Re: Resigning from Apache Geode mentor

[Henry Saputra]

Thanks Roman, was very grateful to be part of that family =)

- Henry

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> Henry,
>
> let me just say once again: we are really grateful for
> your efforts around Geode. Sad to see you go.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Henry Saputra  wrote:
>> As part of supporting the mentors engagement to codlings to give more
>> attentive help and mentoring, I have decided to resign from being
>> Apache Geode mentor.
>>
>> I will update the podlings.xml file and Geode incubation page to
>> reflect this change.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> -
>> 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: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Sravya Tirukkovalur]

I like Roman's idea of filling out the maturity model template, I too think
that might help get a holistic view . I can volunteer to do it as a sentry
community member if needed.

And let me take a stab at which of these I think we did for growing the
community.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
>
> > In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
> > hard to do.
>
> Agreed -- and that why so many podlings put so much effort into it over the
> course of incubation and find it a challenging hurdle to overcome.  When a
> project enters incubation, its core developers should expect that they are
> going to do a lot less coding and a lot more recruitment and community
> management for a long while.
>
> *   Raising awareness of the product through talks, articles, etc.
>

Sentry community members have given talks at major conferences like
ApacheCon, Hadoop World and so on. We also hosted Sentry Meetups around the
globe. One of my favorites is in India, where there were around 100
participants. We also wrote a few blog posts to make it easy to digest
information on latest features. And we also continuously improve on our
website and wiki pages.

*   Writing up "how to contribute" documents.
>
We have an excellent "how to contribute" page, which we continuously
improve on. A lot of new comers have used the doc to make their first
Apache contribution, which I am very proud of, as I believe the first
commit is the major step in the journey. I know of at least few
contributors who have used the doc and also have contributed back to the
doc with what they saw as gaps.

*   Teeing up easy starter issues.
>

We do have a newbie label that we use to mark easy to fix jiras. I agree
that it is hard to keep up with tagging all relevant jiras, but we try to
do our best. And try to revisit when ever there is a new contributor trying
to look for jiras to pick up.


> *   Responding to any contributions quickly and thoroughly.
>
This is an ongoing thing and I think Sentry community has been good here.
Although, I think we should continually strive to decrease the waiting time.


> *   Involving the community in development discussions.
>

>From what I see, depending on how much clarity we have on a new idea: Folks
either prefer to discuss on dev list or open a jira and have discussion on
the jira. The discussion continues through review board until the patch is
committed (even after in fact).

*   Engaging contributors and collaborating with them to develop *their*
> ideas
> through code review, constructive feedback, freewheeling design
> discussions, being flexible about integrating new ideas, and so on.
>

Ideas have been proposed by various developers in the past and have went
through a very healthy cycle of code reviews, feedbacks, refactoring,
testing and committing.


*   Ensuring that the codebase is easy to approach (builds easily, well
> commented, etc.)
>
> Yes. I would not say Sentry is the most well commented project on earth
and but we do have contributors who care about project quality and
maintainability and we strive to always improve on that front.

There's a lot of stuff we can do to grow communities, and though it's
> always a
> lot of work, the techniques are reasonably well understood around Apache by
> now.  How much of that has Sentry done?  And where in the "open source
> funnel" has there been the greatest narrowing?
>
> 1.  People hear about the product.
> 2.  People download, install, and try out the product.
> 3.  People keep using the product, becoming users.
> 4.  Users offer up their first patches, becoming contributors.
> 5.  Contributors get invited to become committers.
> 6.  Committers get invited to become (P)PMC members.
>
> While it might be "artificial" to consider promoting three committers who
> may
> or may not be ready, it's reasonable to ask, how much have the senior
> members
> of the Sentry community invested in developing those three contributors,
> and
> have there been other contributors who have been lost along the way?
>
> But getting three new committers is actually pretty great!  So how about
> the
> Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
> not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them
> to
> the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
> member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
> community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit.
>
>
We actually have not 3 but 7 new committers! And IMO, we have 3 candidates
for PPMC, who for various reasons I thought (IMO) were not ready a few
months back but now I believe they are. I would be more than happy to start
the discussion on private and give out details there.

One question on discussing candidature of a person for PPMC on 

Request for permission to edit the Apache MADlib (incubating) wiki

[Frank McQuillan]

Hello,

Can someone kindly grant me permission to edit the MADlib wiki
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/Apache+MADlib+Home

Thank you,
Frank

my wiki ID is:  fmcquillan

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Graduate Apache Brooklyn from incubator (corrected)

[Hadrian Zbarcea]

Please find below the corrected version of the proposed resolution:
 * corrected first paragraph to agree with the 3rd
 * added last paragraph (releasing incubator)
 * corrected before last paragraph (migration task)

Since I am getting paranoid, a nod from other pairs of eyes would be 
highly appreciated.


Looking forward to an uneventful graduation,
Hadrian


X. Establish the Apache Brooklyn Project

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the
public, related to a software framework for modeling,
monitoring and managing cloud applications through autonomic
blueprints.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Brooklyn Project",
be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
Foundation; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Apache Brooklyn Project be and hereby is
responsible for the creation and maintenance of a software
framework for modeling, monitoring and managing cloud
applications through autonomic blueprints; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Brooklyn"
be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
of the Apache Brooklyn Project, and to have primary
responsibility for management of the projects within the scope
of responsibility of the Apache Brooklyn Project; and be it
further

RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
Apache Brooklyn Project Management Committee:

* Aled Sage 
* Alex Heneveld 
* Andrea Turli 
* Andrew Kennedy 
* Ciprian Ciubotariu 
* Hadrian Zbarcea 
* Richard Downer 
* Sam Corbett 
* Svetoslav Neykov 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Richard Downer be
appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache Brooklyn, to
serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until
a successor is appointed; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Apache Brooklyn Project be and hereby is
tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
Incubator Brooklyn podling; and be it further

RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
Incubator Brooklyn podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
Project are hereafter discharged.



On 10/01/2015 11:06 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:

Vote passes with:

+1 - 6 binding (ke4qqq, jbonofre, jzb, johndament, olamy, hadrian)
+1 - 2 non-binding
-1 - 0

We will submit the proposal below to the board for approval (including
jbonofre and olamy in the PMC).

Many thanks again to our mentors and the incubator in general for the
guidance.

Hadrian




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
> committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a
> PPMC member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
> non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
> synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.

I don't suppose we have stats on that, do we? 

My first project was CloudStack, and I was surprised to find other
podlings *didn't* distinguish between committer and PPMC. While PPMC
votes on members, being a committer does give privileges beyond just
being an occasional contributor, so some folks may find it a useful step
between "we have to review all of your patches" and "you're helping with
governance/growth of the project." 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:26 PM, Lenni Kuff wrote:
> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
> result of any decision being made.

So... the discussion that prompted this was in March 2014, but the fix
didn't make it to the site until August 2015. 

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-128

See also (for those with access: http://s.apache.org/chc)

I remembered the exchange about this, but wasn't aware that it'd taken
so long to fix. 

