Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

Hi all,

I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
development and discussion out-of-sight. 

I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1] 

Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask." 

At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind: 

"I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
opinion at all. And here is why:

When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
intuitively."

The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved. 

The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
Way" as commonly understood. [3]

However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.) 

I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
the majority here.

[1] http://s.apache.org/611
[2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
[3] http://theapacheway.com/

Best,

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

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

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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

Jira issues are (IMO) a bit too passive to be focal points for community
interaction.

The *active* process of an email arriving in your inbox? Much better for
enabling community members to participate. And a uniform and easy way to do
so. Especially against the *transient* nature of Jira issues. If one gets
closed out quickly ("fixing them rapidly"), then discussion is effectively
shut down right then and there. That is not *inviting* discussion, but is
closing it down.

If you leave a Jira open for 72 hours, then it might be possible to argue
for inclusion. But the exact opposite seems to be occurring.

A mailing list allows any/all discussion to remain open. There is no
open/closed status associated with a particular topic.

Cheers,
-g


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> development and discussion out-of-sight.
>
> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
>
> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
>
> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
>
> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> opinion at all. And here is why:
>
> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> intuitively."
>
> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
>
> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
>
> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
>
> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
> the majority here.
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/611
> [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
> [3] http://theapacheway.com/
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Rohith Sharma K S <ro...@huawei.com>]

>>> who would be interested in some video conferences next week? Set a date and we can work out an agenda. I'll gladly talk about where I've been going with anti-affinity  & even show some of the code
+1, I would like to be part of this discussion for sync up even though I am not actively contributing to SLIDER. :-)

@Stev, let me know the time and date.

Thanks & Regards
Rohith Sharma K S

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Loughran [mailto:stevel@hortonworks.com] 
Sent: 11 November 2015 02:09
To: dev@slider.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Fwd: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

From incubator-general

This is interesting —and I think we need to make sure we aren't going to go the same way.

Part of the problem is, IMO, simply JIRA-first development gets in the way of broader discussions. I see that across projects, including Hadoop, spark & others. It's a great tool from a coding perspective, but I'm not convinced its so good for setting a shared vision of where a project should be going.

One thing I think we could do, other than talk more across the list, is set up some hangouts (or worse, webex) chats with people using/developing with Slider. I'm in GMT+000 right now, so can talk mornings my time/evenings asia, or evenings my time/mornings US, and my sunnyvale colleagues could round out the cycle with a US/asia chat.

who would be interested in some video conferences next week? Set a date and we can work out an agenda. I'll gladly talk about where I've been going with anti-affinity  & even show some of the code

-steve


Begin forwarded message:

From: Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>>
Date: 2 November 2015 at 11:59:15 GMT
To: General Apache Incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
Subject: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Hi all,

I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much development and discussion out-of-sight.

I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September, and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]

Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."

At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:

"I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my opinion at all. And here is why:

When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them intuitively."

The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.

The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache Way" as commonly understood. [3]

However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)

I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with the majority here.

[1] http://s.apache.org/611
[2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
[3] http://theapacheway.com/

Best,

jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net<ma...@zonker.net>
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Jon Maron <jm...@hortonworks.com>]

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
> From incubator-general
> 
> This is interesting —and I think we need to make sure we aren't going to go the same way.
> 
> Part of the problem is, IMO, simply JIRA-first development gets in the way of broader discussions. I see that across projects, including Hadoop, spark & others. It's a great tool from a coding perspective, but I'm not convinced its so good for setting a shared vision of where a project should be going.
> 
> One thing I think we could do, other than talk more across the list, is set up some hangouts (or worse, webex) chats with people using/developing with Slider. I'm in GMT+000 right now, so can talk mornings my time/evenings asia, or evenings my time/mornings US, and my sunnyvale colleagues could round out the cycle with a US/asia chat.
> 
> who would be interested in some video conferences next week? Set a date and we can work out an agenda. I'll gladly talk about where I've been going with anti-affinity  & even show some of the code

Sounds like a good idea to me - I’d be interested. 

> 
> -steve
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>>
> Date: 2 November 2015 at 11:59:15 GMT
> To: General Apache Incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
> Subject: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> development and discussion out-of-sight.
> 
> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
> 
> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
> 
> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
> 
> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> opinion at all. And here is why:
> 
> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> intuitively."
> 
> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
> 
> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
> 
> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
> 
> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
> the majority here.
> 
> [1] http://s.apache.org/611
> [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
> [3] http://theapacheway.com/
> 
> Best,
> 
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net<ma...@zonker.net>
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

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

[Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>]

From incubator-general

This is interesting —and I think we need to make sure we aren't going to go the same way.

Part of the problem is, IMO, simply JIRA-first development gets in the way of broader discussions. I see that across projects, including Hadoop, spark & others. It's a great tool from a coding perspective, but I'm not convinced its so good for setting a shared vision of where a project should be going.

One thing I think we could do, other than talk more across the list, is set up some hangouts (or worse, webex) chats with people using/developing with Slider. I'm in GMT+000 right now, so can talk mornings my time/evenings asia, or evenings my time/mornings US, and my sunnyvale colleagues could round out the cycle with a US/asia chat.

who would be interested in some video conferences next week? Set a date and we can work out an agenda. I'll gladly talk about where I've been going with anti-affinity  & even show some of the code

-steve


Begin forwarded message:

From: Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>>
Date: 2 November 2015 at 11:59:15 GMT
To: General Apache Incubator <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
Subject: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Hi all,

I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
development and discussion out-of-sight.

I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]

Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."

At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:

"I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
opinion at all. And here is why:

When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
intuitively."

The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.

The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
Way" as commonly understood. [3]

However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)

I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
the majority here.

[1] http://s.apache.org/611
[2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
[3] http://theapacheway.com/

Best,

jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net<ma...@zonker.net>
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

Here's an idea: how about you guys fill out the maturity model template?
I really liked how it turned out during the Groovy graduation discussion
and perhaps it can help here as well.

JIRA vs. MLs is but a single facet of how a project practices "Apache Way".
Personally I'd like to see more data points.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Vinod Vavilapalli
<vi...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> Many of the active TLPs do tend to center all project discussions on JIRA as opposed to mailing lists. OTOH, non-code discussions are usually best served on mailing lists.
>
> Instead of making it a JIRA vs mailing list discussion, how about the podling be advised about putting a cool-off period for JIRA resolutions - 24-36hrs before they get closed. Again, this is something a bunch of active TLPs practice in the interest of leaving enough time windows for everyone (many times around the world in different time-zones) to pitch in.
>
> +Vinod
>
>
>> On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
>> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
>> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
>> development and discussion out-of-sight.
>>
>> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
>> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
>> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
>>
>> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
>> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
>> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
>> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
>> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
>> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
>>
>> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
>> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
>> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
>> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
>> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
>>
>> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
>> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
>> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
>> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
>> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
>> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
>> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
>> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
>> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
>> opinion at all. And here is why:
>>
>> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
>> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
>> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
>> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
>> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
>> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
>> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
>> intuitively."
>>
>> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
>>
>> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
>> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
>> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
>> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
>>
>> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
>> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
>> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
>> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
>>
>> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
>> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
>> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
>> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
>> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
>> the majority here.
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/611
>> [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
>> [3] http://theapacheway.com/
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> jzb
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> jzb@zonker.net
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

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

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

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 05:27PM, Vinod Vavilapalli wrote:
> Many of the active TLPs do tend to center all project discussions on JIRA as
> opposed to mailing lists. OTOH, non-code discussions are usually best served
> on mailing lists.
> 
> Instead of making it a JIRA vs mailing list discussion, how about the
> podling be advised about putting a cool-off period for JIRA resolutions -
> 24-36hrs before they get closed. Again, this is something a bunch of active
> TLPs practice in the interest of leaving enough time windows for everyone
> (many times around the world in different time-zones) to pitch in.

I think these might be good development practices, but if there's an
underlying issues with off-line decision making none of these tweak will solve
it. The root issue needs to be addressed, if it indeed exists.

But even for the tweaks you've proposed: some fixes/patches are mundane and
keeping them on-hold for an arbitrary number of the hours will simply slow
down the development. Some of the new features might be as well trivial: say
adding new build target to combine certain build functions in a more
convenient way, etc. etc. So, how to line up the rules and control they
are being followed? Creation new policies even before the graduation happened
sounds completely broken to me.

What's important IMO is that committers on a project have enough sense to know
when the input from the rest of the developers is needed and when a change is
trivial enough to "just go in". That's a part of the podling maturity, as I
see it: the effectiveness of the community inner-working; the trust that your
peers are doing "the right thing".

