You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> on 2013/05/03 15:03:42 UTC
[DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Hi folks,
While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintainers+Per+Component
I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" and
"secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage contribution. So I
thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis could
be one person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if
you wanted to. It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of
interested parties.
If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that
this piece of code is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps
assist that person. Or perhaps you need to clear everything with that
person first? How does it work?
(This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or BFDLs.
It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission culture
where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author names
in source code file. We never want someone to look at something, with an
idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I better not, this isn't mine.")
I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>
wrote:
>
> Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects for a
> specific module add their name as maintainer of that module in component
> maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute wiki on this process .
>
> During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as community we
> ended up not addressing and given that number of unassigned issues is high
> % should we consider auto-assign based on the maintainers list? This is
> still not optimal since auto-assign will go to primary maintainer and
> secondary maintainers still need to pull in defects but is better than one
> person triaging defects.
>
I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of that
thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other
Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this
"primary maintainer" column.)
--
NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
That sounds great, Animesh. Thank you!
On 3 May 2013 19:59, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>wrote:
> Yes I will merge primary and secondary maintainers into one column. I also
> started a separate thread yesterday on JIRA component based filters and
> email subscriptions so that whoever is interested can be notified on
> potential opportunities to work on. When you get a chance please review
> and provide feedback
>
> Animesh
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:40 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
> >
> > Yep, I thought so.
> >
> > So can we just remove this column, and have a single column then?
> >
> >
> > On 3 May 2013 19:38, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > <an...@citrix.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1]
> > > with following comment
> > >
> > > [Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use
> > > @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based
> > > on maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community
> > > using auto-assignment. The community argument wins.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be
> > > dropped and just call it maintainers or other inviting name.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Einc
> > > ubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from
> > > :"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM
> > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maint
> > > > ai
> > > > ners+Per+Component
> > > >
> > > > I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer"
> > > > and "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage
> > > > contribution. So
> > > I
> > > > thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
> > > >
> > > > If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis
> > > could be one
> > > > person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if
> > > > you
> > > wanted to.
> > > > It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested
> > > parties.
> > > >
> > > > If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this
> > > piece of code
> > > > is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that
> person.
> > > Or
> > > > perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How
> > > > does it work?
> > > >
> > > > (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or
> > > BFDLs.
> > > > It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission
> > > culture
> > > > where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author
> > > > names in source code file. We never want someone to look at
> > > > something, with an idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I
> > > > better not, this isn't
> > > mine.")
> > > >
> > > > I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
> > > >
> > > > On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > > > <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects
> > > > > for a specific module add their name as maintainer of that module
> > > > > in component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute
> > > > > wiki on
> > > > this process .
> > > > >
> > > > > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as
> > > > > community we ended up not addressing and given that number of
> > > > > unassigned issues is high % should we consider auto-assign based
> > > > > on the maintainers list? This is still not optimal since
> > > > > auto-assign will go to primary maintainer and secondary
> > > > > maintainers still need to pull in defects but is better than one
> person
> > triaging defects.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome
> > > > of
> > > that
> > > > thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any
> > > > other Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no
> > > > need for this "primary maintainer" column.)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > NS
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
--
NS
RE: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Yes I will merge primary and secondary maintainers into one column. I also started a separate thread yesterday on JIRA component based filters and email subscriptions so that whoever is interested can be notified on potential opportunities to work on. When you get a chance please review and provide feedback
Animesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:40 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
>
> Yep, I thought so.
>
> So can we just remove this column, and have a single column then?
>
>
> On 3 May 2013 19:38, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <an...@citrix.com>wrote:
>
> > Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1]
> > with following comment
> >
> > [Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use
> > @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based
> > on maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community
> > using auto-assignment. The community argument wins.
> >
> >
> > Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be
> > dropped and just call it maintainers or other inviting name.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Einc
> > ubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from
> > :"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maint
> > > ai
> > > ners+Per+Component
> > >
> > > I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer"
> > > and "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage
> > > contribution. So
> > I
> > > thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
> > >
> > > If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis
> > could be one
> > > person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if
> > > you
> > wanted to.
> > > It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested
> > parties.
> > >
> > > If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this
> > piece of code
> > > is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that person.
> > Or
> > > perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How
> > > does it work?
> > >
> > > (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or
> > BFDLs.
> > > It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission
> > culture
> > > where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author
> > > names in source code file. We never want someone to look at
> > > something, with an idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I
> > > better not, this isn't
> > mine.")
> > >
> > > I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
> > >
> > > On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi
> > > <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects
> > > > for a specific module add their name as maintainer of that module
> > > > in component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute
> > > > wiki on
> > > this process .
