So where do you want to go with this? Perhaps, propose specific
changes to the community (based on current docs, or last round of
proposed) and see if there's buy-in?
Really, it comes down to how you plan to do things differently for the
On 10/3/2016 5:44 AM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Just restating things I've said here before :
>> - I don't the issue is backlog
> It definitely was an issue. People were complaining about how long stuf
> had been waiting. I'm not imagining that, pretty sure.
> More generally, there are issue_s_. I don't think there is any /one/
> issue, the solving of which there is a magic bullet for.
>> - I do think the issue is that in order for
>> organizations/companies/individuals to invest in an open source
>> project that there needs to be process transparency, predicable
>> releases, and a deterministic way to get submissions/patches into a
> process transparency, regular releases, deterministic process for
> submissions, yes, all good. Though "to get submissions/patches into a
> release" is assuming a bit too much.
>> - I frankly don't see how the current model scales or satisfies this.
> Well, based on queue length it has objectively done better than what was
> there before. As the queue length has gone from increasing to
> decreasing, and from years of stuff waiting for action on the review to
> less than a years worth of stuff (assuming Martin's full protocol tests
> pass and we get a release out RSN).
> Is it the best model for a steady state? I don't know. Are there further
> improvements to make, no doubt.
> However, it seemed the best way to get stuff done on the backlog, in a
> fairly transparent and systematic way, given the lack of willing
>> - A bunch of the community worked together to come up with a proposed
>> new process and wanted to try it out -- which, from my perspective,
>> you vetoed.
> Cause it wanted to change _everything_:
> - The ethos and constitution of Quagga
> From one where the onus is on submitters to get submissions to a
> standard high enough in terms of (as applicable) design documentation
> and advance planning, code organisation and style, and testing, so
> that at least no one else strongly enough to object;
> To one where alliances of contributors, potentially some with next to
> _no prior involvement_ in Quagga, could band together to shove stuff
> through, and where reviewers with objections would have only days to
> try rally others to their view. To the extent I'm mistaken on that, it
> was to the extent this was under-specified (however, the intent of
> majority voting for stuff to go in was clearly there).
> I.e., code going in based on the 51% with the /lowest/ standards, and
> a more political and gameable process.
> I think the biggest gulf between the proposers of the mega-changes and
> myself was in this area.
> - The integration process was actually _gaining_ overhead and
> bureaucracy from a day to day process.
> Patches to require explicit 2nd ACKs - that's overhead. IME with
> Quagga, most stuff doesn't need ACKs. People will object to
> objectionable stuff, and they'll let it pass otherwise. A "Revisions
> needed" model for those minority of patches is more efficient than
> a "ack for every patch".
> - The proposed integration process was more a contributors wish list
> than a readily implementable integration process.
> Patches to go be applied within days, by who? How?
> I've written before about lessons learned in the past from Quagga, on
> patches can more easily fall through the cracks when it isn't clear
> who is responsible for applying. Also "days" - there are a number of
> problems with that, in various dimensions (see also above on ethos).
> The contributors view of the process is only half the story. It also
> has to work for and be efficient for the integrator(s). See also
> prior. If you increase the overheads for integrators, then things
> likely get worse.
> - Changing the communication tools from email to video conferencing.
> Real-time comms is nice for forming opinions, but it's ungood for
> definitive decision making comms. Quagga, as with many open-source
> projects, is distributed across the world, and it impossible to suit
> everyone (and people in global orgs may already have calendar
> competition for time-slots that suit multiple parts of the globe).
> AV also needs reliable bandwidth, not always a guarantee. (E.g., right
> now I don't have that).
> Also, I much prefer email for deliberative stuff.
> - Multiple branches and releases, with unclear relationships between
> Overall, the proposals were vague on many important things. On some of
> the more concrete points, they seemed to be objectively adding overheads
> (rather than decreasing), and changing the ethos of the project to one
> that I don't like (cause, I've done the "shove everything in" thing
> already - in the early days of Quagga; and it lead to quality issues
> that took a _lot_ of years to fix; so I don't want to go back there).
> So, let's change stuff for the better. There's a lot of scope for more
> automation, and moving more of the work to the contributor side:
> - some kind of auto-integrating head, to accumulate stuff from the list
> in a linear order and do the CI pass/fail.
> I'm less keen on having GitHub in the middle though.
> - work out how to fit review onto that. I'd go with a batched pipe-line
> for this. Basically, kicking out the CI-pass patches that have
> other nits / review issues, and punting them with comments back to the
> - releases: I'd almost be tempted to make that a cron job
> Identify specific issues, or specific potential improvements, and lets
> evaluate them - bearing in mind many of the goals and constraints are in
> Further, those tensions can be dynamic in nature. Optimising to reduce
> one tension, may over time increase another tension. Oscillating hard
> over time, bouncing between tensions, may not be good either...
Quagga-dev mailing list