Cos

> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> > time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> > concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> > development and discussion out-of-sight. 
> > 
> > I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> > conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> > and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1] 
> > 
> > Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> > suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> > happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> > and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> > the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> > podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask." 
> > 
> > At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> > third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> > Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> > operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> > in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind: 
> > 
> > "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> > the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> > create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> > patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> > mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> > filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> > the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> > interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> > right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> > opinion at all. And here is why:
> > 
> > When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> > comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> > project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> > quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> > that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> > participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> > knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> > intuitively."
> > 
> > The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved. 
> > 
> > The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> > conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> > and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> > Way" as commonly understood. [3]
> > 
> > However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> > continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> > position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
> > agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.) 
> > 
> > I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
> > totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
> > how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
> > so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
> > future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
> > the majority here.
> > 
> > [1] http://s.apache.org/611
> > [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
> > [3] http://theapacheway.com/
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > jzb
> > -- 
> > Joe Brockmeier
> > jzb@zonker.net
> > Twitter: @jzb
> > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Patrick.  I did some poking around in jira and certainly wasn't
able to discern any pattern of misconduct.  We do need to distinguish
repair work
from architecture/design decisions, and what I see is a lot of the former
and relatively little of the latter.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> I haven't seen the "quick closing" aside from things like some test
> cleanups, even then the average was 5 days. I ran the jira report for
> resolution time and it certainly doesn't seem like jiras are being closed
> "instantly". Most of these are closed after many (typ. double digit, some
> tripple) days.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=project-12314720&periodName=daily&daysprevious=30&selectedProjectId=12314720&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports%3Aresolutiontime-report&Next=Next
>
> All of the jira events are forwarded to the Sentry mailing list, so from
> the perspective of following along and getting an opportunity to respond I
> haven't seen an issue. As Vinod mentioned many projects (e.g. hadoop)
> operate in this manner. Jira is used to focus discussion and ensure there
> is a record and an action item. ML discussion isn't discouraged, but it can
> be hard to follow multiple threads of discussion/resolution.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to
> tell
> > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli <
> vinodkv@hortonworks.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Missed that part, that sounds really bad.
> > >
> > > +Vinod
> > >
> > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net<mailto:
> > > jzb@zonker.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
> > > Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
> > > have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

I haven't seen the "quick closing" aside from things like some test
cleanups, even then the average was 5 days. I ran the jira report for
resolution time and it certainly doesn't seem like jiras are being closed
"instantly". Most of these are closed after many (typ. double digit, some
tripple) days.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?projectOrFilterId=project-12314720&periodName=daily&daysprevious=30&selectedProjectId=12314720&reportKey=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.reports%3Aresolutiontime-report&Next=Next

All of the jira events are forwarded to the Sentry mailing list, so from
the perspective of following along and getting an opportunity to respond I
haven't seen an issue. As Vinod mentioned many projects (e.g. hadoop)
operate in this manner. Jira is used to focus discussion and ensure there
is a record and an action item. ML discussion isn't discouraged, but it can
be hard to follow multiple threads of discussion/resolution.

Patrick


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
> what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli <vinodkv@hortonworks.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Missed that part, that sounds really bad.
> >
> > +Vinod
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net<mailto:
> > jzb@zonker.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
> > Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
> > have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."
> >
> >
>

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

[Sravya Tirukkovalur <sr...@cloudera.com>]

I am part of Sentry community and I do not think we ever had an instance
(in my honest knowledge) where a jira was committed before people had
opportunity to respond/discuss. Most of the communication as I see is on
jira (ideas and design), some on email (roadmap, design, release, doc,
other) and review board( design and implementation details). We did take
the mentors suggestions seriously about preferring email discussions over
jira and have been moving some of the discussions to email list. Although I
agree that there is very little value in doing so, I am not saying there is
no value. These are just my thoughts and would be more than happy if people
can convince me why we should duplicate or prefer email.

Pro email:

   1. There might be more people familiar with email as compared to jira.
   So there is a chance that more people might speak up. Might be perceived as
   more inclusive.

Pro jira:

   1. It is easy to track specific items. People can just watch the
   specific jiras, as compared to creating fancy email filters.
   2. All discussion is in one place. With email lists, often times
   discussions are split across threads.
   3. Nice history of a feature. It is easy to link related features and
   hence it is easy to follow the lineage of a specific feature. This is
   almost impossible if we do not capture enough information on jira.


Regards,

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
> what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli <vinodkv@hortonworks.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Missed that part, that sounds really bad.
> >
> > +Vinod
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net<mailto:
> > jzb@zonker.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
> > Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
> > have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."
> >
> >
>



-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

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

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 04:27PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 03:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > I see this (the release discussion threads you linked) as a semi-mature
> > community that's well aligned. A number of folks responded to the request
> > for discussion and said they were in favor. It was done on the ML in the
> > open. What more do we want? I don't see anyone excluded and I'm sure if
> > there was a new person looking to get involved they would have been
> > welcomed into the discussion, no one is being turned away from what I can
> > see.
> 
> No one is being turned away, that I've noticed, but I really don't see
> how anyone is supposed to follow along if they're not part of the team
> already. I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
> didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence.
> 
> I'm also sad to see that being held up as a standard by other mentors.
> My understanding is that projects should be attempting to create a
> community that is open, and trying to self-perpetuate. Sure, you can't
> do that if you turn people away actively - but you also can't do that by
> having conversations offlist and having an opaque process that newcomers
> can't follow along with.
> 
> I'll say again - maybe my standards are improperly calibrated. If so,
> and "not actively turning people away" is the standard we're going
> for... that's disappointing as all heck.

I don't think your standards have became miscalibrated all of a sudden. These
community principles are what being instilled on new podlings by many here.
Hence I believe that a perceived new norm of "not actively turning people
away" should be dealt with by the first the mentors and backed up by the whole
incubation model, including shepherds.

Cos

> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-934
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

Private PPMC discussions and archives (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/04/2015 03:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> One question on discussing candidature of a person for PPMC on private:
> I know that private is only for PPMC, but I believe the new elected PPMC
> can always get the digest for older messages (or not?). If that is the case
> wouldn't it defeat the purpose of having these discussions on private?

New PPMC/PMC members *can* access private list archives where their
candidacy is discussed, absolutely.

And yes, this means that when they're added to the PPMC (or PMC, or as
an ASF Member) they can see where they've been discussed 'privately.'
So, when discussing this sort of thing, assume that eventually the
person you're discussing will be able to see it.

If the purpose were simply to do this out of sight of the prospective
PPMC member, then it would defeat the purpose.

However, AIUI, it serves a few additional purposes:

- It doesn't have an immediate impact on the project or person. Someone
who is contributing well but not quite ready for PPMC duties, for
example, may get immediately discouraged if they're discussed publicly
and found wanting.

- You don't wind up with a publicly searchable discussion of someone's
suitability (or lack thereof) that might turn up when someone google's a
person's name. So - it might hurt my feelings eventually to learn that
someone -1'ed me for some reason, but it shouldn't impact my job
prospects, etc.

But I recommend assuming that when you discuss anyone for PPMC (etc) on
a private list that the odds are they will eventually see it. I'm not a
fan of this, because I suspect it inhibits fully candid discussion.

On the flip side, I don't think PPMC folks should shy away from
objectively discussing folks and being willing to say "this person may
be a great PPMC member someday, but I don't think they are ready today.
Here's where I feel they need to improve." One hopes that our PPMC, PMC,
etc. folks can handle objective (if retroactive) feedback, and be happy
that they've since addressed concerns.

But if a person goes on a personal rant against someone who is later
added to the PPMC, then... they can probably expect to be dropped from
the new PPMC person's holiday card list.

Best,

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

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

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <sr...@cloudera.com> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Sravya Tirukkovalur <sr...@cloudera.com>]

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 <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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 private:
I know that private is only for PPMC, but I believe the new elected PPMC
can always get the digest for older messages (or not?). If that is the case
wouldn't it defeat the purpose of having these discussions on private?

Hope this helps,
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

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
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

Hi Rich -

I have read it and I think that it is really good.
My concern isn't with the document at all - I think that it would have been
great to have earlier.
IMHO, it should not be a measuring stick as much as a teaching tool.

Mentors helping podlings learn what is meant by The Apache Way and what
sorts of things can be seen in successful podlings and TLPs.

Once the mentors feel that a podling has achieved this understanding this
document doesn't really need to be used as criteria.
As soon as it does then the metrics begin to lose their meaning.

The concerns about adding of PPMC members began to feel like we were going
down that road even though that doesn't seem to be in the maturity model
explicitly. It just highlighted a concern that I have about such metrics.