> > > >
> > > > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as
> > > > community we ended up not addressing and given that number of
> > > > unassigned issues is high % should we consider auto-assign based
> > > > on the maintainers list? This is still not optimal since
> > > > auto-assign will go to primary maintainer and secondary
> > > > maintainers still need to pull in defects but is better than one person
> triaging defects.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome
> > > of
> > that
> > > thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any
> > > other Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no
> > > need for this "primary maintainer" column.)
> > >
> > > --
> > > NS
> >
>
>
>
> --
> NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Yep, I thought so.
So can we just remove this column, and have a single column then?
On 3 May 2013 19:38, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>wrote:
> Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1] with
> following comment
>
> [Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use
> @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based on
> maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community using
> auto-assignment. The community argument wins.
>
>
> Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be dropped
> and just call it maintainers or other inviting name.
>
>
> [1]
> http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from
> :"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintai
> > ners+Per+Component
> >
> > I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" and
> > "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage contribution. So
> I
> > thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
> >
> > If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis
> could be one
> > person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if you
> wanted to.
> > It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested
> parties.
> >
> > If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this
> piece of code
> > is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that person.
> Or
> > perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How does it
> > work?
> >
> > (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or
> BFDLs.
> > It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission
> culture
> > where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author names
> > in source code file. We never want someone to look at something, with an
> > idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I better not, this isn't
> mine.")
> >
> > I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
> >
> > On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects for a
> > > specific module add their name as maintainer of that module in
> > > component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute wiki on
> > this process .
> > >
> > > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as community
> > > we ended up not addressing and given that number of unassigned issues
> > > is high % should we consider auto-assign based on the maintainers
> > > list? This is still not optimal since auto-assign will go to primary
> > > maintainer and secondary maintainers still need to pull in defects
> > > but is better than one person triaging defects.
> > >
> >
> > I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of
> that
> > thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other
> > Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this
> > "primary maintainer" column.)
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
--
NS
RE: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Posted by Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>.
Noah I had already withdrawn auto-assignment in the same thread [1] with following comment
[Animesh>] +1, that is the reason Apache projects do not use @author tag. I take back my original argument of auto-assigning based on maintainers list. I did a search but did not find any community using auto-assignment. The community argument wins.
Regarding removing the primary maintainers I agree that it can be dropped and just call it maintainers or other inviting name.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/udidz5fsgolng2xs?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Ecloudstack-dev+auto+assignment+from:"Animesh+Chaturvedi"&page=1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:04 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> While reading the meeting minutes, I found a link to:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Current+Maintai
> ners+Per+Component
>
> I feel concerned about the distinction between "primary maintainer" and
> "secondary maintainer". I believe this could discourage contribution. So I
> thought I'd bring this up here so we can have a chat about it.
>
> If you had a group of maintainers, and it was obvious that this lis could be one
> person, or several, then you would feel like you could join it if you wanted to.
> It would feel like a team effort. A loose organisation of interested parties.
>
> If there is a primary maintainer, then there is a feeling that this piece of code
> is owned by somebody, and all you can do is perhaps assist that person. Or
> perhaps you need to clear everything with that person first? How does it
> work?
>
> (This is the reason Apache projects do not have "lead developers" or BFDLs.
> It discourages participation, and fosters a subservient permission culture
> where we want a do-ocracy. It's also the reason we don't put author names
> in source code file. We never want someone to look at something, with an
> idea to fix or improve it and think, "oh, I better not, this isn't mine.")
>
> I took a peek through my email for additional context, and I found:
>
> On 2 April 2013 23:45, Animesh Chaturvedi <an...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Can I propose that whoever wants to contribute in fixing defects for a
> > specific module add their name as maintainer of that module in
> > component maintainer list [1]? And we update how to contribute wiki on
> this process .
> >
> > During 4.1 there are a large number of major issues that as community
> > we ended up not addressing and given that number of unassigned issues
> > is high % should we consider auto-assign based on the maintainers
> > list? This is still not optimal since auto-assign will go to primary
> > maintainer and secondary maintainers still need to pull in defects
> > but is better than one person triaging defects.
> >
>
> I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of that
> thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other
> Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this
> "primary maintainer" column.)
>
> --
> NS
Re: [DISCUSS] Primary maintainers?
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Fri, May 3, 2013, at 08:03 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I understand the motivation behind this, but I believe the outcome of
> that
> thread was a consensus that auto-assignment does not happen in any other
> Apache projects, and should not happen here either. (So no need for this
> "primary maintainer" column.)
Yeah, we should probably simply revise that to something like "people
who are willing to be assigned bugs in this area" or "people who know
these areas".
I confess, I don't go through each and every bug in Jira - but I'd like
some way to enable people who aren't intimately familiar with the
project to ping me personally if they see bugs in the Web site or
documentation that I can fix.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/