RE: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

[Go Yamamoto]

Hi Nick,

Thank you for understanding the pull-request driven workflow.  We, this
Apache incubator project, need management on operation at
github/apache/incubator-milagro because it is in the critical path of the
pull-request driven workflow.  That is the reason why I am offering the
effort for the management as a participant of the project.  

We appreciate if you are happy to take a part in the management too.  I do
not think you are a man-in-the-middle because you have a role that connects
this project with the Apache eco-system.  Let's go forward together.

Regards,
Go Yamamoto

-Original Message-
From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:55 PM
To: dev@milagro.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:30:25 +0900
"Go Yamamoto"  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out

My problem is that I'm man-in-the-middle here.  I have an incomplete
understanding of what you're looking for, including your first paragraph.

> We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork 
> repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork 
> repositories owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local 
> fork will be pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation 
> team at the official repo will review the pull-request and merge it to 
> the official.

Yes, that's normal.  Though as much as possible of that forked work should
take place in public repos, too: that's what git is good at!
I'd expect most local private forks to have a lifetime of just a few days -
while the developer works through an issue - before either becoming public
or abandoned.

> If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the 
> effort of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at 
> least until we reach the first release.

How is that bringing the work to Apache?

--
Nick Kew

Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

[Giorgio Zoppi]

How much effort do you need to merge a repo with the old apache ones?
I mean it can be a couple of days 2 people? Do you really merge it or
simply delete and upgrade the new repo? can you use Travis-CI with apache
repos?


2018-04-10 16:55 GMT+02:00 Nick Kew :

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:30:25 +0900
> "Go Yamamoto"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out
>
> My problem is that I'm man-in-the-middle here.  I have an
> incomplete understanding of what you're looking for,
> including your first paragraph.
>
> > We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork
> > repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork
> > repositories owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local
> > fork will be pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation
> > team at the official repo will review the pull-request and merge it
> > to the official.
>
> Yes, that's normal.  Though as much as possible of that forked work
> should take place in public repos, too: that's what git is good at!
> I'd expect most local private forks to have a lifetime of just a
> few days - while the developer works through an issue - before
> either becoming public or abandoned.
>
> > If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the
> > effort of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at
> > least until we reach the first release.
>
> How is that bringing the work to Apache?
>
> --
> Nick Kew
>

Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

[Nick Kew]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 16:30:25 +0900
"Go Yamamoto"  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out

My problem is that I'm man-in-the-middle here.  I have an
incomplete understanding of what you're looking for, 
including your first paragraph.

> We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork
> repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork
> repositories owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local
> fork will be pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation
> team at the official repo will review the pull-request and merge it
> to the official.

Yes, that's normal.  Though as much as possible of that forked work
should take place in public repos, too: that's what git is good at!
I'd expect most local private forks to have a lifetime of just a
few days - while the developer works through an issue - before
either becoming public or abandoned.

> If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the
> effort of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at
> least until we reach the first release. 

How is that bringing the work to Apache?

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Retire Milagro

[Nick Kew]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:39:35 +
"Falk III, Thomas"  wrote:

> -1
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> As quiet observer of this project, I would truly like to see this
> project continued as it provides a great alternative to commercial
> certificate authorities (CA's) for trust. 
> 
> After the issues with Symantec (and other CA's) that came out last
> year, I think we are overdue for a functional alternative, which I
> feel Milagro has the potential to fill.

You are right about Milagro's potential to improve online life
(and thank you for commenting).

However, the vote isn't about Milagro as such, it's about whether
Milagro belongs at Apache.  If it retires from here, it will
presumably continue at github, led by Miracl, NTT, and anyone
else who joins their efforts.

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Milagro Podling Report DRAFT April 2018

[Nick Kew]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:52:22 +
Nikolai Stoilov  wrote:

> I submitted the report to the wiki.

Thanks.  This should have happened a week ago, but
that's water under the bridge now.  I shall sign it
off with caveats, including proposing that we should
report again next month (so, in about three weeks)
and there MUST be concrete progress before then.
Whether that's accepted (given the timing), I can't say.

On the retirement vote, this is ultimately a matter for
the Incubator PMC.  The vote here is indicative, but
we will have to follow it up with some real progress
if it's to survive.

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

[Nikolai Stoilov]

Hi,

I emailed a draft for the report, let me know if it looks ok or it needs
changing (preferably send feedback to the Report Draft email, not this one).
Also since NTT wishes to take over such tasks, let me know if I can help
you get started submitting the reports in the future.

Thanks,

Nikolai

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:39 PM Falk III, Thomas 
wrote:

> -1
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> As quiet observer of this project, I would truly like to see this project
> continued as it provides a great alternative to commercial certificate
> authorities (CA's) for trust.
>
> After the issues with Symantec (and other CA's) that came out last year, I
> think we are overdue for a functional alternative, which I feel Milagro has
> the potential to fill.
>
>
> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/03/12/distrust-symantec-tls-certificates/
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas Falk
> -Original Message-
> From: Giorgio Zoppi [mailto:giorgio.zo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:54 AM
> To: dev@milagro.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro
>
> Hello everybody,
> do you have any python demos to show up? We have a Python meetup here in
> BCN, i could evangelist the project to the next meetup.
> Best Regards,
> Giorgio.
>
>
> 2018-04-10 10:12 GMT+02:00 Simeon Aladjem :
>
> > -1
> >
> > There is a good will to return the project to a normal track, and scope
> it
> > around the crypto only.
> > Yes, there has been some infrastructural and procedural reasons for
> > "forking" the crypto code outside Apache and commit the mass of
> development
> > to that fork,
> > but the newest code will eventually be committed back to Apache together
> > with reorganizing the repositories, which will revive the project.
> >
> > I believe that a little bit more time is required to figure out the tiny
> > details for doing the above, as some mentor's help will be required too.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Simeon Aladjem
> >
> > On 10/4/18, 10:30, "Go Yamamoto"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out have been
> > blocking
> > the initial commit, and it blocks everything toward the release.  To
> > solve
> > the problem, I think all what we need is the operational management
> at
> > the
> > official github repo.  It is hard to solve the problem
> technologically
> > because Miracl's engineering team (and ours too) want to use CI
> tools,
> > and
> > it means OAuth grants for access by the CI tools must be managed at
> the
> > repository on which they work.
> >
> > We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork
> > repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork
> > repositories
> > owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local fork will be
> > pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation team at the
> > official
> > repo will review the pull-request and merge it to the official.
> >
> > If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the
> > effort
> > of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at least
> > until we
> > reach the first release.
> >
> > I sincerely hope this proposal would contribute in resolving the
> > blocker.
> > Please feel free to share your concerns if any.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Go Yamamoto
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:07 AM
> > To: dev@milagro.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro
> >
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 14:16:09 +
> > "John D. Ament"  wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This is a call to vote to retire the Milagro podling.
> >
> > +-0.  Subject to change in either direction.
> >
> > For a long time, this project has not been happening at Apache, and
> on
> > that
> > basis retirement seems appropriate.
> > My past attempts to prod it have met with no response[1].
> >
> > On the other hand, some more promising activity has recently been
> seen
> > on
> > this list, notably with the arrival of NTT folks and an active
> > newcomer who
> > I've only just realised isn't an initial committer from the Miracl
> > team!
> >
> > I have been meaning for some time to try once more to prod it and
> > would be
> > reluctant to vote for retirement before doing so.
> > I've been doing battle with a failing internet connection, but I've
> now
> > parted company with the ISP in question.
> > So hopefully I'll now be fine to review all list traffic since [1]
> and
> > post
> > thoughts within 24 hours.
> >
> > > Here are the documented problems:
> > >
> > > - Development does not happen at Apache.  This is confirmed in
> > changes
> > > like [1] where you are trying to repoint mirrors 

Milagro Podling Report DRAFT April 2018

[Nikolai Stoilov]

Hello,

Please see below a proposed draft for the April report.
If no objections, I'll publish the report to the wiki shortly.


Thanks,

Nikolai

---
Milagro

Distributed Cryptography; M-Pin protocol for Identity and Trust

Milagro has been incubating since 2015-12-21.

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

  1. Sort out infrastructure issues
  2. Enable NTT to handle operational tasks and project management
  3. Build the community

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

There is an ongoing vote for retirement of the Project, votes so far are 6
against and 1 neutral.
There is an expressed concern that the development of the project is
happening away from the Apache.
This was addressed by the main contributors (MIRACL and NTT), they pointed
out the reason for that were infrastrucure and procedural issues.
They will update the Apache repos and keep the development there once those
issues are resolved.

How has the community developed since the last report?

There were no new commiters added to the project since the last report.

How has the project developed since the last report?

There is an ongoing discussion around dealing with infrastructure issues
obstructing the project development.
NTT suggested that they take responsibity for operational tasks and
management of the project.


How would you assess the podling's maturity?
Please feel free to add your own commentary.

  [ ] Initial setup
  [x] Working towards first release
  [ ] Community building
  [ ] Nearing graduation
  [ ] Other:

Date of last release:

  n/a

When were the last committers or PPMC members elected?

  n/a

Signed-off-by:

  [ ](milagro) Sterling Hughes
 Comments:

  [ ](milagro) Jan Willem Janssen
 Comments:

  [ ](milagro) Nick Kew
 Comments:
-- 
Nikolai Stoilov
NOC/Support Team Lead
MIRACL

RE: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

[Go Yamamoto]

Hi Nick,

I agree the infrastructure problem you have pointed out have been blocking
the initial commit, and it blocks everything toward the release.  To solve
the problem, I think all what we need is the operational management at the
official github repo.  It is hard to solve the problem technologically
because Miracl's engineering team (and ours too) want to use CI tools, and
it means OAuth grants for access by the CI tools must be managed at the
repository on which they work.

We NTT request to allow for contributors to work at their own fork
repository.  All the changes on the code happens at local fork repositories
owned by each contributor, however, the changes at local fork will be
pull-requested to the official repo, and the operation team at the official
repo will review the pull-request and merge it to the official.  

If this workflow is OK for everybody here, NTT would like to take the effort
of operational tasks and managements on the official repo at least until we
reach the first release. 

I sincerely hope this proposal would contribute in resolving the blocker.
Please feel free to share your concerns if any.

Regards,
Go Yamamoto

-Original Message-
From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:07 AM
To: dev@milagro.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Milagro

On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 14:16:09 +
"John D. Ament"  wrote:

> All,
> 
> This is a call to vote to retire the Milagro podling.

+-0.  Subject to change in either direction.

For a long time, this project has not been happening at Apache, and on that
basis retirement seems appropriate.
My past attempts to prod it have met with no response[1].

On the other hand, some more promising activity has recently been seen on
this list, notably with the arrival of NTT folks and an active newcomer who
I've only just realised isn't an initial committer from the Miracl team!

I have been meaning for some time to try once more to prod it and would be
reluctant to vote for retirement before doing so.
I've been doing battle with a failing internet connection, but I've now
parted company with the ISP in question.
So hopefully I'll now be fine to review all list traffic since [1] and post
thoughts within 24 hours.

> Here are the documented problems:
> 
> - Development does not happen at Apache.  This is confirmed in changes 
> like [1] where you are trying to repoint mirrors away from the Apache 
> hosted repository into a Miracl hosted repository.

At the time the repos were created, there was an issue with folks being less
than happy with the level of github integration then available.  I touched
on this in [1], but should no doubt have been clearer.  IF THERE ARE
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES HOLDING THINGS BACK, THE TEAM NEEDS TO SPEAK UP!

> - No board report submitted for months.

Indeed, someone from the team needs to take responsibility.
In the early days I did too much of this myself, but it's not supposed to be
a mentor task!

[1] Most recently
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/milagro-dev/201711.mbox/%3C15102433
30.26629.45.camel%40mimir.webthing.com%3E

--
Nick Kew