I don't want to take away from the value of the maturity model and the work
that has been put into it in any way.
The 7 Habits of Successful Podlings really is a great idea and would make
an interesting article. :)

Thanks,

--larry

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 11/05/2015 12:49 PM, larry mccay wrote:
> > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> >
> > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but
> > criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not
> > actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can
> > get the boxes checked.
> >
> > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> > natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be
> > done artificially.
>
> Given your comments, I'm curious if you've read the document we're
> discussing. It's here:
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.ht
> ml
>
> It's a set of interview questions for evaluation. None of them can
> really be considered checkboxes, since every one of them requires
> quite a bit of research and thought to fill out, and hardly any of
> them will have a clear yes or no answer, but are rather a goal that we
> all continually strive towards. (Sure, some of them are clearly yes or
> no, but most are not.)
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> >> <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not
> >>> yet). And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread
> >>> let me explain
> >> why.
> >>
> >> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other
> >> general@ thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to
> >> yet another bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly
> >> require all projects to complete.
> >>
> >> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community
> >> is different.
> >>
> >> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> >> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report
> >> monthly is against what we should be about.  I believe that the
> >> IPMC should be imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the
> >> Board requires from the full projects.  To that end, having
> >> mentors explicitly sign-off is fair - but, additional paperwork
> >> is not.  -- justin
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> - --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlY9BcIACgkQXP03+sx4yJPiSgCeJCN75hYHUk4ZQFsSGgq/yKsw
> nIsAnRM7MS6FmrRJfNvZL3f3Hi8TzdIm
> =QDyV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 11/05/2015 12:49 PM, larry mccay wrote:
> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> 
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but
> criteria checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not
> actually develop more healthy communities just communities that can
> get the boxes checked.
> 
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> natural growth they should not be required otherwise they will be
> done artificially.

Given your comments, I'm curious if you've read the document we're
discussing. It's here:
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.ht
ml

It's a set of interview questions for evaluation. None of them can
really be considered checkboxes, since every one of them requires
quite a bit of research and thought to fill out, and hardly any of
them will have a clear yes or no answer, but are rather a goal that we
all continually strive towards. (Sure, some of them are clearly yes or
no, but most are not.)


> 
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not
>>> yet). And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread
>>> let me explain
>> why.
>> 
>> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other
>> general@ thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to
>> yet another bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly
>> require all projects to complete.
>> 
>> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community
>> is different.
>> 
>> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more 
>> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report
>> monthly is against what we should be about.  I believe that the
>> IPMC should be imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the
>> Board requires from the full projects.  To that end, having
>> mentors explicitly sign-off is fair - but, additional paperwork
>> is not.  -- justin
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 


- -- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlY9BcIACgkQXP03+sx4yJPiSgCeJCN75hYHUk4ZQFsSGgq/yKsw
nIsAnRM7MS6FmrRJfNvZL3f3Hi8TzdIm
=QDyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

[Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>]

+1 Agree entirely. -C

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
>> And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain why.
>
> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> projects to complete.
>
> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is different.
>
> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

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

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

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

Hi Caleb -

I am glad that it is useful for your projects.

I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
podling.

"These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
- this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".

We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
community decisions or milestones.

As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
graduate or not.

thanks,

--larry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
>
> Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> need to be moving towards.
>
> Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> useful guidance.
>
> If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
> particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
> are missing?
>
> Regards,
>   Caleb
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> >
> > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> develop
> > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
> >
> > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> natural
> > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > artificially.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > explain
> > > why.
> > >
> > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > projects to complete.
> > >
> > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > different.
> > >
> > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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

[Caleb Welton <cw...@pivotal.io>]

I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...

Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
need to be moving towards.

Especially starting with an established team working on close source
project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
useful guidance.

If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
are missing?

Regards,
  Caleb

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
>
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
> more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
>
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
> growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> artificially.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> explain
> > why.
> >
> > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > projects to complete.
> >
> > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > different.
> >
> > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

+1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.

A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.

While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done artificially.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain
> why.
>
> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> projects to complete.
>
> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> different.
>
> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain why.

And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
projects to complete.

We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is different.

Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin

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

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

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

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: shaposhnik@gmail.com [mailto:shaposhnik@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


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

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

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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.

Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain why.

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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
>>... 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Sravya Tirukkovalur <sr...@cloudera.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

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

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>]

If the mentor brought the considerations to a podling for them to reconcile
and record, that would be great.  If that were guidance to mentors, that
would be great also.

What concerns me is that podlings of newly-arrived initial committers may
tend to see whatever the practice that is suggested to them as being gospel
and this is carried from one PPMC to another.

I have seen too much customization too early and there is then not even some
sort of common practice that can be used even as training wheels.  It is
like trying to improvise jazz when you take your first instrument out of the
box.  

Bothers me.  YMMV [;<).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 12:58
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the
> podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing
> the pros and cons of each model.
> 
> The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having
> a "default" is problematic.
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton<ma...@acm.org>
> Sent: ‎11/‎6/‎2015 9:35 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the
> recommended approach for Podlings is.
> 
> My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default
> tends to be PPMC == committer.
> 
> Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not*
> moved to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My
> question, as a PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the
> reins too tight at the expense of both community and sustainability.  An
> useful danger sign, that.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > graduation
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> > automatically
> > > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation
> that
> > I
> > > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of
> projects
> > > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice
> that
> > > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> >
> > In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> > involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> > within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> > just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> > abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> > unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> > let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> > anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org



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

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

[Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>]

There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing the pros and cons of each model.

The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having a "default" is problematic.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Dennis E. Hamilton<ma...@acm.org>
Sent: ‎11/‎6/‎2015 9:35 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the recommended approach for Podlings is.

My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default tends to be PPMC == committer.

Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at the expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign, that.

 - Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> automatically
> > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> I
> > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
>
> In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
>
> Greg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


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

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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

My belief is that committer != PMC is the ideal choice, based on my long
history of watching communities at the ASF. It allows for onboarding
committers rapidly and with a lower bar. That helps to draw them further
into the community, reduces the workload of others (who would otherwise
need to review/apply their work), and provides a mechanism to review
bringing them onto the PMC.

As Greg Reddin notes, separation of the two roles provides a mechanism for
distinguishing between "enable contributions" and "enable governance". As
an old-timer, I've observed (unfortunately) too many problems in
governance. An extra step is advisable (with a higher bar, while keeping
the low bar for contributions).

Cheers,
-g


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:

> I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the
> recommended approach for Podlings is.
>
> My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default
> tends to be PPMC == committer.
>
> Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved
> to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a
> PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at
> the expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign,
> that.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> > graduation
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> > automatically
> > > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> > I
> > > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> >
> > In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> > involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> > within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> > just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> > abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> > unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> > let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> > anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

I think there is a difference between what TLPs do and what the recommended approach for Podlings is.

My impression, based on limited podling experience, is that the default tends to be PPMC == committer.

Thanks for raising the notion of looking at why committers are *not* moved to the PMC of a TLP after some period of time, though.  My question, as a PMC member, would be whether or not we are holding the reins too tight at the expense of both community and sustainability.  An useful danger sign, that.

 - Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Reddin [mailto:gredbug@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 06:22
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> > On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> > Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are
> automatically
> > PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that
> I
> > wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> > that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> > PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.
> 
> In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
> involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
> within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
> just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
> abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
> unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
> let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
> anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.
> 
> Greg
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


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

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

[Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
> PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
> wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.

In further support of Joe's point, for most of the projects I've been
involved with, the PMC promotion was almost automatic and occurred
within about 6 months of committership. The committer-only period was
just a probationary period to make sure a person was not going to
abuse his/her privileges. An invite to committership comes with an
unspoken assumption that we want you to help govern the project, but
let's start with giving you access. I don't know that I ever saw
anyone stay as committer-only for an extended period of time.

Greg

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

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

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
> Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
> PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
> wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
> that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
> PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.

As a (PMC) Member I've always taken (one of) Roy's mantra to heart:
those that do the work should steer the project. At Wicket we have
committer == PMC, and I'd posit we are now among the 'Older' projects
(given our 8 years here). Wicket just counts as one project so this
doesn't invalidate your point, but adds a datapoint.

Martijn

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

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 11/05/2015 12:02 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> 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.


Most of the older projects at the Foundation do not have PMC ==
Committer. Notably, httpd. The notion that committers are automatically
PMC is a fairly new innovation. As it happens, it's an innovation that I
wholeheartedly support and recommend, but it's a minority of projects
that have this policy. If you follow board reports, you'll notice that
PMC additions and Committer additions are seldom coincident.


-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/05/2015 01:34 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.

Yes. This is accurate.

> 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.

Much appreciated. Thanks!

Best,

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

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

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

[Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>]

Le 05/11/15 13:48, Joe Brockmeier a écrit :
> On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst 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".
>> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
>> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
>> new projects
>> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him to
>> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
>> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
>> social manager!
>>
>> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
>> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time to
>> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.
> You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
> happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
> *not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
> to projects. 
It never was. On Directory or MINA, we voted in people who focused on
documentation or other non-coding things. Three of them have been added
to the PMC. Use your jugement, you will quickly see when someone is
beneficial to your community !