When it came up (and in this Jira) it's said "we say that all committers
are PPMC members this is not as planned. Committers should be considered
separate from PMC members." The incubation status page likewise does not
distinguish PPMC. (Compare to CloudStack, which did:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cloudstack.html)

Where was it "planned"? I don't see any indicator in the Sentry proposal
that there was a distinction - where was it documented? If it wasn't
written down somewhere, how would anybody know it was "planned" that
way?

The most public reference would indicate to contributors that
contributors == PPMC. If it was "wrong" I can't find the source to
indicate that the podling felt differently.

Mea culpa for not looking at this more carefully at the time, but the
podling probably should have paused and had a public conversation about
this when it was first caught. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 08:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
> > committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a
> > PPMC member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
> > non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
> > synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.
>
> I don't suppose we have stats on that, do we?
>
> My first project was CloudStack, and I was surprised to find other
> podlings *didn't* distinguish between committer and PPMC. While PPMC
> votes on members, being a committer does give privileges beyond just
> being an occasional contributor, so some folks may find it a useful step
> between "we have to review all of your patches" and "you're helping with
> governance/growth of the project."
>
>
My experience on other projects is the same as Joe. afaik it's up to the
podling, and most I've been involved with decided to go with committer !=
ppmc. Honestly I thought that was the default.

Patrick


>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Request for permission to edit the Apache MADlib (incubating) wiki

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Frank McQuillan  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can someone kindly grant me permission to edit the MADlib wiki
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/Apache+MADlib+Home

Done!

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
result of any decision being made.

Thanks,
Lenni

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> >>> about the project in general.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I took a look.
> >>>
> >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
> >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
> >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
> >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> >>>
> >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer
> ==
> >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point
> >> it
> >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From
> that
> >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were
> no
> >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to
> >> the
> >>> PMC role.
> >>>
> >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
> >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
> committers
> >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
> unable
> >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand
> >> the
> >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> >
> > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> >
> > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC
> > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress
> > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
> encouraging
> > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really
> > striving to build a community around the project.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with
> Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
>
> From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single
> commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns others
> have raised about decisions being made in private.
>
> -Taylor
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[P. Taylor Goetz]

On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:

>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
>>> 
>>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
>>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
>>> about the project in general.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I took a look.
>>> 
>>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
>>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
>>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
>>> Committer != PPMC route.
>>> 
>>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
>>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer ==
>>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point
>> it
>>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that
>>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were no
>>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to
>> the
>>> PMC role.
>>> 
>>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
>>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
>>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers
>>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable
>>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand
>> the
>>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> 
> Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> 
> I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC
> members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress
> here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also encouraging
> others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really
> striving to build a community around the project.

Fair enough.

Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with 
Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?

From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single commit, 
without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns others have raised 
about decisions being made in private.

-Taylor
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 09:02 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> My experience on other projects is the same as Joe. afaik it's up to the
> podling, and most I've been involved with decided to go with committer !=
> ppmc. Honestly I thought that was the default.

And here I think I have to agree that it this kind of variance makes it
difficult for podlings to really know what's what. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[John D. Ament]

I don't think that's the question on the table.  Typically, podlings make
committers == PPMC members.  The reasoning being that the only thing a PPMC
member can do is vote on adding new members.  Other votes are all
non-binding (unless you're an IPMC member).  It also helps promote the
synergy needed to become a TLP, forming a strong PMC.

John

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM Lenni Kuff  wrote:

> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
> result of any decision being made.
>
> Thanks,
> Lenni
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> > >>> about the project in general.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I took a look.
> > >>>
> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
> committers,
> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
> about
> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go
> the
> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> > >>>
> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer
> > ==
> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
> point
> > >> it
> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From
> > that
> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
> were
> > no
> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers
> to
> > >> the
> > >>> PMC role.
> > >>>
> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be
> any
> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
> > committers
> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
> > unable
> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they
> understand
> > >> the
> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> > >
> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become
> PPMC
> > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no
> progress
> > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
> > encouraging
> > > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and
> really
> > > striving to build a community around the project.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with
> > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
> >
> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single
> > commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns
> others
> > have raised about decisions being made in private.
> >
> > -Taylor
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Graduate Apache Brooklyn from incubator (corrected)

[John D. Ament]

The changes look good to me.  Safe travels.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:23 PM Hadrian Zbarcea  wrote:

> Please find below the corrected version of the proposed resolution:
>   * corrected first paragraph to agree with the 3rd
>   * added last paragraph (releasing incubator)
>   * corrected before last paragraph (migration task)
>
> Since I am getting paranoid, a nod from other pairs of eyes would be
> highly appreciated.
>
> Looking forward to an uneventful graduation,
> Hadrian
>
>
> X. Establish the Apache Brooklyn Project
>
>  WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>  interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
>  Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>  Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>  open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the
>  public, related to a software framework for modeling,
>  monitoring and managing cloud applications through autonomic
>  blueprints.
>
>  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>  Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Brooklyn Project",
>  be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
>  Foundation; and be it further
>
>  RESOLVED, that the Apache Brooklyn Project be and hereby is
>  responsible for the creation and maintenance of a software
>  framework for modeling, monitoring and managing cloud
>  applications through autonomic blueprints; and be it further
>
>  RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Brooklyn"
>  be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
>  serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
>  of the Apache Brooklyn Project, and to have primary
>  responsibility for management of the projects within the scope
>  of responsibility of the Apache Brooklyn Project; and be it
>  further
>
>  RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
>  hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
>  Apache Brooklyn Project Management Committee:
>
>  * Aled Sage 
>  * Alex Heneveld 
>  * Andrea Turli 
>  * Andrew Kennedy 
>  * Ciprian Ciubotariu 
>  * Hadrian Zbarcea 
>  * Richard Downer 
>  * Sam Corbett 
>  * Svetoslav Neykov 
>
>  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Richard Downer be
>  appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache Brooklyn, to
>  serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>  Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
>  resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until
>  a successor is appointed; and be it further
>
>  RESOLVED, that the Apache Brooklyn Project be and hereby is
>  tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
>  Incubator Brooklyn podling; and be it further
>
>  RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
>  Incubator Brooklyn podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
>  Project are hereafter discharged.
>
>
>
> On 10/01/2015 11:06 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> > Vote passes with:
> >
> > +1 - 6 binding (ke4qqq, jbonofre, jzb, johndament, olamy, hadrian)
> > +1 - 2 non-binding
> > -1 - 0
> >
> > We will submit the proposal below to the board for approval (including
> > jbonofre and olamy in the PMC).
> >
> > Many thanks again to our mentors and the incubator in general for the
> > guidance.
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
including past decisions.
Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to
move with near
unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
have without some formal
VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.

That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
matter what roles people have
unless we need to be looking at a release.



On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
> considering anything.
> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or
> the community, all
> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
> taken.  I would consider
> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
> like this or other related
> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>
> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
> project.  That is why
> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer to
> on list decisions.
> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
> consensus-based decision
> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective decision
> making requires
> open communication, preferably on public channels.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>
>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
>> result of any decision being made.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lenni
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list
>> and
>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
>> > >>> about the project in general.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I took a look.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
>> committers,
>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
>> about
>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go
>> the
>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it
>> is
>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was
>> Committer
>> > ==
>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
>> point
>> > >> it
>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From
>> > that
>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
>> were
>> > no
>> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting
>> committers to
>> > >> the
>> > >>> PMC role.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be
>> any
>> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
>> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
>> > committers
>> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
>> > unable
>> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they
>> understand
>> > >> the
>> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
>> > >
>> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
>> > >
>> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new
>> PPMC
>> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
>> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become
>> PPMC
>> > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the
>> last
>> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no
>> progress
>> > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
>> > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
>> > encouraging
>> > > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and
>> really
>> > > striving to build a community around the project.
>> >
>> > Fair enough.
>> >
>> > Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with
>> > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
>> >
>> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single
>> > commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns
>> others
>> > have raised about decisions being made in private.
>> >
>> > -Taylor
>> > 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Mattmann, Chris A (3980)]

+1 to the below.

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++





-Original Message-
From: Joe Schaefer 
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
graduation

>Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
>including past decisions.
>Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to
>move with near
>unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
>have without some formal
>VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
>
>That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
>matter what roles people have
>unless we need to be looking at a release.
>
>
>
>On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>
>> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
>> considering anything.
>> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or
>> the community, all
>> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
>> taken.  I would consider
>> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
>> like this or other related
>> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>>
>> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
>> project.  That is why
>> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer to
>> on list decisions.
>> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
>> consensus-based decision
>> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective decision
>> making requires
>> open communication, preferably on public channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
>>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
>>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
>>> result of any decision being made.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lenni
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>>>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>>>wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list
>>> and
>>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and
>>>discussions
>>> > >>> about the project in general.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I took a look.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
>>> committers,
>>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
>>> about
>>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to
>>>go
>>> the
>>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1],
>>>it
>>> is
>>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was
>>> Committer
>>> > ==
>>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
>>> point
>>> > >> it
>>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC.
>>>From
>>> > that
>>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
>>> were
>>> > no
>>> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting
>>> committers to
>>> > >> the
>>> > >>> PMC role.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to
>>>be
>>> any
>>> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why
>>>that’s
>>> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
>>> > committers
>>> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the
>>>project
>>> > unable
>>> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they
>>> understand
>>> > >> the
>>> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
>>> > >
>>> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new
>>> PPMC

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now includes
new committers and new community members following along for which their
voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that the
community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like this
on-
list.



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> +1 to the below.
>
> ++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Chief Architect
> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++
> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Schaefer 
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
>
> >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
> >including past decisions.
> >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to
> >move with near
> >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
> >have without some formal
> >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
> >
> >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
> >matter what roles people have
> >unless we need to be looking at a release.
> >
> >
> >
> >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> >
> >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
> >> considering anything.
> >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or
> >> the community, all
> >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
> >> taken.  I would consider
> >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
> >> like this or other related
> >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
> >>
> >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
> >> project.  That is why
> >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer to
> >> on list decisions.
> >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
> >> consensus-based decision
> >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective decision
> >> making requires
> >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
> >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
> >>> result of any decision being made.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Lenni
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> >>>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
> >>>wrote:
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list
> >>> and
> >>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and
> >>>discussions
> >>> > >>> about the project in general.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> I took a look.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
> >>> committers,
> >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
> >>> about
> >>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to
> >>>go
> >>> the
> >>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1],
> >>>it
> >>> is
> >>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was
> >>> Committer
> >>> > ==
> >>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
> >>> point
> >>> > >> it
> >>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC.
> >>>From
> >>> > that
> >>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
> >>> were
> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.3-incubating

[Jean-Louis MONTEIRO]

+1 ( bindings )

Le mar 3 nov. 2015 13:25, Romain Manni-Bucau  a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> As mentionned on sirona list I'd like to release Apache Sirona
>  0.3-incubating.
>
> Fixed issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SIRONA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.3-incubating%20AND%20status%20%3D%20RESOLVED%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC
>
> Highlights are:
> - enhancements for our javaagent
> - new Alert(er) API
> - starting to rework of our web stack
>
>
> Staging Maven repository:
> *https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachesirona-1002/
>  >*
>
> Staging release:
> *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/sirona/0.3-incubating/
> *
>
> Documentation:
> *http://sirona.incubator.apache.org/docs/0.3-incubating/
> *
>
> Vote open for 72H
>
> +1
> 0
> -1
>
> Thanks,
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Tomitriber
> 
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Committership is the right to do work on the project. PMC membership is the
right to participate in governance.  People left in the nebulous state
between
committership and PMC membership for long periods of time more than likely
will give up in frustration for not being trusted enough to govern their
own work.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
> including past decisions.
> Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try to
> move with near
> unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
> have without some formal
> VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
>
> That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
> matter what roles people have
> unless we need to be looking at a release.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>
>> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
>> considering anything.
>> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or
>> the community, all
>> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
>> taken.  I would consider
>> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
>> like this or other related
>> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>>
>> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
>> project.  That is why
>> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer to
>> on list decisions.
>> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
>> consensus-based decision
>> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective decision
>> making requires
>> open communication, preferably on public channels.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
>>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
>>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
>>> result of any decision being made.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lenni
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz >> >
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>>> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list
>>> and
>>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and
>>> discussions
>>> > >>> about the project in general.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I took a look.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
>>> committers,
>>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
>>> about
>>> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go
>>> the
>>> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it
>>> is
>>> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was
>>> Committer
>>> > ==
>>> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
>>> point
>>> > >> it
>>> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC.
>>> From
>>> > that
>>> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
>>> were
>>> > no
>>> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting
>>> committers to
>>> > >> the
>>> > >>> PMC role.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to
>>> be any
>>> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
>>> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
>>> > committers
>>> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
>>> > unable
>>> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they
>>> understand
>>> > >> the
>>> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
>>> > >
>>> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new
>>> PPMC
>>> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
>>> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become
>>> PPMC
>>> > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the
>>> last
>>> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no
>>> progress
>>> > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
>>> > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
>>> > encouraging
>>> > > others in the community to step up, 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems.
Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
instance,
which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see
the rhyme
or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using.

I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are
being resolved,
but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about
planning and
such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns as
well.



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:

> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be
> posted on a wiki someplace.
>
> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see
> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Lenni
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now
> includes
> > new committers and new community members following along for which their
> > voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that
> > the
> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like
> this
> > on-
> > list.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to the below.
> > >
> > > ++
> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > > Chief Architect
> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> > > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > > ++
> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > > ++
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joe Schaefer 
> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"  >
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > > graduation
> > >
> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything
> here,
> > > >including past decisions.
> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we
> try
> > to
> > > >move with near
> > > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles
> people
> > > >have without some formal
> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
> > > >
> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really
> shouldn't
> > > >matter what roles people have
> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't
> capable
> > of
> > > >> considering anything.
> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC
> > or
> > > >> the community, all
> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
> > > >> taken.  I would consider
> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a
> situation
> > > >> like this or other related
> > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
> > > >>
> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of
> > the
> > > >> project.  That is why
> > > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally
> refer
> > to
> > > >> on list decisions.
> > > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in
> > any
> > > >> consensus-based decision
> > > >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective
> > decision
> > > >> making requires
> > > >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> > > >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to
> > help
> > > >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not
> > the
> > > >>> result of any decision being made.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable of
considering anything.
Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or the
community, all
of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
taken.  I would consider
it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation like
this or other related
matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.

Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
project.  That is why
we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer to on
list decisions.
The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
consensus-based decision
making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective decision
making requires
open communication, preferably on public channels.



On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:

> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to help
> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not the
> result of any decision being made.
>
> Thanks,
> Lenni
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> > >>> about the project in general.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I took a look.
> > >>>
> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
> committers,
> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all
> about
> > >>> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go
> the
> > >>> Committer != PPMC route.
> > >>>
> > >>> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> > >>> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer
> > ==
> > >>> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that
> point
> > >> it
> > >>> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From
> > that
> > >>> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there
> were
> > no
> > >>> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers
> to
> > >> the
> > >>> PMC role.
> > >>>
> > >>> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be
> any
> > >>> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> > >>> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial
> > committers
> > >>> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project
> > unable
> > >>> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they
> understand
> > >> the
> > >>> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
> > >
> > > Background: I am a Sentry community member.
> > >
> > > I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
> > > members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
> > > encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become
> PPMC
> > > members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
> > > Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no
> progress
> > > here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
> > > better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also
> > encouraging
> > > others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and
> really
> > > striving to build a community around the project.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > Can you point me to the discussion where the project decided to go with
> > Committer != PMC over Committer == PMC?
> >
> > From an outsider's perspective, that decision just looks like a single
> > commit, without any public discussion, which speaks to the concerns
> others
> > have raised about decisions being made in private.
> >
> > -Taylor
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Also, I'm not quite clear on what is meant by "running" a release.
Do you mean a committer not on the PMC functioned as Release Manager?
Normally someone who does that is sending a clear-cut signal that they
belong on the PMC, because all that work they are doing is being done on
behalf of
the PMC.  I consider it a highly awkward situation when a Release Manager
does
not have a binding vote on their own damned release (well for a normal PMC).


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
> that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
> incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now includes
> new committers and new community members following along for which their
> voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that
> the
> community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like
> this on-
> list.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> +1 to the below.
>>
>> ++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Chief Architect
>> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++
>> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Schaefer 
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
>> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
>> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
>> graduation
>>
>> >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
>> >including past decisions.
>> >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try
>> to
>> >move with near
>> >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
>> >have without some formal
>> >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
>> >
>> >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
>> >matter what roles people have
>> >unless we need to be looking at a release.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>> >
>> >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable
>> of
>> >> considering anything.
>> >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC or
>> >> the community, all
>> >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
>> >> taken.  I would consider
>> >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
>> >> like this or other related
>> >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>> >>
>> >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of the
>> >> project.  That is why
>> >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer
>> to
>> >> on list decisions.
>> >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in any
>> >> consensus-based decision
>> >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective
>> decision
>> >> making requires
>> >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
>> >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to
>> help
>> >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not
>> the
>> >>> result of any decision being made.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Lenni
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>> >>>
>> >>> > >> wrote:
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private
>> list
>> >>> and
>> >>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and
>> >>>discussions
>> >>> > >>> about the project in general.
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> I took a look.
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
>> >>> committers,
>> >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be
posted on a wiki someplace.

I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see
how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.

Thanks,
Lenni

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
> that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
> incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now includes
> new committers and new community members following along for which their
> voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that
> the
> community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like this
> on-
> list.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > +1 to the below.
> >
> > ++
> > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> > Chief Architect
> > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> > ++
> > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> > ++
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joe Schaefer 
> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > graduation
> >
> > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything here,
> > >including past decisions.
> > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we try
> to
> > >move with near
> > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles people
> > >have without some formal
> > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
> > >
> > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really shouldn't
> > >matter what roles people have
> > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't capable
> of
> > >> considering anything.
> > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the PPMC
> or
> > >> the community, all
> > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position being
> > >> taken.  I would consider
> > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a situation
> > >> like this or other related
> > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
> > >>
> > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of
> the
> > >> project.  That is why
> > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally refer
> to
> > >> on list decisions.
> > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in
> any
> > >> consensus-based decision
> > >> making.  Not to say everything must be voted on, but collective
> decision
> > >> making requires
> > >> open communication, preferably on public channels.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Lenni Kuff 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I think there is some confusion here. The Sentry project has never
> > >>> considered Committer == PMC. The recent website change was only to
> help
> > >>> clarify the roles of each of the members of the project, it was not
> the
> > >>> result of any decision being made.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Lenni
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:03 PM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff 
> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > >>>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier 
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private
> list
> > >>> and
> > >>> > >>> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and
> > >>>discussions
> > >>> > >>> about the project in general.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> I took a look.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new
> > >>> committers,
> > >>> > >>> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at
> 

Request for write access to Incubator Wiki

[aditi hilbert]

Hi,

I would like to be granted write access to the Apache Wiki for the Apache 
Incubator. I shall be posting the status report content on behalf of the new 
Mynewt project.

My username is ‘aditihilbert'

thanks,
Aditi
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
which
is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" should
be.
It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a release,
that has
considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally meets my
definition of "belongs on the PMC".



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems.
> Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
> instance,
> which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see
> the rhyme
> or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using.
>
> I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are
> being resolved,
> but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about
> planning and
> such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns as
> well.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be
>> posted on a wiki someplace.
>>
>> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to see
>> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
>> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lenni
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
>> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining the
>> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now
>> includes
>> > new committers and new community members following along for which their
>> > voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize that
>> > the
>> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like
>> this
>> > on-
>> > list.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 to the below.
>> > >
>> > > ++
>> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> > > Chief Architect
>> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
>> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
>> > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
>> > > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> > > ++
>> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
>> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> > > ++
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Original Message-
>> > > From: Joe Schaefer 
>> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
>> general@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
>> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
>> > > graduation
>> > >
>> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything
>> here,
>> > > >including past decisions.
>> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we
>> try
>> > to
>> > > >move with near
>> > > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles
>> people
>> > > >have without some formal
>> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
>> > > >
>> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really
>> shouldn't
>> > > >matter what roles people have
>> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't
>> capable
>> > of
>> > > >> considering anything.
>> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the
>> PPMC
>> > or
>> > > >> the community, all
>> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position
>> being
>> > > >> taken.  I would consider
>> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be unanimous on a
>> situation
>> > > >> like this or other related
>> > > >> matters, and certainly opinions evolve over time.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Nobody should put themselves in a position of speaking on behalf of
>> > the
>> > > >> project.  That is why
>> > > >> we have communication channels in the first place and generally
>> refer
>> > to
>> > > >> on list decisions.
>> > > >> The individual positions of the participants should be reflected in
>> > any
>> > > >> consensus-based decision
>> > > >> making.  Not to say 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur  wrote:
> ...I like Roman's idea of filling out the maturity model template,...

FWIW we did this recently for Groovy and it's been useful, see
https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/MATURITY.adoc

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
>>... I agree but in the meantime we have
>> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
> "we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
> at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
> proper evaluation of a podling's health and community

Ok, "there is" that tool then ;-)

IMO there's a growing consensus that the maturity model provides
useful data points to evaluate a project's health.

I'm not saying it is THE ultimate tool, and If you think it needs
improvements, patches are welcome (on the comdev list).

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
> which
> is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar" should
> be.
> It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a release,
> that has
> considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally meets my
> definition of "belongs on the PMC".
>

Makes sense. To answer you previous question on what is meant by "running"
a release. The answer is yes, a committer functioned as a Release Manager.
I do think we have people that are very close.


>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> > he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination
> problems.
> > Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
> > instance,
> > which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard to see
> > the rhyme
> > or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are using.
> >
> > I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are
> > being resolved,
> > but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about
> > planning and
> > such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns as
> > well.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Lenni Kuff  wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Joe. That was a powerful read and very inspiring. This should be
> >> posted on a wiki someplace.
> >>
> >> I agree. This seems like an important topic to revisit on our list to
> see
> >> how the community feels - and more generally, discuss more topics (big,
> >> small, new, old) more frequently moving forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lenni
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks Chris.  So what I'm saying is, instead of adopting the position
> >> > that "we" have made up our minds on this matter well before joining
> the
> >> > incubator, why not recognize that at this point your community now
> >> includes
> >> > new committers and new community members following along for which
> their
> >> > voices have not been heard from on this matter.  Once you recognize
> that
> >> > the
> >> > community has changed a bit, it makes sense to revisit a chestnut like
> >> this
> >> > on-
> >> > list.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> >> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 to the below.
> >> > >
> >> > > ++
> >> > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> >> > > Chief Architect
> >> > > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
> >> > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> >> > > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
> >> > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
> >> > > WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> >> > > ++
> >> > > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
> >> > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> >> > > ++
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -Original Message-
> >> > > From: Joe Schaefer 
> >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
> >> > > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way
> and
> >> > > graduation
> >> > >
> >> > > >Just to contrast this with the IPMC itself, we discuss everything
> >> here,
> >> > > >including past decisions.
> >> > > >Almost everything that happens here is a community decision, and we
> >> try
> >> > to
> >> > > >move with near
> >> > > >unanimous consent.  It is generally hard to figure out what roles
> >> people
> >> > > >have without some formal
> >> > > >VOTE where people indicate a binding status on it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >That is what you should aspire to on your dev list- it really
> >> shouldn't
> >> > > >matter what roles people have
> >> > > >unless we need to be looking at a release.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joe Schaefer 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> This may sound a bit pedantic, but the "Sentry project" isn't
> >> capable
> >> > of
> >> > > >> considering anything.
> >> > > >> Either you are referring to a decision of the committers or the
> >> PPMC
> >> > or
> >> > > >> the community, all
> >> > > >> of which requires some discussion over time about any position
> >> being
> >> > > >> taken.  I would consider
> >> > > >> it unusual for the project participants to be 

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> ...how about the
> Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
> not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them to
> the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
> member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
> community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit

+1, sounds like a plan.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentor vs. Champion

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm confused about why do I see my name
>> in the mentor sign-off section here:
>>  https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2015
>>
>> I've just checked podlings.xml and I am only
>> listed there as a Champion.
>
> I assume you're talking about Concerted...

Yes. Sorry about ommiting the name of the podling.

> It was an inadvertent glitch added here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2015?action=diff=7=8
>
> Shouldn't happen again, it's not a problem with the template generator.

Cool. What confused me is that I *think* I also received and email reminder.

But anyway -- you've answered my question. I'll keep an eye out on
the expected behavior.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentor vs. Champion

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm confused about why do I see my name
> in the mentor sign-off section here:
>  https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2015
>
> I've just checked podlings.xml and I am only
> listed there as a Champion.

I assume you're talking about Concerted...

It was an inadvertent glitch added here:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2015?action=diff=7=8

Shouldn't happen again, it's not a problem with the template generator.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Lenni Kuff]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> >
> > * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> > look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> > about the project in general.
> >
> >
> > I took a look.
> >
> > From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
> > which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
> > adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
> > Committer != PPMC route.
> >
> > In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> > pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer ==
> > PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point
> it
> > looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that
> > point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were no
> > discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to
> the
> > PMC role.
> >
> > What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
> > consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> > important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers
> > list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable
> > to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand
> the
> > function and importance of growing the PPMC.
>

Background: I am a Sentry community member.

I would have to disagree with this. We have identified lack of new PPMC
members as an issue and called out in our board reports. We are also
encouraging non-PPMC members to get involved in ways they can become PPMC
members - for example, we have had non-PPMC members run two of the last
Sentry releases. As mentioned earlier, it's not like there is no progress
here, we have people who are very close (and I agree that we can do a
better job discussing this on or private@ list). We are  also encouraging
others in the community to step up, giving them opportunities, and really
striving to build a community around the project.


> >
> >
> Anyone from the community that can pitch in with more details? I realize
> the firehose that is the IPMC can be overwhelming, and often intimidating,
> but you should feel free to ensure the record is accurately reflected. :-)
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
>

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Rich Bowen]

On Nov 4, 2015 12:54 AM, "Justin Erenkrantz"  wrote:
>
> I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.

It's not bureaucracy. It's suggesting a tool by which a mentor might
measure a podling's progress. It answers the question "how can I tell if
they're ready." It also gives a better-than-gut-feeling way to communicate
to others that they're ready.

When a project is recommended to the board for graduation, most of the time
all we have to go on is a list of names and a vague description. It'd be
nice to have more. But this isn't a requirement or policy. It's just a
suggestion.

> We already require podlings to submit reports as frequently as
> monthly.  (Geode somehow had to report monthly for no discernible
> reason.)
>
> This further adds to the burden on being a mentor - probably to
> something like being a teacher enforcing a pedagogical structure on
> the podlings.  I don't think that is what we should be striving for.
> For the two podlings I currently mentor (Geode and HAWQ), I keep an
> eye on the mailing lists and try to ensure that any process questions
> that are raised are addressed.  In the early days of Geode, there was
> a bit of that - less so now as the community is finding its way.  HAWQ
> seems to be doing well - nothing surprising that I can tell so far.
>
> I believe in a "big tent" foundation - we should welcome new projects
> of any stripe.  If they fail within the Incubator to graduate, so be
> it.  But, that is separate from asking the mentors to somehow be
> "responsible" for the podlings.  I have an interest to see them
> succeed, but if it doesn't, *shrug* and we move on.  I don't see any
> value in adding more bureaucracy as it will further sap any motivation
> to truly "mentor" projects.  I view the mentor as someone that can be
> called upon, but doesn't necessarily require active involvement on a
> daily basis.  If I wanted that, I would be a committer to the project.
> Let's not confuse the two.
>
> My $.02.  -- justin
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > Fellow mentors,
> >
> > There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave
it to
> > the other participants to champion the particular parts that they are
> > passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with mentor
> > disengagement, and suggestions for improving it.
> >
> > A mentor's role is to help a project learn the ropes at the ASF, and
that
> > mentor might not necessarily be deeply versed in the particular
technology
> > that the podling works with. As such, it can frequently be the case
that the
> > mentor becomes disengaged from the daily conversation of the lists, and
> > eventually with the entire process.
> >
> > As a means of refocusing the mentors' efforts, and keeping them
engaged, I'd
> > like to encourage each mentor (or group of mentors) to consider writing
a
> > running report (ie, evolving, updated every quarter) based on
> >
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> > where they evaluate each point on the maturity model, as a path towards
> > graduation. This gives a concrete target, and a lens through which to
view
> > the podling's progress towards that target.
> >
> > This could be kept in the incubator wiki, and linked from the official
> > project report, or it could be maintained just for your own benefit. I
think
> > it would be particularly useful to attach to a graduation
recommendation, as
> > a sign that the recommendation is more than just checking the various
boxes,
> > but is a glowing endorsement of the project's readiness to be TLP.
> >
> > As a side-note, I'd also encourage mentors who are mentors in name
only, and
> > not reality, to consider cleaning up the paperwork by removing
themselves
> > from the roster. It doesn't look great when a podling can't get mentor
> > signoff on their reports.
> >
> > --
> > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >
> > -
> > 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: [Result][VOTE] Graduate Apache Kylin from the Apache Incubator

[Luke Han]

Hi there,
The new release (v1.1.1) already rolled out in IPMC for vote now [1].

The release vote in IPMC will send out later once vote pass in PPMC,
but it will perfect if someone could help to double check and test this
release if possible in advance. Just want to make sure such concern and
issue already be fixed in this release.

 Thank you very much.

Luke

[1]. *http://s.apache.org/kV2 *



Best Regards!
-

Luke Han

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Luke Han  wrote:

> The merge will happen after release, but we could apply this patch first
> if community has concern about this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards!
> Luke Han
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:57 PM -0800, "John D. Ament" <
> johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> That's a good way to fix it. Do you merge your release branches back to
>> master/next develop?
>> On Nov 3, 2015 22:04, "Luke Han"  wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway, removed such reference in Kylin's code, there's no more Google
>> > Fonts or Adobe Fonts now.
>> >
>> > Please help to check:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/commit/a2fa3e8e93765bf3db39f5da935aca3a588789f1
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best Regards!
>> > -
>> >
>> > Luke Han
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Justin Mclean
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > > The referenced font is SIL OFL 1.1
>> > > > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi=OFL
>> > > >
>> > > > You're not technically bundling the font, but referencing it via URL.
>> > > It's
>> > > > a good question for legal.
>> > >
>> > > The fonts are actually being bundled as well. [1] It just not obvious
>> > from
>> > > their names.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Justin
>> > >
>> > > 1.
>> > >
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kylin/tree/1.x-staging/webapp/app/fonts
>> > > -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[John D. Ament]

Hi Justin,

Just to clarify.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:54 AM Justin Erenkrantz 
wrote:

> I will just note that I disagree with adding bureaucracy like this.
> We already require podlings to submit reports as frequently as
> monthly.  (Geode somehow had to report monthly for no discernible
> reason.)
>

It was requested that Geode provide an extra report as they did not report
for their first 3 months.  New podlings, new TLPs are all required to
report monthly to the (board/IPMC) as a way to ensure they're getting
started properly.  Roman agreed with the request and they reported 1 extra
month.


>
> This further adds to the burden on being a mentor - probably to
> something like being a teacher enforcing a pedagogical structure on
> the podlings.  I don't think that is what we should be striving for.
> For the two podlings I currently mentor (Geode and HAWQ), I keep an
> eye on the mailing lists and try to ensure that any process questions
> that are raised are addressed.  In the early days of Geode, there was
> a bit of that - less so now as the community is finding its way.  HAWQ
> seems to be doing well - nothing surprising that I can tell so far.
>
> I believe in a "big tent" foundation - we should welcome new projects
> of any stripe.  If they fail within the Incubator to graduate, so be
> it.  But, that is separate from asking the mentors to somehow be
> "responsible" for the podlings.  I have an interest to see them
> succeed, but if it doesn't, *shrug* and we move on.  I don't see any
> value in adding more bureaucracy as it will further sap any motivation
> to truly "mentor" projects.  I view the mentor as someone that can be
> called upon, but doesn't necessarily require active involvement on a
> daily basis.  If I wanted that, I would be a committer to the project.
> Let's not confuse the two.
>
> My $.02.  -- justin
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> > Fellow mentors,
> >
> > There was a conversation at ApacheCon about the Incubator. I'll leave it
> to
> > the other participants to champion the particular parts that they are
> > passionate about, but I was particularly concerned with mentor
> > disengagement, and suggestions for improving it.
> >
> > A mentor's role is to help a project learn the ropes at the ASF, and that
> > mentor might not necessarily be deeply versed in the particular
> technology
> > that the podling works with. As such, it can frequently be the case that
> the
> > mentor becomes disengaged from the daily conversation of the lists, and
> > eventually with the entire process.
> >
> > As a means of refocusing the mentors' efforts, and keeping them engaged,
> I'd
> > like to encourage each mentor (or group of mentors) to consider writing a
> > running report (ie, evolving, updated every quarter) based on
> >
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> > where they evaluate each point on the maturity model, as a path towards
> > graduation. This gives a concrete target, and a lens through which to
> view
> > the podling's progress towards that target.
> >
> > This could be kept in the incubator wiki, and linked from the official
> > project report, or it could be maintained just for your own benefit. I
> think
> > it would be particularly useful to attach to a graduation
> recommendation, as
> > a sign that the recommendation is more than just checking the various
> boxes,
> > but is a glowing endorsement of the project's readiness to be TLP.
> >
> > As a side-note, I'd also encourage mentors who are mentors in name only,
> and
> > not reality, to consider cleaning up the paperwork by removing themselves
> > from the roster. It doesn't look great when a podling can't get mentor
> > signoff on their reports.
> >
> > --
> > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >
> > -
> > 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: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Schaefer]

Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the podling?
I certainly think you've done the right thing by raising your concerns here
and
asking for a sanity check.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add
> more
> > > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
> me
> >
> > If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> > podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> > incubation.
>
> And note the Board also wants to see PMC growth over the years (for TLPs).
> This is why we mandate reporting requirements of "last date of PMC
> addition"
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add more
> > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
> me
>
> If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> incubation.
>
>
This highlights my concern though. It's why this thread was started in the
first place IMO - the fact that the incubator graduation requirements are a
moving target. It's one of the more frustrating aspects of being a mentor.

A few years ago being in the incubator was strict, but much more
straightforward. Bootstrap, build your community, address the IP issues,
show you understand the Apache way and you are on your way - "best wishes".
Now we seem to think everyone is out to do the wrong thing, rather than
everyone having positive motives and are trying their best.

If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC
as a strict requirement to graduation:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator

Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now saying that
you would be +1?

Based on my reading Sentry has more than met the minimum requirements and I
recommend we allow graduation.

Patrick



> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
> It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
> need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was
> already
> mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
> couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be
> fine
> with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.

FWIW I agree with you that it's "artificial" and for a podling that's
motivated to graduate (which Sentry appears to be) it's not hard to
paper that over and just say "OK, if we want to graduate, let's tick
this checkbox."

