Re: [Comments wanted] July Board Report

[Sean Busbey]

> Period Created Issues (Unresolved) Created Issues (Resolved)
> June 2016 7 3

This would be easier to read if you turned it into just a sentence,
like "For the period of June 2016 we have X created issues and Y
resolved issues."

How's mailing list subscriptions/ traffic look? Just a text
description would be good.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Edward Capriolo  wrote:
> 
> Gossip
>
> Gossip is a system to form peer-to-peer networks using the gossip
> protocol.
>
> Gossip has been incubating since 2016-05.
>
> Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
>
> 1. Establish an Apache website for Gossip that makes it easy for new
> users and contributors to get started.
> 2. Facilitate discussions and build the protocol specification and
> implementation
> 3. Produce a usable release
>
> Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
> aware of?
>
> No
>
>
> How has the community developed since the last report?
>
> We have had activity in the community from two people who have engaged
> in working on smaller tasks. We are discussion electing them as project
> committers.
>
>
> How has the project developed since the last report?
>
> We have created and resolved a number of tickets
>
> Period Created Issues (Unresolved) Created Issues (Resolved)
> June 2016 7 3
>
> We have had some discussion around made some traction around implementing
> the
> protocol via transports other than UDP.
>
> We are currently working on the web page which should attract more interest.
>
> Date of last release:
>
> Never
>
> When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
>
> Never
>
> Signed-off-by:
>
> [X](Gossip) Edward Capriolo
> [ ](Gossip) Josh Elser
> [ ](Gossp)
> Shepherd/Mentor notes:

Re: Review/ Commit policy

[Sean Busbey]

The incubator has no policy on commit policies for individual podlings. The
general assumption is most will work it out for themselves. This is a great
discussion to have now while Gossip is still early days.

Just to state biases, I personally prefer Review-Then-Commit. I think it
helps communities in a couple of ways.

For one, it increases the odds that multiple people understand parts of the
codebase. In particular, when a project gets thin on folks who are
reviewing a given section it creates a very powerful incentive to recruit
more people in that area.

More importantly, I think it helps to give new comers a sense of fairness
in participation. Essentially, they get to see that they aren't the only
ones going through this additional work and they can see that we all learn
from each other as the project goes.

If you're concerned about available review bandwidth, I can think of a
couple of mitigation strategies that I've seen work well in new / small
communities.

The biggest one has been to make non-committer reviews binding. This is a
great way to show that the community values reviews as contributions. I've
seen several communities that state that reviews are a way to "act like a
committer" but that different from the level of investment required to say
you'll have impact on the project's progress if you show up doing reviews
day one.

The other approach is more a hedge. It's essentially "branch then merge"
for periods so that a contributor who's coding faster than reviews happen
can batch things e.g. weekly.

Related to this discussion (and a big part of my preference for RTC with
binding non-committer reviews) is the matter of tracking review work. One
thing that's worked really well on Apache Yetus is to make sure commits
that go in have:

1) the git author set to the contributor who wrote the patch

2) a signed-off-by annotation for each person who provided a review (again,
wether they're a committer or not).

This combination makes it much much easier for interested parties to get a
sense of the folks involved in these two important ways of contributing to
the project.
On Jun 4, 2016 10:51, "Edward Capriolo"  wrote:

> All,
>
> Does the incubator have a policy on review + commit?
>
> I have worked on other top level projects. Typically they have multiple
> people on the project and have critical mass to make sure things get
> reviewed.
>
> Here not many are experienced with the code-base and may make other
> hesitant to do a review.
>
> I think it makes sense that if a Committer on Gossip does not get a review
> in 1 day a self merge is ok.
>
> If this not acceptable I would like to established a pool of people that
> are available for reviews and something like a soft SLA between us so we
> know the worse case for action.
>
> In particular I am going to want to move things forward and I might
> outstrip others availability.
>

Re: gossip board report

[Sean Busbey]

Sorry, thought we got you the needed karma earlier this week.

I've added it now.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Edward Capriolo  wrote:
> Sorry,
> I have mentioned this before but every page is immutable to me. Can someone
> with wiki access please add this for me.
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Josh Elser  wrote:
>
>> This really needs to be added to http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/June2016
>> as soon as possible. The deadline for podlings has already passed.
>>
>> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>>> nit: s/this is out/this is our/
>>>
>>> otherwise, looks great. You have the karma to add it to the appropriate
>>> incubator wiki page (I'm guessing from the original proposal)?
>>>
>>> Edward Capriolo wrote:
>>>
 
 Gossip

 Gossip is a system to form peer-to-peer networks using the gossip
 protocol

 Gossip has been incubating since 2016-05.

 Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:

 1. Establish an Apache website for Gossip that makes it easy for new
 users and contributors to get started.
 2. Facilitate discussions and build the protocol specification and
 implementation
 3. Produce a usable release

 Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
 aware of?

 No


 How has the community developed since the last report?

 The community is the same as when it started incubation a few weeks ago.

 How has the project developed since the last report?

 This is out first report. We have important the code from github. We
 are online. We have had good discussions on the dev list that have
 spawned a couple of tickets. One is in the review stage now. Taylor has
 been an enormous help.

 Date of last release:

 Never

 When were the last committers or PMC members elected?

 Never

 Signed-off-by:

 [X](Gossip) Edward Capriolo
 [ ](Gossip) Josh Elser
 [ ](Gossp)
 Shepherd/Mentor notes:

>>>