Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Curator 2.0.0-incubating released
Congrats. However, what is Curator? The mail does not say anything about it. Please ensure that any announcement e-mails about Curator include a brief description of what it is. On 10 May 2013 17:47, Jordan Zimmerman randg...@apache.org wrote: Hello, The Apache Curator team is pleased to announce the release of version 2.0.0-incubating from the Apache Incubator. Curator was originally open sourced by Netflix via Github. This is the first Apache release of Curator. I'd like to thank the mentors for their help in getting to this milestone. In particular, Patrick Hunt and Luciano Resende have been incredibly helpful and patient. Link to release notes: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Achangelog-panel The most recent source release can be obtained from an Apache Mirror: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/curator/ (mirror sync times may vary) The binary artifacts for Curator are available from Maven Central and its mirrors. For general information on Apache Curator, please visit the project website: http://curator.incubator.apache.org Disclaimer: Apache Curator is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Incubator PMC. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. -Jordan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Writing some tooling
Alan Cabrera wrote on Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:58:24 -0700: The first thing that I'm writing is a command that will print out who is the owner of an email alias and what projects they belong to and if they are ASF members. This will help me vet subscription requests since people rarely use their ASF email accounts. https://id.apache.org/info/MailAlias.txt https://whimsy.apache.org/committer/roster/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Writing some tooling
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, May 11, 2013 at 13:43:37 +0300: Alan Cabrera wrote on Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:58:24 -0700: The first thing that I'm writing is a command that will print out who is the owner of an email alias and what projects they belong to and if they are ASF members. This will help me vet subscription requests since people rarely use their ASF email accounts. https://id.apache.org/info/MailAlias.txt Second link is: https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committer/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the board. There are several directors here including a couple on this thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea if this is something the board would entertain at all. I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just maybe but we need more details, could help motivate getting that work done and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few others here who would too. I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than the other big bang changes being proposed. So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? ...ant On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the board. There are several directors here including a couple on this thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea if this is something the board would entertain at all. I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just maybe but we need more details, could help motivate getting that work done and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few others here who would too. I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than the other big bang changes being proposed. So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? ...ant On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's not just you Joe. From: Joseph Schaefer Sent: 11/05/2013 15:34 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the board. There are several directors here including a couple on this thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea if this is something the board would entertain at all. I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just maybe but we need more details, could help motivate getting that work done and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few others here who would too. I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than the other big bang changes being proposed. So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? ...ant On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's not just you Joe. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Joseph Schaefer Sent: 11/05/2013 15:34 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. On May 11, 2013, at 10:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I wasn't thinking it would be you Benson who talked to the board. There are several directors here including a couple on this thread who've said they support trying this so i thought they could bring it up informally at the upcoming meeting just to get us an idea if this is something the board would entertain at all. I agree with you that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out, but right now it doesn't look like anyone is doing that work so getting some feedback from the board, even if its just maybe but we need more details, could help motivate getting that work done and coming up with a complete proposal. If the board sounded interested i'd help getting to that and it sounds like there are a few others here who would too. I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. If we come up with a process and proposal that the board is happy with and poddlings to be guinea pigs then we don't really need a unanimous Incubator PMC vote to go ahead. And its just an experiment, so its a much more gentle approach than the other big bang changes being proposed. So what does anyone else think, is this worth trying? Greg specifically, you were keen we try this earlier on in the thread so is this something you could get us some feedback from the board about? ...ant On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to ask the May board meeting anything. There's no consensus of this community on 'probationary projects', and, more to the point, there are a host of details required to make that a viable proposal and no one has filled them in. As I wrote in the report, I plan to have a discussion with the board in June if we aren't making progress. A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. I'm not going to bring the board a proposal to increase their workload based on my personal judgement, and there's no consensus here, today, that it's a good idea, since there are several people who are eloquently opposed. My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson e...@tibco.com wrote: If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they you might apply a lean startup approach, and figure out how to run tests to see which way works best. Given the number of incubating projects, should be easy to run some experiments. Then you just need to build up some consensus on how to run the experiments. And how to evaluate the results. Essential to establish some metrics that will correlate with success. Then run the experiments for a while (three months, six months?). At the end, you'll have actual data that will inform a decision. Eric. +1 for experimenting with some new approaches. Several people have been in support of the board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs, lets try that. Ask at the board meeting next week if the board would support the experiment and if so just pick half a dozen existing poddlings to try it. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. Lovely. Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself: +1 Joe, Ross, etc. I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_, and more weakness in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). We have a few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially supervision weakness. I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before I remotely consider taking that step. I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. Lovely. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way solves? Maybe this is where the disconnect is. Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack of mentors the problem? What are the core problems that you are trying to solve? Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having the board members with the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to help? What is it about the auspices of the board that improves things? What is the exact problem that this solves? My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) That depends on what the problem is. If the IPMC is paralyzed then yes, the board should step in. I didn't realize that we're there already. If we are then please be explicit about it. But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise that I propose to see where we have points in common. I think that doing so will go a long way to generating good will, as people's positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better transparency as to what people's motivations are. I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are espousing these various solutions. I want to understand but at the moment it just seems that people are holding on to their positions without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they think they are trying to solve. In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up with bits of everyone's proposals. Regards, Alan
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Violating my 24 hour rule just this one, and worse yet to repeat myself: IMO, I think this is fine so long as it occurs on the weekend. :) +1 Joe, Ross, etc. I rather regret mentioning the direct launch alternative in my most recent email. We have some weakness in _mentoring_, Agreed. and more weakness in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). Could tooling help here? We have a few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially supervision weakness. Is the reporting problem the sole issue? I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this email. I feel that I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core problems we're trying to solve. Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet another email storm to ignore. This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails. *It is the constant churning of roles and processes that is exhausting this IPMC, not the actual work.* It is this bureaucratic churning that's sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members. Why are we churning? Because we are not holding members/mentors up to their commitments. Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc exceptions for every policy we have. We need less process. Less roles. More accountability. More tooling. One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before I remotely consider taking that step. Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP. I feel that you are listening to our concerns. I'll support what ever your decision is even if I don't agree. I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. What this direct to PMC model? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that would improve the situation. I personally think that we have almost enough people to mentor. I think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. For example, maybe better reminders for reports automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot button) maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply tooling changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release votes. (ok not a tooling issue) Regards, Alan
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
It's often called a dead-man's switch. I think the term applied originally to locomotive engineers and also metro car drivers. (I'm not sure what a dead pilot switch could accomplish in an aircraft.) I think having mentors review and sign PPMC status reports is an effective dead mentor's switch [;). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:10 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that would improve the situation. I personally think that we have almost enough people to mentor. I think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. For example, maybe better reminders for reports automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot button) maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply tooling changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release votes. (ok not a tooling issue) Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On May 11, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: It's often called a dead-man's switch. I think the term applied originally to locomotive engineers and also metro car drivers. (I'm not sure what a dead pilot switch could accomplish in an aircraft.) I think having mentors review and sign PPMC status reports is an effective dead mentor's switch [;). Ahh, yeah, that was it. I was also thinking that voting releases would be it as well. The tooling would make the tracking automatic so the mundane task of tracking all the mentors for all the podlings would be automatic. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
I firmly believe our priority in mentoring podlings is to instill self-governance as early as is feasible, and the proven way to accomplish that task is to identify suitable members of the podling and elect them to the IPMC so they are fully empowered to do it. Every other approach is suboptimal. Sent from my iPhone On May 11, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Frankly I find the notion that the board will do a better job of MENTORING these projects than the IPMC to be batshit insane, but that's just me. We need manpower, and there is plenty of that available amongst the competent volunteers who actively participate in these projects. Let's just do what's easiest for once and promote these folks to the IPMC in order to get the job done right. It's a proven model that we need to stop fighting. Yes, shuttling the kids off the the grandparents is not going to solve anything. If individuals on the board have the bandwidth to help they should come over here. There's nothing specific about the auspices of the board that would improve the situation. I personally think that we have almost enough people to mentor. I think that the burnout comes from our constant churning of policy and lack of tooling to make mundane tasks easier. For example, maybe better reminders for reports automatic nudging of mentors who have not signed reports dead pilot buttons to detect inactive mentors (Is it called a dead pilot button) maybe a standard to podling releases to make vetting easier - i.e. apply tooling changes/additions to vetting procedures taking place outside of release votes. (ok not a tooling issue) Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Benson, -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:44 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC [..snip..] One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before I remotely consider taking that step. I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. Based on what evidence? # of emails sent in either direction? If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: On May 11, 2013, at 7:26 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: I also agree that there isn't consensus in the Incubator PMC to do this, but I'm not sure we need it. Lovely. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes. If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no consensus. This isn't a majority issue. I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a lack of consensus in favor of the idea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Hi Alan, -Original Message- From: Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:01 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC [..snip..] and more weakness in _supervising_ (or at least in documenting supervision). Could tooling help here? Tooling is important, but it doesn't solve the META COMMITTEE issue. Aka there is a ton of people on this umbrella project, and reaching consensus on anything is quite difficult. The ASF doesn't work this way -- there isn't an umbrella project controlling all of the sub projects. The board isn't an umbrella committee. It's not designed that way. They have ultimate authority/power, based on the election of the membership, but they are honestly dead slow to use it -- and for good reason. Such power should not be wielded lightly. Yet, we try in the IPMC to use it constantly. Having VOTEs for this, and that, privately and publicly, for people and/or for releases. It doesn't work. When it does work it's through the effort of Champions that existed well before the name was ever coined. A lot of Champions (Ross, Joe, me, Jukka, Chris D, you=Alan, Ant, Alan G., to name a few) have our own interests in pushing our podlings through that we brought to the ASF -- other Champions are Board members of the ASF, or ASF veterans that simply care about the impact that these new projects will have on the Foundation. But it's really those Champions, and/or those combined mentors who are active that push the podling through *in spite of* the wild west that is the IPMC. This has been documented in numerous threads and numbers things have been undertaken over the past year and a half some of which helped to improve the situation (only 1 IPMC mentor VOTE needed for PPMC addition; Joe's experiment; formal definition of Champion role; etc etc); and other things have been tried that had little to no effect (email threads; proposal wars; bickering, blah blah). We have a few competing proposals for changes to address these, especially supervision weakness. Is the reporting problem the sole issue? No, it's a variety of things centered around the general nature of umbrella projects, which we have the worst kind of in the IPMC. People on the IPMC telling PPMCs and projects how to run their communities? The ASF doesn't stand for that in its regular projects; why teach the podlings that their VOTEs don't count, and that the only people who cast binding release and membership VOTEs are members of some meta committee that have no merit in their project? I wish that I felt confident as Joe does that just electing more people from inside the projects was all we needed to do; maybe Alan's idea combined with that is the way to go. I'm not sure which way to go but I'm really liking the direction of this email. I feel that I'm getting a sense of what you feel are the core problems we're trying to solve. I'd be curious as to the intersection of those problems with the ones I've been pointing out for years. And I did more than point them out. I wrote a proposal that has incremental next steps to take in each way. Recently we had a situation on private where I felt that there was a consensus to be had, but some people needed to be nudged a bit to allow it to emerge. That's not what I see here when considering the choices of using more or less of shepherds, champions, and mentors. I think that a lot of members didn't read it, thinking that there was yet another email storm to ignore. This was the point that I was trying to make in my earlier emails. *It is the constant churning of roles and processes that is exhausting this IPMC, not the actual work.* It is this bureaucratic churning that's sapping the emotional energy if the IPMC members. Why are we churning? Because we are not holding members/mentors up to their commitments. Because we are constantly coming up w/ new ad hoc exceptions for every policy we have. It's way bigger than holding members/mentors up to their commitments. I (and others) are questioning the core of the commitment and it's rationale. We need less process. Less roles. More accountability. More tooling. I totally agree with this -- I've put up an incremental, step-by-step method to achieve all of that. One possible path is that, at some point, I as VP pick one. I plan to let this discussion continue for at least a week, if not more, before I remotely consider taking that step. Ultimately we voted you in to be our VP. I feel that you are listening to our concerns. I'll support what ever your decision is even if I don't agree. I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. What this direct to PMC
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
-Original Message-
From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:56 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's
the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not.
Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list
recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes.
And please see the last 10 years of Apache policy regarding what consensus
means, and what it doesn't.
I'm sick of your sweeping statements -- be direct. You have a problem with
my proposal -- good -- no matter how many go off this list or bugger
off,
or take your proposal elsewhere emails you send, the point is, I've done
the work; have mentored projects, and have done a lot more than simply talk
about what to get done and what not to get done in the past N years
of the Incubator. So yes, I care just as much as you do, and I've done the
work to document my care.
If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is
a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no
consensus. This isn't a majority issue.
It doesn't matter if it's a majority or not issue. You made a sweeping
statement:
{quote}
I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in
the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative
should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message.
{quote}
How_on_Earth can you get a gauge on what 170+ people believe, or what they
don't?
I suggested calling a VOTE, I wouldn't even know what the binding results
of the VOTE would be -- but at least it's measurable and quantifiable
instead
of declarative which is the language that I see you prefer using.
I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to
send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more
accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for
permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel
confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a
lack of consensus in favor of the idea.
One the one hand you want to make thinly veiled statements about what
power you have as VP; on the other you pull back and claim what roles
you don't own. So, which one is it, Benson?
I for one am also sick of the whoo hah hah, and I've given up that this
committee will decide much of anything. That's not a slight to the
committee,
which contains some of the most well respected (by me and others) members
of
the ASF. It's more a slight to the ridiculous model that the IPMC has
employed,
and the thumbing its nose at the traditional mantras of the ASF that it
ignores
(e.g., the utter uselessness and destruction that umbrella projects, once
arrived
at, create).
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Alan keeps asking that we isolate the problems that need solving. Sounds sensible. For me the IPMC usually works just fine. Occasionally there is a failure in mentoring and occasionally the IPMC fails to pick this up and address it. In addition, sometimes the IPMC is an inefficient vehicle for helping podlings that are having some form of difficulty. Whilst we do need to solve these problems, it is my opinion that these occasional failures are being blown out of all proportion. We are losing sight of the fact that more often than not our mentors do a great job. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Alan Cabrera Sent: 11/05/2013 17:46 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC On May 11, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: A real experiment with 'probationary projects' would have to model the entire process of a new project launching with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way. Can you explain what problem launching new projects with _no IPMC_ to participate in any way solves? Maybe this is where the disconnect is. Is the IPMC the problem or is it the lack of mentors the problem? What are the core problems that you are trying to solve? Taking a proposal that has been groomed and vetted at the IPMC and then launching the resulting project to the board is purely an experiment in board supervision. Can you explain what is it about the board that's better than having the board members with the spare bandwidth coming over to the IPMC to help? What is it about the auspices of the board that improves things? What is the exact problem that this solves? My personal thought is this: new project creation is not a 'project', it's a function of the Foundation. If the committee currently constituted by the board to handle this isn't working well enough, and can't agree on what to do, it is an issue for the board to consider. The board could decide to keep what we are, arguments and all. It could constitute a small (and thus consensus-prone) committee to survey the terrain and make a recommendation. It could tell the whiney VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.) That depends on what the problem is. If the IPMC is paralyzed then yes, the board should step in. I didn't realize that we're there already. If we are then please be explicit about it. But I don't understand why we can't go through the simple exercise that I propose to see where we have points in common. I think that doing so will go a long way to generating good will, as people's positions will be analyzed down to their core, and provide better transparency as to what people's motivations are. I'm saying this because I really don't understand why people are espousing these various solutions. I want to understand but at the moment it just seems that people are holding on to their positions without explaining their thoughts down to the core problems that they think they are trying to solve. In the end, I think if we're really serous about this we'll end up with bits of everyone's proposals. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes. If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no consensus. This isn't a majority issue. I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a lack of consensus in favor of the idea. I'm with Benson on that particular point, if there is a vote to be called it should be called by the ones in favour, but i don't think any vote is needed here. I do think some small experiments would be better and easier more gentle and less divisive approach than trying to push through global Incubator changes. You don't need to be king to go write some tooling, you don't need Incubator consensus to nominate some poddling people to the PMC. We could pick a handful of poddlings and ask their champions to report monthly and see if that makes a difference, and we could pick another handful and strip away their champion and shepards and instead just give them two active mentors and see what difference that makes. I'm not suggesting a 'direct-to-PMC' trial, i'm suggesting trying whats been label as board managed poddlings or probationary TLPs seeded from existing poddlings. That seems to me a more direct way to get to Joe's instill self-governance as early as is feasible than electing the poddling people to the Incubator PMC, and it helps avoid Ross's concern about poddlings likely to run into problems according to our collective experience. But for that we do need the question put to the board first. Even if they if the board replied that probationary TLPs are batshit insane that would be terrific because then we could stop having this branch of the discussion keep coming up. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Curator 2.0.0-incubating released
I've added a description line to the ANNOUNCE sample email: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CURATOR/Example+Emails -Jordan On May 11, 2013, at 1:00 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: Congrats. However, what is Curator? The mail does not say anything about it. Please ensure that any announcement e-mails about Curator include a brief description of what it is.
Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Chris, As I feel like I've explained 100 times, all of the following are true: 1) I disagree with your proposal 2) I agree with much of your analyses of problems with the IPMC 3) I I trying to do a job of consensus moderation as best I understand how, being fair to you and to all the involuntary readers of all this. My 'sweeping statements' reflect my understanding. My invitation stands and is non-ironic. If you think that there is a consensus based on your understanding of appropriate Foundation process, test it. If you are right, off we go to ask the board to to try your plan. If you are wrong, we move on. Or, you go directly to the board to make your case that this group is too disfunctional to do the right thing. That's it for me for this weekend. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
