a pretty standard policy that inactive >>> > people are removed after 1 year of no activity. That has been the case >>> > since I joined Lucene way back when and I think makes sense. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >
