On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> 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.
I agree we should move the logger to #lucene - according to steven this is trivial so lets shoot for it. > 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. +1 > 3. Put in the automated patch checking system that Hadoop uses. Volunteers? > Perhaps we can knock this out at Lucene Revolution? +1 we should get at least a proposal done. I have no idea how they did it but I will try figuring out and start a mail on dev@l.a.o > 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. I am not sure if we should make a big deal out of it - I think everybody knows that it was a wrong reaction and we learned our lesson. I think we should only mention our agreement that reverts should only be done if voted etc. > 5. I gather, via lazy consensus from the other thread, that we are in > agreement on refactoring and we have a way forward. this is my impression too! +1 > 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. I don't know where this comes from but I don't think we are having those conversations. can you explain where you get those impression from? Simon > > -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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> > > >
