Re: Gora community size (was Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org)
Hi, On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: ...Just to clear one thing up here, Ferdy was VOTE'd in for Gora PMC and committership in January of this year. In the following thread [0] Chris states that Ferdy was added to the resolution which was subsequently passed by the board at the January or February board meeting... fe...@apache.org is indeed listed in the resolution at http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2012/board_minutes_2012_01_24.txt -Bertrand [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/gora-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg01344.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Gora community size (was Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org)
On 23 April 2012 16:39, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. You are correct. All releases must carry three +1 votes. It's one of the few fixed points in the Apache Way. I note from the Gora archives that the VOTE text was incorrect and as a result one member of the community felt unable to vote. At this point the vote should probably have been cancelled and called again. In addition to the incorrect wording a community member (Ferdy) raised some issues, at least one of which you responded to saying For me this is the most concerning and I don't like the look of it one bit. Ferdy is not listed on the graduation resolution [1] so unless he's recently been voted in he is a community member, and a valuable one at that since he clearly evaluated the release candidate. His concerns should be properly addressed (preferably by him with a patch ;-) By the time you get to the next release he might just have a binding vote. Regardless of the above issues, votes should run for *at least* 72 hours rather than exactly 72 hours. You and other members of the community should gently nudge other PMC members and ask them to review the release. Patience is probably all that is needed, especially in a small community. If you continue to have problems let us know. Ross [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E [1] http://markmail.org/thread/lzhuqltozcopum6i -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Hi Chris, Thanks for your comments. Best Lewis On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hey Lewis, FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list: http://s.apache.org/49d In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is, as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome, so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE closed, and then move forward. Great job pushing this forward. My 2c. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org -- *Lewis*
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Oops thread correction that original one was held up in mod and never delivered because I wasn't subscribed on user@. Here's the one from dev@. http://s.apache.org/mLZ Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Hey Lewis, FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list: http://s.apache.org/49d In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is, as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome, so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE closed, and then move forward. Great job pushing this forward. My 2c. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is, as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome, so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE closed, and then move forward. +1 We have the language at least 72 hours baked into our RM template email. In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by say, coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE immediately after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be contentious should have a fixed end-time. However, most ASF VOTEs are not contentious, and at least 72 hours seems to work well. As a convenience, perhaps it's vaguely similar to a parliamentary voice vote. Voice votes can be challenged, and anyone wanting to challenge a VOTE which runs for at least 72 hours will have at least 72 hours to do so. :) Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
On Apr 23, 2012 3:20 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ... In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by say, coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE immediately after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be contentious should have a fixed end-time. Since a release cannot be vetoed... sure, the RM could stop the vote. But the goal is to get signatures, too, so there is no strong benefit to stopping early. To rephrase: there is no such thing as a contentious release vote. Cheers -g
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
On Apr 23, 2012 2:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ... In theory, the fuzzy end-time could be abused on a contentious VOTE by say, coordinating a block of votes and having the RM terminate the VOTE immediately after those votes come in. So perhaps VOTEs which are expected to be contentious should have a fixed end-time. Since a release cannot be vetoed... sure, the RM could stop the vote. But the goal is to get signatures, too, so there is no strong benefit to stopping early. Cheers, -g
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
The short answer is that you need to grow the number of active PMC members (not sure why users is on a vote; they don't at all). You need three +1 votes to ensure that the release has been fully-reviewed. One or two PMC Members cannot make a release in the name of the ASF. It takes a minimum of three. So... get more actives and/or get the other PMC Members off their butt to inspect the release candidate and sign it with their key. Three signatures, and you're good to go. (and please avoid rubber stamps; get some real review) Cheers, -g On Apr 23, 2012 11:40 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes. On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hey Lewis, FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list: http://s.apache.org/49d In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is, as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome, so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE closed, and then move forward. Great job pushing this forward. My 2c. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Gora community size (was Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org)
Excellent, so it looks to me like either addressing Ferdy's concerns or getting a +1 from another PMC member is all you need. Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Apr 23, 2012 8:38 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ross, On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: Ferdy is not listed on the graduation resolution [1] so unless he's recently been voted in he is a community member, and a valuable one at that since he clearly evaluated the release candidate. His concerns should be properly addressed (preferably by him with a patch ;-) By the time you get to the next release he might just have a binding vote. Just to clear one thing up here, Ferdy was VOTE'd in for Gora PMC and committership in January of this year. In the following thread [0] Chris states that Ferdy was added to the resolution which was subsequently passed by the board at the January or February board meeting. Thanks again for your comments Lewis [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/gora-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg01344.html
Re: WELCOME to community@apache.org
Yeah I wasn't saying that there was lazy consensus. I said, if you have 2 +1 VOTES, and you need a 3rd, then you don't have to call the VOTE closed at that point just b/c 72 hours passed. That you can just say that the VOTE is open *for at least* 72 hours, and then just leave it open if you don't have 3 +1s yet. My lazy word below was to refer to myself or others in Gora who are either busy/lazy/whatever and that haven't got time to review the release candidate yet which is why Lewis doesn't have 3 +1 VOTEs. However Henry and I both said that we'd try to make time to do it in the next few days. In general, my principle is just to leave a release VOTE or a people VOTE open indefinitely if I was the one that called it, until I get my desired outcome (which in this case for release, no one is arguing, is 3 +1 VOTEs) :) Hope that explains my perspective. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Greg Stein wrote: Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes. On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hey Lewis, FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list: http://s.apache.org/49d In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth is, as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular desired outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the outcome, so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE closed, and then move forward. Great job pushing this forward. My 2c. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote: Hi Everyone, We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted in favour of a +1. Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to progress with this. Thanks for any direction and/or comments. Best Lewis [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
