Fine with me. There was always resistance to it before. On May 7, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Greg Stein 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. > > 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com/ Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