Not having new PPMC folks is a symptom of what concerns me about Sentry.
I didn't see a focus on adding committers until prodded. I don't see a
focus on growing committers to become PMC members minus mentor prodding.
If a project cares about sustainability and growth, shouldn't it be
having these discussions? Their absence concerns me greatly. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC
> as a strict requirement to graduation:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
...

I agree but in the meantime we have
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
which many agree is a more fine grained evaluation of a project's
health.

>
> ...Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now saying that
> you would be +1? ...

I'd have to be convinced that there is a very good reason why no PPMC
members have been added during incubation, as that's not a good sign.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
> PPMC
> > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> ...
>
> I agree but in the meantime we have
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> which many agree is a more fine grained evaluation of a project's
> health.
>
>
Is that a rubric for incubation? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the
incubator documents.

Maturity is fine, but it's relative. We're talking about an incubator here,
not a full grown chick.


> >
> > ...Bertrand - you had stated a strong "-1" previously. Are you now
> saying that
> > you would be +1? ...
>
> I'd have to be convinced that there is a very good reason why no PPMC
> members have been added during incubation, as that's not a good sign.
>
>
So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was already
mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be fine
with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.

Patrick


> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> podling?

I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory. 

Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
hard to get right. 

But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
contribute. 

I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.). 

At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE. 

Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
hold it up single-handedly.

* I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
about the project in general. 

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> ...If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be fine
> with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial

This is getting rethorical...I'm not interested in micromanaging
podlings so won't be able to know myself if those 3 new members were
voted in as a "graduation trick" of if the podling realized the
importance of voting them in.

I guess I'd have to trust the mentors comments in that case.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
PPMC
> > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> >
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> ...
>
> I agree but in the meantime we have
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

"we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
proper evaluation of a podling's health and community.

-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> > podling?
>
> I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
> not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory.
>
> Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
> required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
> time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
> filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
> don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
> hard to get right.
>
> But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
> not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
> contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
> want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
> contribute.
>
> I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
> non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
> are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
> particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
> to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
> about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
> non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.).
>
> At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
> think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
> that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
> that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
> much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE.
>
>
Personally I don't see this. To be fair, to my eye in each case when you've
brought up issues the podling has done their best to address them. They
even reached out to all the mentors recently and asked for feedback on
whether they are ready or not. The frustration podlings have is that
graduation is a moving target, even the mentors/ipmc can't agree. They are
trying to do their best, but growing a community is hard. They have been in
the incubator for two years, have built a useful tool, multiple releases,
have 30+ committers and 20+ ppmc members. Of course they want to graduate.
What I see in the sentry discussions is that they want to stay true to the
apache way, but don't want to do it artificially so. Just "ticking the
boxes" as has been brought up elsewhere in this thread.


> Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
> where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
> filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
> input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
> vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
> my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
> hold it up single-handedly.
>
>
If we can't reach consensus then we shouldn't go ahead. Your input is
valuable, that's why I'm spending my personal time on it. ;-)  However we
need to have some clear action items for the podling so that they have
something solid to build off. As it stands now I don't see a path to
graduation given the current IPMC climate.

Patrick


> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> about the project in general.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding
> PPMC
> > > as a strict requirement to graduation:
> > >
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > ...
> >
> > I agree but in the meantime we have
> >
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
> "we" don't have anything. ComDev has produced an interesting to way to look
> at projects. Possibly a metric. ... But not an agreed-upon system for the
> proper evaluation of a podling's health and community.


The incubator has lost track of what "incubation" means... but I digress,
and I've tried really hard to stay away from getting onto my soapbox...

Patrick

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > So you are -1 then. That's fine. But it gets back to my original concern.
> > It's artificial. I can go back to the Sentry community and say "hey, you
> > need some PPMC members, vote some in" and they might do it. It was
> > already
> > mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the mentors feels that a
> > couple of committers are ready. If they come back in a week and say "hey,
> > we just voted in 3 new ppmc members, now we're ready right?" you'll be
> > fine
> > with that? This is why I highlighted it as artificial.
>
> FWIW I agree with you that it's "artificial" and for a podling that's
> motivated to graduate (which Sentry appears to be) it's not hard to
> paper that over and just say "OK, if we want to graduate, let's tick
> this checkbox."
>
> Not having new PPMC folks is a symptom of what concerns me about Sentry.
> I didn't see a focus on adding committers until prodded. I don't see a
> focus on growing committers to become PMC members minus mentor prodding.
> If a project cares about sustainability and growth, shouldn't it be
> having these discussions? Their absence concerns me greatly.
>
>
In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
hard to do. Keep in mind all the things we're asking a bunch of folks to do
- look at this thread.

Patrick


> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Greg Stein]

On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:
> > ...what would the action item the community should take away from
> > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add
more
> > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's in the pipeline. Seems artificial to
me
>
> If it's in the pipeline that's fine, what's important IMO is that the
> podling demonstrates that it can grow/renew its (p)PMC, during
> incubation.

And note the Board also wants to see PMC growth over the years (for TLPs).
This is why we mandate reporting requirements of "last date of PMC addition"

Cheers,
-g

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Sravya Tirukkovalur]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, has any of this conversation put your mind at ease about the
> > podling?
>
> I'm less concerned than I was, yes. I'm still not in +1 territory. I'm
> not entirely sure I'm out of -1 territory.
>
> Sentry has made progress in its time in the incubator, but I feel it's
> required a lot of prodding at each step of the way - to reporting on
> time, adding contributors*, making sure its incubation status page is
> filled out, etc. It's also had some problems with release process, but I
> don't hold that against any podling because our release process can be
> hard to get right.
>
> I would like to respectfully disagree here. As far as I can see all 7
committers for added organically. Without any prodding.


> But I view the podling as one that's concerned with releasing software,
> not growing community. I keep seeing references to "actively preventing"
> contributions - but I don't think that's a very high bar to clear. I
> want to see a podling actively working to make it possible to join and
> contribute.
>
> I'll note that I may see Sentry differently because I am a
> non-developer. The Jira-focused process may be adequate for folks who
> are primarily only focused on the release of software. It is not a
> particularly inviting or transparent process to anybody who might like
> to participate in Sentry in non-development roles. And I hope we care
> about contributors who will add value to Apache projects in
> non-development roles (documentation, marketing, translation, etc.).
>
> At any rate - I've said my piece, and I'll just reiterate that I don't
> think additional time is the answer. The signal I get from Sentry is
> that the podling feels it's ready to graduate, and they've indicated
> that they don't feel my suggestions are a "valid ask" - so I don't see
> much value in holding back a DISCUSSION and VOTE.
>
> Note, as I understand it the board "is unlikely" to approve a podling
> where a mentor is voting -1. While I have concerns, I also don't want to
> filibuster the process and just keep Sentry in Limbo. I'd appreciate
> input from other IPMC folks on best decorum (e.g. abstaining from the
> vote, stepping down as mentor) in this situation. If other folks share
> my concerns, the vote wouldn't pass. If I'm wrong, I don't feel I should
> hold it up single-handedly.
>
> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> about the project in general.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> j...@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

For me, the key, nay brilliant, terms in the Maturity Model are about 
"striving."  

The question is always, is there demonstrable striving toward the elements 
identified in the maturity model.

If that's not apparent, then one has to wonder, whatever the level of 
achievement, whether that's what one expects to see in an Apache Project, 
whatever its tenure.  It's about the journey the Project (or Podling) is on, 
not a fixed destination.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Roman Shaposhnik
> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 09:50
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
[ ... ]

> Think of it as when you are asking somebody to review your code. If you
> don't make it easy for reviewers -- don't expect them to bend over
> backwards
> to make sense out of what you submitted. Doesn't mean you'll get a -1,
> but
> don't expect a quick +1 either. Same deal with a maturity model: when
> the time
> comes for a graduation vote, if you make it easy(er) for "reviewers"
> to start forming
> an opinion on whether the community is ready or not -- you will spend
> less time arguing.
> 
> Personally I find maturity model template to be just that kind of a tool
> for me.
> 
> On the flip side -- not filling it out is not a blocker. It just
> means, for example,
> that *I* personally will have very little incentive to dig into the guts
> of a
> community I don't know well to really find out all the same details that
> mentors
> or community members could have communicated to me filling out the
> maturity model template.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.
> 
> -
> 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: Resigning from Apache Geode mentor

[Roman Shaposhnik]

Henry,

let me just say once again: we are really grateful for
your efforts around Geode. Sad to see you go.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Henry Saputra  wrote:
> As part of supporting the mentors engagement to codlings to give more
> attentive help and mentoring, I have decided to resign from being
> Apache Geode mentor.
>
> I will update the podlings.xml file and Geode incubation page to
> reflect this change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henry
>
> -
> 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

Mentor vs. Champion

[Roman Shaposhnik]

Hi!

I'm confused about why do I see my name
in the mentor sign-off section here:
 https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2015

I've just checked podlings.xml and I am only
listed there as a Champion.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> I look to the ipmc chair to say what we MUST or MUST NOT do. I've learned
> my lesson.

Makes two of us. Still waiting on actionable guidance.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[P. Taylor Goetz]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> 
> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> about the project in general.

I took a look.

From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers, which is 
a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about adding PPMC 
members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the Committer != PPMC 
route.

In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is pointed 
out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer == PMC, but that 
the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point it looks like the 
website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that point on, all new 
member votes were for Committer only, and there were no discussions regarding 
adding new PMC members or promoting committers to the PMC role.

What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any 
consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s important. 
Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers list, so it 
would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable to function, but 
I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand the function and 
importance of growing the PPMC.

If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.

-Taylor

[1] 
https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Patrick Hunt]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz  wrote:

>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
>
> * I would invite folks with access to go to Sentry's private list and
> look over discussions about adding new contributors, and discussions
> about the project in general.
>
>
> I took a look.
>
> From a community growth perspective, I see them adding new committers,
> which is a good thing. What I don’t see is any discussion at all about
> adding PPMC members, nor any discussion about why they chose to go the
> Committer != PPMC route.
>
> In a thread related to the first new committer being added [1], it is
> pointed out that the podling website stated that Sentry was Committer ==
> PMC, but that the new member vote was only for Committer. At that point it
> looks like the website was updated to reflect Committer != PMC. From that
> point on, all new member votes were for Committer only, and there were no
> discussions regarding adding new PMC members or promoting committers to the
> PMC role.
>
> What I find slightly disconcerting is that there doesn’t seem to be any
> consideration or discussion around growing the PPMC and why that’s
> important. Sure they have 20-odd PPMC members from the initial committers
> list, so it would take a pretty large exodus to render the project unable
> to function, but I don’t see anything to indicate that they understand the
> function and importance of growing the PPMC.
>
>
Anyone from the community that can pitch in with more details? I realize
the firehose that is the IPMC can be overwhelming, and often intimidating,
but you should feel free to ensure the record is accurately reflected. :-)

Patrick


> If I’ve misinterpreted anything, please feel free to correct me.
>
> -Taylor
>
> [1]
> https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/sentry-private/201402.mbox/%3cCAHUddLNXceMb0xnk=1GEb6tVmCshYQMFe=zcpplgfcwgg+f...@mail.gmail.com%3e
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt  wrote:

> In my experience "growing the community" is hard. It's very easy to say,
> hard to do.

Agreed -- and that why so many podlings put so much effort into it over the
course of incubation and find it a challenging hurdle to overcome.  When a
project enters incubation, its core developers should expect that they are
going to do a lot less coding and a lot more recruitment and community
management for a long while.

*   Raising awareness of the product through talks, articles, etc.
*   Writing up "how to contribute" documents.
*   Teeing up easy starter issues.
*   Responding to any contributions quickly and thoroughly.
*   Involving the community in development discussions.
*   Engaging contributors and collaborating with them to develop *their* ideas
through code review, constructive feedback, freewheeling design
discussions, being flexible about integrating new ideas, and so on.
*   Ensuring that the codebase is easy to approach (builds easily, well
commented, etc.)

There's a lot of stuff we can do to grow communities, and though it's always a
lot of work, the techniques are reasonably well understood around Apache by
now.  How much of that has Sentry done?  And where in the "open source
funnel" has there been the greatest narrowing?

1.  People hear about the product.
2.  People download, install, and try out the product.
3.  People keep using the product, becoming users.
4.  Users offer up their first patches, becoming contributors.
5.  Contributors get invited to become committers.
6.  Committers get invited to become (P)PMC members.

While it might be "artificial" to consider promoting three committers who may
or may not be ready, it's reasonable to ask, how much have the senior members
of the Sentry community invested in developing those three contributors, and
have there been other contributors who have been lost along the way?

But getting three new committers is actually pretty great!  So how about the
Sentry community focuses in on those three and asks, if we believe they are
not yet ready, what can we do to facilitate their development and get them to
the point where they *are* ready?  Because if one or more becomes a PPMC
member that the rest of the community has full confidence in, the "grow the
community" critieria will be satisfied in both letter and spirit.

Hope this helps,

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> For me, the key, nay brilliant, terms in the Maturity Model are about 
> "striving."
>
> The question is always, is there demonstrable striving toward the elements 
> identified in the maturity model.
>
> If that's not apparent, then one has to wonder, whatever the level of 
> achievement, whether that's what
> one expects to see in an Apache Project, whatever its tenure.  It's about the 
> journey the Project (or Podling)
> is on, not a fixed destination.

Exactly! And this is why, in my opinion, quite a few heated discussion
around graduation are totally missing the point. The frame of reference
that gets perpetuated is that somehow the project has to be a perfect
example of a TLP.

That is, in my opinion, totally counter productive. The project's community
has to demonstrate that they get where the gaps are and they are striving
to address those in a meaningful fashion (*)

Thanks,
Roman.

(*) for the purists on this thread: yes I know that there are certain parts
of the curriculum that have to be mastered as the basis for graduation.
Which, come to think of it, the maturity model also calls out explicitly.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Resigning as HAWQ mentor

[Roman Shaposhnik]

Owen,

thanks for helping us out to get going! Sad to see you go.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Owen O'Malley  wrote:
> All,
>I'd like to resign as a HAWQ mentor. HAWQ will still have 5 mentors, so
> it should still be in good shape.
>
> Thanks,
>Owen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org