On May 12, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote: > Hi. > I haven't commented yet but I've absolutely been following this soap opera. > I'm referring to all related threads and JIRA discussions, not just this > thread. > > I think the current state of logging only #lucene-dev is good.
Yeah, except no one is on it other than a few people even though many of them (committers that is) are on #lucene > I go to #lucene-dev now. I think only IRC channel(s) that are Lucene/Solr > internal development in nature need to be logged -- and that's just > #lucene-dev. So just because you have observed many developers are on #lucene > instead of #lucene-dev doesn't indicate a problem, so long as no design > decisions for Lucene/Solr take place on #lucene or #solr. #lucene and #solr > is where users get to ask questions, much like how it is on the user mailing > lists. So *if* (I don't know if it happens) internal Lucene / Solr design > decisions are taking place on #lucene or #solr then obviously that must stop. > I'd rather these channels not get logged so that we can have an expectation > of a single place for these discussions on IRC and have that place be clear > of user support questions. > > RE refactoring / modularization, it's good to finally see a sense of > agreement on how to move forward. > > ~ David Smiley > > On May 12, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > >> I'm not trying to be a pest here, but this conversation and this report is >> hugely important to the future of this Lucene PMC. So far, I see a sum >> total of 4 PMC members out of 20+ total PMC members weighing in here, as >> well as a few other community members, on proactive things to do to move >> forward. >> >> Are you all really in lazy consensus with what has been said so far? (hint: >> lazy consensus is not a good idea here, so, if you are in consensus, at >> least speak up and say so) Do you have other suggestions? The Board >> Meeting is on the 19th and this report needs to be filled at least 2 days >> prior to that. Claims of thread fatigue, I am sure, are not going to go >> over well with the Board, so I suggest all PMC Members (as well as others) >> take some time to think about how to contribute to this report. >> >> As it stands now, we have the following concrete suggestions: >> 1. Log IRC -- from the looks of #lucene-dev, it appears that people have not >> migrated to the new logged version. To me, we really should just hook up >> the logger to #lucene and forget #lucene-dev ever existed. We should also >> put a note that the room is being logged. I am beginning to be of the >> mindset that any design/dev conversation that is not logged on IRC is the >> equivalent of a private conversation. >> 2. Rotate the Chair -- I would propose that this Report is my last official >> one and that the next Board meeting contains a resolution changing the chair. >> 3. Put in the automated patch checking system that Hadoop uses. Volunteers? >> Perhaps we can knock this out at Lucene Revolution? >> 4. Write up lessons learned by all on commit/revert and scratching/itches >> and make sure newcomers and old timers alike understand how it works. >> 5. I gather, via lazy consensus from the other thread, that we are in >> agreement on refactoring and we have a way forward. >> 6. Discourage private emails, phone calls, etc. as they relate to the >> project. I personally am starting to think that if there is wind of this >> happening more that it is not at all unreasonable to remove commit bits. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> On May 7, 2011, at 6:47 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: >> >>> +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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > -------------------------------------------- Grant Ingersoll Join the LUCENE REVOLUTION Lucene & Solr User Conference May 25-26, San Francisco www.lucenerevolution.org