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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst 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".
> 
> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
> new projects
> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him to
> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
> social manager!
> 
> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time to
> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
*not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
to projects. ASF projects need help in a lot of ways besides code - glad
you've found someone who is lending a hand there.

(I checked out the twitter feed, they really are doing a great job.)

Best,

jzb

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

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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

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
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

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
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

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
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
>> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>> >>><pt...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > >> wrote:
>> >>> > >>
>> >>> > >>>
>> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>> >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>

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

[Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> 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.
> >
>
> I'm interested to know what criteria/behavior you're looking for that gets
> them over your bar for PMC membership?
>

We don't have a hard criteria for joining the PMC, but generally being
Release Manager is a great way to be considered for membership. The only
gray area is that we do consider not just *what* was done, but *how* it was
done - were the correct steps followed and was any feedback addressed
appropriately.


Thanks,
Lenni



>
> Niall
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
> > 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> > > >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > > >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> 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 <
> joesuf4@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > 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 <
> > lskuff@cloudera.com>
> > > >> > 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 <
> > > >> ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <
> lskuff@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > > >> > > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>> > >>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <
> > > jzb@zonker.net
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>> >
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> 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.
>

I'm interested to know what criteria/behavior you're looking for that gets
them over your bar for PMC membership?

Niall



> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
> 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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> > >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <joesuf4@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > 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 <
> lskuff@cloudera.com>
> > >> > 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 <
> > >> ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> >
> > >> > > >>> >
> > >> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <lskuff@cloudera.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >>> >
> > >> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > >> > > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>> > >>
> > >> > > >>> > >>>
> > >> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <
> > jzb@zonker.net
> > >> >
> > >> > > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > >>> >
> > >> > > >>> >
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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

[Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
> >> general@incubator.apache.org>
> >> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> >> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
> >> > 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 <
> >> ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> >> > > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>> > >>
> >> > > >>> > >>>
> >> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <
> jzb@zonker.net
> >> >
> >> > > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

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

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

> 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".

We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
new projects
and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him to
continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
social manager!

We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time to
contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

Martijn

[1] https://twitter.com/apache_wicket

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

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <
>> general@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
>> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
>> > 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 <
>> ptgoetz@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>> > > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> > >> wrote:
>> > > >>> > >>
>> > > >>> > >>>
>> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net
>> >
>> > > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
> > 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 <ptgoetz@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> > > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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

[Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>]

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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> > To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com>
> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> > >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> > >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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.mattmann@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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
> >>><pt...@gmail.com>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> >>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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

["Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>]

+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.mattmann@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 <jo...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <ge...@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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz
>>><pt...@gmail.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>>>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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>>> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <jo...@gmail.com> 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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <ls...@cloudera.com> 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 <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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

[Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>]

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 <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

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

[Lenni Kuff <ls...@cloudera.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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+fokQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
>

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:05 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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+fokQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
>

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

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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+fokQ@mail.gmail.com%3e

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> 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
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

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
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

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 <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> 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.

-Bertrand

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 04:42 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> wrote:
> > > > ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC
> > > members
> > > > since its inception...
> > >
> > > If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
> > >
> > > and earlier he wrote:
> > > > ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the
> existing
> > > > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > > > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing
> podling
> > > > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
> > >
> > > Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
> > >
> > >
> > Bertrand, imo this is a reasonable concern. I remember some discussion a
> > while back on the sentry lists about it. Note that the community has
> > highlighted it in their status reports, so it should be nothing
> > new/surprising. iirc (and I'm summarizing here, please correct me if I
> > get it wrong) the new committers have had varying levels of activity.
> Some
> > more active than others, but none that had reached ppmc status. Perhaps
> the
> > team should be more aggressive promoting folks, but I don't believe it's
> out
> > of exclusion or lack of understanding the Apache way.
>
> We generally shy away from discussing individuals on open lists w/r/t
> "this person should/shouldn't be a PPMC member" type things, so I'm not
> sure it'd be right to specifically point to any Sentry contributors as
> an example.
>
>
Understood.


> I will say I can think of at least two Sentry contributors added since
> Sentry entered incubation who seem just as active as other folks who
> came in with the podling.  When you say "reached PPMC status" I'm not
> sure there's a clear signal to me that they're less worthy than the
> folks ushered in with the podling.
>
>
If that's the case as a ppmc member/mentor why not propose them for ppmc
membership, start a discussion thread for each I mean. Perhaps others
haven't seen the same thing you have, or more likely are not as sensitive
to it. It's a great learning opportunity for the mentees.


> You said it "sounds like" making more folks PPMC members is "in the
> pipeline" - do you mean if Sentry graduates, or is there some other
> discussion I've missed where that's being pondered?
>
>
I don't know what the community might do re promoting folks as part of
graduation. I've seen graduating projects do this in the past and it's
fine. But I think that's not addressing the real concern being raised here.
That's what I was trying to get at when I said "Seems artificial to me".
This would be another such example.

"Sounds like that's in the pipeline." I mean that mentors have given
feedback in the past about increasing (new) PPMC diversity, there are a
number of new committers that at active, it's just a matter of time. I'm
not aware of any explicit discussions at this time either.

Regards,

Patrick



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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 04:42 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > > ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC
> > members
> > > since its inception...
> >
> > If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
> >
> > and earlier he wrote:
> > > ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> > > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> > > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
> >
> > Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
> >
> >
> Bertrand, imo this is a reasonable concern. I remember some discussion a
> while back on the sentry lists about it. Note that the community has
> highlighted it in their status reports, so it should be nothing
> new/surprising. iirc (and I'm summarizing here, please correct me if I
> get it wrong) the new committers have had varying levels of activity. Some
> more active than others, but none that had reached ppmc status. Perhaps the
> team should be more aggressive promoting folks, but I don't believe it's out
> of exclusion or lack of understanding the Apache way.

We generally shy away from discussing individuals on open lists w/r/t
"this person should/shouldn't be a PPMC member" type things, so I'm not
sure it'd be right to specifically point to any Sentry contributors as
an example.

I will say I can think of at least two Sentry contributors added since
Sentry entered incubation who seem just as active as other folks who
came in with the podling.  When you say "reached PPMC status" I'm not
sure there's a clear signal to me that they're less worthy than the
folks ushered in with the podling. 

You said it "sounds like" making more folks PPMC members is "in the
pipeline" - do you mean if Sentry graduates, or is there some other
discussion I've missed where that's being pondered?

Best,

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

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC
> members
> > since its inception...
>
> If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
>
> and earlier he wrote:
> > ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> > members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> > opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> > and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
>
> Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
>
>
Bertrand, imo this is a reasonable concern. I remember some discussion a
while back on the sentry lists about it. Note that the community has
highlighted it in their status reports, so it should be nothing
new/surprising. iirc (and I'm summarizing here, please correct me if I get
it wrong) the new committers have had varying levels of activity. Some more
active than others, but none that had reached ppmc status. Perhaps the team
should be more aggressive promoting folks, but I don't believe it's out of
exclusion or lack of understanding the Apache way.

That said 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.

Patrick


> Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> our maturity model [1].
>
>
> [1]
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:

> That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
> the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
> the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
> measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
> recreational purposes) is rude at best.
>

Or it is a good test of whether it brings up important issues and seems to
accord well with the more intuitionist approaches.

Setting it as a standard without testing it against real cases would be
irresponsible. Giving it test drives against real cases is exactly the way
to find out whether it is useful.  Right now the biggest gripe that I hear
about the incubator from incoming projects is that they need SOME path to
be better documented.  They get that there are many paths ... but air
philosophical description don't work for them.

So far, that maturity test is doing a great job, but I don't want to
enshrine it without more run time.  Using it serious is a great way to get
that run time.

This is neither rules for rules sake (we are being very cautious about
proposing it as a requirement) nor it is adding requirements (the
requirements were pretty much already there in many ways and in different
people's heads).

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

[Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>]

Dennis makes a good point.

Some to ago it became common to think of the diversity objective to become a minimum number of contributors from different orgs rather than an acceptance of new contributors views.

Now we require a behavior pattern likely to lead to diversity.

One is quantative (bad, as it does nit take everything into account) one is subjective (good, but open to abuse).

To have the good we merely need to trust the people involved. Providing guidelines is good. Having those guidelines become rules is bad.

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Dennis E. Hamilton<ma...@acm.org>
Sent: ‎11/‎15/‎2015 10:28 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

I think the Maturity Model, relied on as some guidelines for assessing a project, needs to be applied for that purpose in terms of identifying the striving-fors.  Is there evidence that particular areas are being strived for.  Is there evidence of an anti-pattern.  How do these net out in the considered judgment of the person making that assessment, what facts are indicators, warning-signs, etc.

It is my understanding that this is not a pure pass/fail thing.  A graduation could be accompanied by a charge to develop/diminish/whatever in the activities of the newly-established PMC and having that accounted for.

Isn't this an always "on balance" determination, where in some cases, demonstration of remedy is required before graduation and other times not?  (With some items being show-stoppers, I suppose, such as careless handling of IP clearance.)

 - Dennis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com [mailto:justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 07:14
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
>
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a
> podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,
> and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation.
> That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
> particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your
> votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
> justin


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

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

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

I think the Maturity Model, relied on as some guidelines for assessing a project, needs to be applied for that purpose in terms of identifying the striving-fors.  Is there evidence that particular areas are being strived for.  Is there evidence of an anti-pattern.  How do these net out in the considered judgment of the person making that assessment, what facts are indicators, warning-signs, etc.  

It is my understanding that this is not a pure pass/fail thing.  A graduation could be accompanied by a charge to develop/diminish/whatever in the activities of the newly-established PMC and having that accounted for.

Isn't this an always "on balance" determination, where in some cases, demonstration of remedy is required before graduation and other times not?  (With some items being show-stoppers, I suppose, such as careless handling of IP clearance.)

 - Dennis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com [mailto:justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of Justin Erenkrantz
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 07:14
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a
> podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,
> and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation.
> That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
> particular
> > one of them.
> >
> 
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
> 
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your
> votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
> justin


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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

Top-posting on purpose. 

This thread has veered from discussing specific concerns about Sentry to
a discussion about the Maturity Model. It'd probably be good to fork the
thread and continue the discussion separately in case other folks
specifically interested in the discussion about Sentry are watching this
thread. 

Best, 

jzb

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015, at 01:56 PM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Justin,
> 
> Why is it so that graduation can be vetoed?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> > >
> > > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> > They
> > > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> > > one of them.
> > >
> >
> > The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> > votes are essentially subject to veto.
> >
> > There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> > to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> > personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin
> >


Best,

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

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

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

[Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>]

Justin,

Why is it so that graduation can be vetoed?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
> They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin
>

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On Nov 15, 2015 10:14 AM, "Justin Erenkrantz" <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> > graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> > accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> > is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
> >
> > It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time.
They
> > are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any
particular
> > one of them.
> >
>
> The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
> votes are essentially subject to veto.
>
> There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
> to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
> personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  --
justin

Sure. If these were just my personal guidelines, that would indeed be a
concern.

I'd assert, however, that we already have members voting on their own
personal guidelines, they just haven't written them down for the rest of us
to see.

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

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
> graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
> accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
> is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.
>
> It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time. They
> are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
> one of them.
>

The difference is that member elections are majority-based - graduation
votes are essentially subject to veto.

There's a huge difference there.  If you are subjecting all of your votes
to that checklist and will actively block podlings that do not meet your
personal guidelines, you are making everyone else subject to it.  -- justin

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On Nov 13, 2015 4:50 PM, "Branko Čibej" <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote:
> > That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
> > Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
> > hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are
not
> > Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board
member....
> >
> > That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.
>
> The document is not a Foundation standard. ComDev is no closer to being
> "the ASF" than, say, Bloodhound PMC.
>
> Whilst I do find this attempt at a maturity model an interesting
> experiment, I'm really, really uncomfortable with people pushing it as
> some sort of golden standard for podlings (and, worse, TLPs). It's a
> completely informal paper, yet I've already seen people cast doubts on
> podling graduation with the excuse that some criterion of the model
> wasn't met.

That's because the document codifies what I consider criteria for
graduation, not because I somehow think that the document itself is holy.
Ie, the document reflects me, not vice versa.

>
> That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
> the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
> the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
> measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
> recreational purposes) is rude at best.

No. I can use whatever criteria I like to justify my vote on a podlings
graduation, if it's in line with asf philosophy. This document is,  and
accurately reflects the criteria I use when voting on a graduation. That
is, the document reflects me, not vice versa, as I said above.

It's very akin to the docs that circulate around member election time. They
are useful guidelines but nobody is compelled to adhere to any particular
one of them.

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

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 10.11.2015 16:00, Pierre Smits wrote:
> That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
> Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
> hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not
> Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board member....
>
> That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.

The document is not a Foundation standard. ComDev is no closer to being
"the ASF" than, say, Bloodhound PMC.

Whilst I do find this attempt at a maturity model an interesting
experiment, I'm really, really uncomfortable with people pushing it as
some sort of golden standard for podlings (and, worse, TLPs). It's a
completely informal paper, yet I've already seen people cast doubts on
podling graduation with the excuse that some criterion of the model
wasn't met.

That kind of argument is totally out of line. The IPMC may decide to use
the model as a metric for podling compliance and so integrate it into
the Incubator policy[1]. Unless and until that happens, any attempt to
measure podlings against that bit of paper (other than for purely
recreational purposes) is rude at best.

-- Brane

[1] And even then it'd be open to scrutiny; paperwork for its own sake
is always suspect.


> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Huh?  The development of this document,
>>>
>>> <
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>>> was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
>>> time.  It even provides an account for
>>
>> And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
>> Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
>> de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.
>>
>> Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
>> consider... great.
>>
>> But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
>> yardstick, rather than a guide.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>


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

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 11/10/2015 10:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache
> Software Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and
> others) and hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying
> that those 'are not Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of
> a fellow board member....

Pierre, it's as though a document were written by the PMC of the OFBiz
project, and then the people that had been involved in that
conversation were to assert, unilaterally, that it must be adopted by
the entire ASF, without any debate either on board@ or members@   That
is the concern that Greg is citing, and one that I can find no fault wit
h.

When I encouraged, in another thread on this list, that mentors use
the maturity model document as a useful measure to judge projects, I
was careful to phrase it as a useful tool, rather than as new policy.
You'll remember, no doubt, that when it was proposed as new policy,
there was not consensus around doing that. (How's *that* for a tactful
phrasing?!)

I think that it's a useful tool. I think that mentors should consider
it when they're looking at podlings, because, frankly, it's bloody
hard to judge project readiness to graduate. I've been in the business
(professionally, across several jobs) for some time, of attempting to
measure project health, and it's really, really hard, and most (all)
programmatic ways of doing so get it wrong at least half of the time.
As such, they should be used only as a early warning system, and not,
as Greg says, as a yardstick. Or as a checklist.

Consider, for example, the numeric health score given by the
reporter.apache.org tool. If it gives your project a -6, it means that
you should look for warning signs and consider whether something is
broke, but it does NOT NECESSARILY mean that your project is trouble.
Likewise, if it gives you a 9.6, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that
everything is peachy, because there are so many unmeasurables.

So, yeah, Greg's concerns here are valid, and I agree. I want as many
tools as possible, and, I will always mistrust all of them to a
certain degree. The 'maturity model' is not a checklist, and if we
start seeing people using it as such, we should be very worried.

Always be very, very careful what you measure, because people will
naturally optimize for those things, to the detriment of some of the
less measurable things.


- -- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlZEqKUACgkQXP03+sx4yJPZogCbBB1UOrff/cFLIt9gEU/prwHw
DqQAn011cQGigcnb60UaVI64Hj2rQVXT
=Bgtv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 11/11/2015 12:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> 
> On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran" <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> >* In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>> >expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>> >schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>> >going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>> >engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>> >what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>> >felt to be too risky.
> I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
> project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
> thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
> amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
> like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
> own itch.

In The Old Days, everybody (for certain values of "everybody") worked on
Apache projects in their spare time. It's useful to explicitly
acknowledge that this is no longer the case. These days everybody (for
certain values of "everybody") works on Apache projects as part of their
day job. This varies in true-ness from project to project, of course. It
appears to be the case that on httpd, for example, everybody still does
this in their hobby time. It appears to be the case on most of our other
projects however, that Apache work is something that folks are paid to do.

Consequently, many of our developers answer to two masters - their work
boss, who may or may not lean on them to implement certain things, and
the project community and/or their own interests.

All of that to say, sure, many of our projects have various project
managers that are directing them, and our job, at the Foundation, is to
ensure that the community has a louder voice than the individual project
managers at $Company.

Perhaps things were simpler in The Old Days, or perhaps I was just more
naive. I suspect it's a little of both.

Maintaining the ideals of The Apache Way, while also acknowledging that
the world is different from how it was in 1998, is a core theme in many
discussion we have these days on various ASF mailing lists.


-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

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

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

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

And I have to disagree with you Joe. To me, a mandatory RTC policy says “we don’t trust anybody”. Sure, it doesn’t discriminate, but it is also a PITA. One project I mentored uses RTC along with ReviewBoard and mandates that you cannot commit your own work and every commit must be formally reviewed. I have found this process to be so onerous that I have never committed any code to the project, even though I really would like to.  I find the pace of this project to be fairly slow.  But it seems to fit within the corporate culture that most of the committers seem to work in.

OTOH, I am involved in a project that uses CTR but where feature branches are frequently created to allow others to review and improve significant new work before it is integrated. As a consequence, new features are introduced at a much faster pace in this project.

Ralph

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
> 
> -- For sure.
> 
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
> 
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
> 
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
> 
> Thanks
> Joe



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

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

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Yes.  It is very much like a hackathon.

And it has some benefits in that somebody in a small town who couldn't make
it to a hackathon in person but who happens to be near the right time zone
can still participate.


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In that respect it is just like a hackathon.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
> > benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.
> >
> > It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
> > the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
> > that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
> > online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
> > other aspects of the project.
> >
> > I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
> > done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.
> >
> >
>

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

[Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>]

In that respect it is just like a hackathon.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
> benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.
>
> It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
> the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
> that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
> online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
> other aspects of the project.
>
> I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
> done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
> >
> > -- For sure.
> >
> > "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> > must review all commits first.""
> >
> > -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> > trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> > will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> > everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> > all.  It is about community.
> >
> > Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> > to go without a counter.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <
> stevel@hortonworks.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Steve,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> > stevel@hortonworks.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a
> community?...
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> > >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> > >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should
> be
> > > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC
> (via
> > > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > > commits first."
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> > >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> > it,
> > >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> > >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are
> things
> > to
> > >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> > subtle
> > >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> > later
> > >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> > work
> > >> out what happened and why.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> > have
> > > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > > typical problem with development.
> > >
> > > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing
> and
> > CI)
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> > can
> > >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> > >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> > still
> > >> more inclusive of
> > >>
> > >
> > > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out"
> of
> > > the first review, not ALL review.
> > >
> > > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> > >
> > > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> > and
> > > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus.
> We
> > > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> > up
> > > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10
> people
> > > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> > >
> > >>...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -g
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Actually, I have seen some real benefits of on-line conferencing.  These
benefits are similar to conferences and meetups.

It is clear that the way you have to do these things is *in*addition* to
the normal email discipline, but the addition can really be positive in
that quiet lurkers on the mailing list can sometimes be interactive in an
online conference and be encouraged. That leads to better involvement in
other aspects of the project.

I do think that a bit of diversity in *when* the on-line conferencing is
done can be very helpful for time zone inclusiveness.




On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
>
> -- For sure.
>
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
>
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
>
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Steve,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> stevel@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > commits first."
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> it,
> >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things
> to
> >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> subtle
> >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> later
> >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> work
> >> out what happened and why.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> have
> > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > typical problem with development.
> >
> > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and
> CI)
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> can
> >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> still
> >> more inclusive of
> >>
> >
> > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> > the first review, not ALL review.
> >
> > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> >
> > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> and
> > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> up
> > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> >
> >>...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Alex,

Yes.  Pretty much any project that has significant commercial applications
will have cadres of developers from companies involved.  Those companies
will be managing those developers time and efforts to meet the company
goals.

This can definitely be pernicious, especially since a company may be making
decisions about which general areas they want to be pushing off-line. This
affects the project majorly even if the technical and coding decisions are
made in good fashion.

Another problem is that when some developers are working 40 hours per week
plus on a project, volunteer developers often have a very hard time keeping
up with the pace of change.  Building safe havens not only for different
timezones but also for different time rates is an architectural challenge
that is well worth doing. One way to do this is with very clean
user-defined-function sorts of architectures.  That can help moderate the
rate of change.


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Trust is the basis of a healthy community"
>
> -- For sure.
>
> "and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
> must review all commits first.""
>
> -- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
> trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
> will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
> everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
> all.  It is about community.
>
> Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
> to go without a counter.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Steve,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <
> stevel@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >> >
> >> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> >> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> >> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> > trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> > work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> > Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> > commits first."
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> >> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch
> it,
> >> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> >> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things
> to
> >> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more
> subtle
> >> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only
> later
> >> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to
> work
> >> out what happened and why.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can
> have
> > this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> > typical problem with development.
> >
> > (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and
> CI)
> >
> >>...
> >
> >> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we
> can
> >> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> >> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its
> still
> >> more inclusive of
> >>
> >
> > I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> > comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> > the first review, not ALL review.
> >
> > Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
> >
> > Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure,
> and
> > bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> > see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come
> up
> > with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> > think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
> >
> >>...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>]

"Trust is the basis of a healthy community"

-- For sure.

"and RTC (via Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we
must review all commits first.""

-- I disagree.  RTC has merit independent of concerns of trust.  If
trust issues are present in a community then any number of challenges
will exist and all processes will suffer.  Keep in mind RTC applies to
everyone (PMC, committer, contributor).  So it isn't about trust at
all.  It is about community.

Not wanting to sidetrack this thread but also didn't want that comment
to go without a counter.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Steve,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
>> >
>> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
>> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
>> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
> trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
> work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
> Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
> commits first."
>
>>...
>
>> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
>> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it,
>> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
>> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to
>> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle
>> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later
>> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work
>> out what happened and why.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can have
> this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
> typical problem with development.
>
> (and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and CI)
>
>>...
>
>> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can
>> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
>> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still
>> more inclusive of
>>
>
> I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
> comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
> the first review, not ALL review.
>
> Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.
>
> Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure, and
> bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
> see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come up
> with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
> think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.
>
>>...
>
> Cheers,
> -g

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

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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

>
> > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> >
> > I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> > buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> > what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
>

Agreed.

I also find it sad that work is *gated* by using Jira first. We should be
trusting our peers, let them commit changes necessary, and review their
work afterwards. Trust is the basis of a healthy community, and RTC (via
Jira or otherwise) just screams "we don't trust you. we must review all
commits first."

>...

> One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic
> consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it,
> and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave
> differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to
> watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle
> like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later
> that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work
> out what happened and why.
>

I'm not sure what the above has to do with issues/Jira. Any commit can have
this effect, whether it was done directly or via an issue. It's just a
typical problem with development.

(and yeah, it leads into a whole separate conversation about testing and CI)

>...

> Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can
> do some more detailed code review of various complex things more
> interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still
> more inclusive of
>

I see no problem doing code reviews this way, as other devs can still
comment/review whatever output gets committed. They're only "shut out" of
the first review, not ALL review.

Using them for initial code development or decisions? Not so much.

Using them to reach a consensus among a subset of the community? Sure, and
bring that result to the dev@ list to reach full community consensus. We
see this done all the time with hackathons: the group at the 'thon come up
with some idea they all like, and bring that to the dev@ list. 10 people
think it is the right approach and share it, then rope in the other 10.

>...

Cheers,
-g

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

[Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>]

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...
> 
> I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
> buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
> what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.
> 
> I'm a big fan of backing all my work with issue tracker tickets, but
> *decisions* (except minor ones which only have a very local impact)
> should not happen in those tickets. IMO tickets are for execution of
> something that's been decided on your project's dev list.
> 
> It's a difficult balance, and it requires all developers to be aware
> of when the time comes to stop discussing in a ticket and bring that
> discussion to the dev list.

One of the troublespots is those "minor" patches which have traumatic consequences; you don't notice when the issue is created, don't watch it, and then, when its merged in, you discover that things now behave differently. Anything related to specific dependency updates are things to watch there (guava, jackson, jersey), but it could be something more subtle like a change in the concurrency model of some bit of code. It's only later that you find your code has stopped working and you are left trying to work out what happened and why.

> 
>> ... Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more....
> 
> I don't think so, as that's not inclusive nor asynchronous.
> 


Noted, but we're going to try it in the slider dev group anyway, so we can do some more detailed code review of various complex things more interactively. I know it excludes people who can't be there, but its still more inclusive of 


> IMO the combination of dev list + tickets can work well but it
> requires lots of discipline for the most active developers, to make
> sure they expose their ideas, decisions and discussions to their
> project's dev list.
> 
> -

what we shouldn't be doing in conf calls is those big decisions, the stuff you'd vote on; the mailing list must also be the normative history of discussions. It's just that the online conf tooling has grown so that its fairly straightforward to have a small multuser conf with google+ (sadly excluding all .cn participants), and an awful but global experience using Cisco webex.

-Steve

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

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?...

I don't think so, as you say this breaks the project into very small
buckets and it's very hard for someone new to get the overview of
what's going on and what the big ideas and visions are.

I'm a big fan of backing all my work with issue tracker tickets, but
*decisions* (except minor ones which only have a very local impact)
should not happen in those tickets. IMO tickets are for execution of
something that's been decided on your project's dev list.

It's a difficult balance, and it requires all developers to be aware
of when the time comes to stop discussing in a ticket and bring that
discussion to the dev list.

>... Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more....

I don't think so, as that's not inclusive nor asynchronous.

IMO the combination of dev list + tickets can work well but it
requires lots of discipline for the most active developers, to make
sure they expose their ideas, decisions and discussions to their
project's dev list.

-Bertrand

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

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

[Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>]

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 17:24, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran" <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> * In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>> expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>> schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>> going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>> engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>> what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>> felt to be too risky.
> 
> I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
> project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
> thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
> amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
> like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
> own itch.
> 
> -Alex
> 


There's in-house and the ASF releases. 


Some ASF projects have a fixed "Release every quarter" schedule and are pretty strict, others have a "a few times a year" and/or "when big features are in". The latter is generally more common.

When there's a release coming, most projects have a release manager whose task is following the project & ASF release guidelines, and, if the release process the project has includes some beta-test cycle, being the gatekeeper of what goes in vs. what's going to get postponed. 


In house, yes, there are people trying to make sure that we engineers put time into what's relevant, rather than just what's interesting, and having hard release deadlines.(*) That's where I was thinking some of the conflict could arise: internal pressure to release with a set of features on a hard deadline.

-Steve


(*) But you can still do the interesting things as well, the one thing you don't get is anyone saying "don't work on OSS code". 


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

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

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/10/15, 12:31 PM, "Steve Loughran" <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

>* In any project where a significant number of the team members are
>expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release
>schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are
>going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those
>engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains
>what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're
>felt to be too risky.

I found this interesting.  Do lots of Apache projects have a schedule and
project manager?  I thought that wasn’t really the “Apache Way”.  I
thought committers could commit what they wanted with minimal coordination
amongst themselves without some other person being the gate keeper.  Seems
like that would scare away new committers who just want to scratch their
own itch.

-Alex

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

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting topic, and one that is broader than just Apache
> Sentry (incubating). Even so, I want to praise Joe Brockmeier for raising
> it, and the comments -especially those from Greg Stein and Rich Bowen and
> Marvin Humphrey for making me think more about this.

I'd also like to acknowledge Patrick Hunt and Sravya Tirukkovalur who have
done the heavy lifting in defense of Sentry. Having to respond to critiques is
an uncomfortable position to be in, and it is with their endurance that we
have been able to have a productive discussion.

Marvin Humphrey

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

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

[Steve Loughran <st...@hortonworks.com>]

This is an interesting topic, and one that is broader than just Apache Sentry (incubating). Even so, I want to praise Joe Brockmeier for raising it, and the comments -especially those from Greg Stein and Rich Bowen and Marvin Humphrey for making me think more about this.

* In any project with a pool of developers, there's going to be co-located discussions. And, even if they don't directly affect the decision making of a project "let's get this patch in vs that patch", they have consequences. I'll cite from historical reference, IBM's reassignment of a lot of the Axis 1 team to other things. It wasn't a decision of the developers; there was enough of a community to continue, but it was traumatic nonetheless.

* In any project where a significant number of the team members are expected to ship something in approximate correlation with a release schedule imposed by product management, project development decisions are going to follow. Similarly, priorities for weekday work by those engineers is going to be made by other people. This not only constrains what goes in, but providers a motivator for keeping things out if they're felt to be too risky.

* With engineers overloaded with lots of work, it's really easy to neglect patches from others which are on't on the critical path for those releases. I'm going to point to myself here, and my unintentional neglect of a large set of Hadoop patches that I could get in if I reviewed them. The only time I have to do that is weekends, and there there's some expectation in my family that parental duties get a look in.

One thing to consider in general is: is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community? It's great for engineering: you watch the issues you care about, discuss them all in one place, and it deals with the challenge of scale. But it breaks a project up into a pool of JIRAs, where each participant only watches and comments on those they care about. It removes the ability to view the project as a whole, and breaks it up into a set of actions. Yet: how else do we scale to the size of some of the projects at work today?

I don't have any magic answers here

* If you look at any project I work on, I'm happy to leave JIRAs open for months at a time, until anyone picks them up. Where I'm at fault is not following up on the patches people provide, not out of any deliberate neglect, just overcommitment.
* I do try to encourage discussion on the email lists on broader topics. on Hadoop I'all also call out Vinod and Wittenauer for lots of work here, to try and build a community that is more than a set of JIRAs.
* I've been known to complain (privately) when people do a JIRA-patch-commit sequence on something which I'm known to care about, because I hate going through the morning emails to see something was decided on while I was asleep.
* How else to encourage community?

Maybe we should embrace online conferencing more. I know it's at odds with "TZ-neutral" dev, but with things like google hangouts we can have conversations that aren't around a single JIRA, and can set the direction of the project across all participants. We'd just need to make sure that people who couldn't make the call can still help set that direction, which means standardised followons: notes -> DISCUSS -> VOTE. After all, there's been ASF IRC channels for a long time.

-Steve

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

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

[Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>]

That is nice! Apache pages drawn up by a member of the Apache Software
Foundation with the input from many  (both ASF members and others) and
hosted/communicated through ASF means, and then saying that those 'are not
Foundation'. And that by/through the fingers of a fellow board member....

That doesn't help mitigating the confusion building.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Huh?  The development of this document,
> >
> > <
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> > >
> >
> > was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
> > time.  It even provides an account for
>
>
> And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
> Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
> de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.
>
> Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
> consider... great.
>
> But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
> yardstick, rather than a guide.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

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

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
wrote:
>...

> Huh?  The development of this document,
>
> <http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> >
>
> was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of
> time.  It even provides an account for


And that is the key part: written by the ComDev community. Not the
Foundation. I believe Brane shares my fear that the document will become a
de facto standard/requirement across the ASF.

Should mentors and podlines want to use it as a guide for things to
consider... great.

But some of us will push back, if it appears it is being used as a
yardstick, rather than a guide.

Cheers,
-g

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

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:brane@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2015 09:29
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and
> graduation
> 
> On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> > Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> > our maturity model [1].
> 

[ ... ]
> Can we please stop calling someone's pet paperwork "our maturity model?"
> I'm fed up to the gills with the assumption that it has any relevance
> for anything or anyone in the foundation, including the Incubator and
> Podlings.
> 
> -- Brane

[orcmid] 

Huh?  The development of this document, 

<http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html>

was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of time.  It even provides an account for that development and where related materials can be found.  It is a work in progress, as is the ASF itself.  As far as I can tell, being a tender-foot in these parts, this is a distillation of a great deal of thinking and consideration based on serious consideration by contributors with substantial experience.  

I find the dismissing of that effort to be very peculiar as part of a discussion about The Apache Way.

It is easy to find evidence that this is relevant to several someones in the foundation, including in the Incubator and Podlings.  Apparently, some other someones have not been paying attention or simply haven't taken it seriously.  That happens.

I do agree that a list of codes without any context is probably not a very gentle application of it as part of an assessment of a podling's readiness to graduate.  

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


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

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

[Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>]

On 03.11.2015 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
>> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
>> since its inception...
> If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
>
> and earlier he wrote:
>> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
> Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
>
> Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> our maturity model [1].

Can we please stop calling someone's pet paperwork "our maturity model?"
I'm fed up to the gills with the assumption that it has any relevance
for anything or anyone in the foundation, including the Incubator and
Podlings.

-- Brane


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

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

[Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
>> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
>> since its inception...
>
> If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.
>
> and earlier he wrote:
>> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...
>
> Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.
>
> Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
> Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
> our maturity model [1].

If this thread is about bringing consensus around the graduation path
for Sentry, is there any chance the community/mentors can compile
all the data points that are part of the maturity model? This will make
it much easier to see things in the holistic view.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

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

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> ...Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
> since its inception...

If that's correct I'm -1 on graduating Sentry.

and earlier he wrote:
> ..The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved...

Not having added any PPMC members seems to confirm that.

Based on the information provided in this thread It looks to me like
Sentry isn't operating according to items CO20, CO40, CS20 and CS50 of
our maturity model [1].

-Bertrand

[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html

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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 06:04 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> > ... the reply from
> > Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> > project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> > over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
> >
> </snip>
> 
> 
> Joe - I trust and respect you enough to feel that this is unintentional,
> but I am being taken out of context. In this and previous emails you have
> suggested that I admit and approve of an external entity controlling
> Sentry. This is a gross misrepresentation. Please stop implying that for
> your future responses as it was not what I said or meant.

I don't think that's *quite* what I suggested, but per Upayavira's note
that followed yours, I see I may have misread your message. 

Upayavira's reading suggests you meant "not an issue" to mean "this is
not happening" rather than "I don't consider this a problem." That
significantly changes the tone of the response as I understood it. 

If that was your meaning, I do apologize for misinterpreting what you
said. I do appreciate you understanding that my response was based on an
honest interpretation of what you wrote. Just to be clear - you're
vouching that all of Sentry's development is happening in the open, and
Sentry development decisions are not being taken offlist? 

Thanks much for clarifying!

Best,

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

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

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

[Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> <snip>
> ... the reply from
> Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
>
</snip>


Joe - I trust and respect you enough to feel that this is unintentional,
but I am being taken out of context. In this and previous emails you have
suggested that I admit and approve of an external entity controlling
Sentry. This is a gross misrepresentation. Please stop implying that for
your future responses as it was not what I said or meant.

It is very clear to me that you have taken a firm stance in how you feel
about the project based on high level observations from interactions of
other mentors. If you were to actually engage with the community, see for
yourself how the Jira communication is handled by the project, I think it
may give you information that you may be missing.

Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 04:59 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> > > > I think it is a good sign that community is volunteering to do the
> > > release
> > > > work.
> > >
> > > I think the point I'm making is largely being ignored. I'm not seeing
> > > much room for volunteers, and a lot of indication that
> > > conversations/decisions are happening off list and being carried back
> > > rather than being done entirely openly.
> > >
> > >
> > Sorry, I don't think it's being ignored, just that the rest of us are not
> > able to see the same issues.
> >
> > For example I see over 30 committers on the Sentry status page.
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/sentry.html
>
> Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
> since its inception. (IIRC there was some mention on a thread of if
> there was a graduation vote all committers being PMC, but I haven't
> found that reference.)
>
> Note: I'm going to stop thread-sitting for the rest of the day and check
> back in tomorrow.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 04:59 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> > > I think it is a good sign that community is volunteering to do the
> > release
> > > work.
> >
> > I think the point I'm making is largely being ignored. I'm not seeing
> > much room for volunteers, and a lot of indication that
> > conversations/decisions are happening off list and being carried back
> > rather than being done entirely openly.
> >
> >
> Sorry, I don't think it's being ignored, just that the rest of us are not
> able to see the same issues.
> 
> For example I see over 30 committers on the Sentry status page.
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/sentry.html

Sentry started with 24 committers/PPMC. It hasn't added any PPMC members
since its inception. (IIRC there was some mention on a thread of if
there was a graduation vote all committers being PMC, but I haven't
found that reference.) 

Note: I'm going to stop thread-sitting for the rest of the day and check
back in tomorrow. 

Best,

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

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> > I think it is a good sign that community is volunteering to do the
> release
> > work.
>
> I think the point I'm making is largely being ignored. I'm not seeing
> much room for volunteers, and a lot of indication that
> conversations/decisions are happening off list and being carried back
> rather than being done entirely openly.
>
>
Sorry, I don't think it's being ignored, just that the rest of us are not
able to see the same issues.

For example I see over 30 committers on the Sentry status page.
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/sentry.html
That doesn't indicate a project that's hard to join. Sentry has been in
incubation for over 2 years, it's pretty mature and as Sravya highlighted
there's a bunch of good information for folks trying to join. Above and
beyond jira and ML discussions.

Patrick


> > Here is the formal release work starting email[1] and discussing details
> on
> > when to branch and when to release giving sufficient time for everyone
> who
> > want to get their favorite jiras in. Dapeng (RM for 1.6.0) also started a
> > jira[2] to track the release work in detail:
>
> We might disagree on what constitutes "sufficient time" here - it looks
> like one week notice for the 1.6.0 branch, and then one week (planned)
> to release from there.
>
> > ". I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
> > didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio
> silence."
> >
> > That is not true, this is just one off instance. It has only been a week
> > since that jira has been created and I am sure one of us will review it
> > soon . But there are numerous instances where community was very
> welcoming
> > for new contributors and users[3][4][5]. In fact I feel proud to say that
> > community enabled many folks who filed bugs to also contribute bug fix
> > patches.
>
> OK, fair. I'll assume that's a one-off then, and apologize for missing
> the other examples.
>
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> I think it is a good sign that community is volunteering to do the release
> work.

I think the point I'm making is largely being ignored. I'm not seeing
much room for volunteers, and a lot of indication that
conversations/decisions are happening off list and being carried back
rather than being done entirely openly.

> Here is the formal release work starting email[1] and discussing details on
> when to branch and when to release giving sufficient time for everyone who
> want to get their favorite jiras in. Dapeng (RM for 1.6.0) also started a
> jira[2] to track the release work in detail:

We might disagree on what constitutes "sufficient time" here - it looks
like one week notice for the 1.6.0 branch, and then one week (planned)
to release from there.

> ". I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
> didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence."
> 
> That is not true, this is just one off instance. It has only been a week
> since that jira has been created and I am sure one of us will review it
> soon . But there are numerous instances where community was very welcoming
> for new contributors and users[3][4][5]. In fact I feel proud to say that
> community enabled many folks who filed bugs to also contribute bug fix
> patches.

OK, fair. I'll assume that's a one-off then, and apologize for missing
the other examples.

Best,

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

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

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

[Sravya Tirukkovalur <sr...@cloudera.com>]

I think it is a good sign that community is volunteering to do the release
work.

Here is the formal release work starting email[1] and discussing details on
when to branch and when to release giving sufficient time for everyone who
want to get their favorite jiras in. Dapeng (RM for 1.6.0) also started a
jira[2] to track the release work in detail:


". I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence."

That is not true, this is just one off instance. It has only been a week
since that jira has been created and I am sure one of us will review it
soon . But there are numerous instances where community was very welcoming
for new contributors and users[3][4][5]. In fact I feel proud to say that
community enabled many folks who filed bugs to also contribute bug fix
patches.

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sentry-dev/201508.mbox/%3CB957EE1AFDEBFD4B934BCF11804A23DC01EAAB06%40shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com%3E
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-857
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-451
[4]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sentry-dev/201510.mbox/%3CCAFFJ4KuhgsRONboEUxJJYtyzzf%2BZfKOwQLqFvsG3qatwpMeTiQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[5]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sentry-dev/201510.mbox/%3Ctencent_5A5F4B2F10FFFE75127C4091%40qq.com%3E


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 03:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> > I see this (the release discussion threads you linked) as a semi-mature
> > community that's well aligned. A number of folks responded to the request
> > for discussion and said they were in favor. It was done on the ML in the
> > open. What more do we want? I don't see anyone excluded and I'm sure if
> > there was a new person looking to get involved they would have been
> > welcomed into the discussion, no one is being turned away from what I can
> > see.
>
> No one is being turned away, that I've noticed, but I really don't see
> how anyone is supposed to follow along if they're not part of the team
> already. I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
> didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence.
>
> I'm also sad to see that being held up as a standard by other mentors.
> My understanding is that projects should be attempting to create a
> community that is open, and trying to self-perpetuate. Sure, you can't
> do that if you turn people away actively - but you also can't do that by
> having conversations offlist and having an opaque process that newcomers
> can't follow along with.
>
> I'll say again - maybe my standards are improperly calibrated. If so,
> and "not actively turning people away" is the standard we're going
> for... that's disappointing as all heck.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-934
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Sravya Tirukkovalur

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/02/2015 03:57 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> I see this (the release discussion threads you linked) as a semi-mature
> community that's well aligned. A number of folks responded to the request
> for discussion and said they were in favor. It was done on the ML in the
> open. What more do we want? I don't see anyone excluded and I'm sure if
> there was a new person looking to get involved they would have been
> welcomed into the discussion, no one is being turned away from what I can
> see.

No one is being turned away, that I've noticed, but I really don't see
how anyone is supposed to follow along if they're not part of the team
already. I will say that the only Jira I've seen from outside recently
didn't exactly get a warm reception. [1] Not rejected, just radio silence.

I'm also sad to see that being held up as a standard by other mentors.
My understanding is that projects should be attempting to create a
community that is open, and trying to self-perpetuate. Sure, you can't
do that if you turn people away actively - but you also can't do that by
having conversations offlist and having an opaque process that newcomers
can't follow along with.

I'll say again - maybe my standards are improperly calibrated. If so,
and "not actively turning people away" is the standard we're going
for... that's disappointing as all heck.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-934
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@gmail.com>]

I see this (the release discussion threads you linked) as a semi-mature
community that's well aligned. A number of folks responded to the request
for discussion and said they were in favor. It was done on the ML in the
open. What more do we want? I don't see anyone excluded and I'm sure if
there was a new person looking to get involved they would have been
welcomed into the discussion, no one is being turned away from what I can
see.

Patrick

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to
> tell
> > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
>
> I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of David's
> discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
> Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
>
> It's not specific tickets - it's (again) that there appears to be a lot
> of discussion and planning taking place off-list, out of sight. Take the
> 1.6.0 release discussion - no roadmap discussed for 1.6.0 at all, it
> just appeared [3] and then within 15 minutes there's an "I agree, and
> I'll be release manager!" [4] message and then several +1 / "I agree"
> messages, and then .. done. This looks a lot to me like planning and
> decisions happening off-list and then a cursory "discussion" for
> appearance's sake.
>
> How is a person who's not tapped into the Sentry development process
> already supposed to get involved? How is this building community? I see
> the Sentry podling creating code... just not much evidence of a
> community outside what Sentry came in with.
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/611
> [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
> [3] http://s.apache.org/ZRV
> [4] http://s.apache.org/g9v
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>]

fwiw it's +9 by my count (24->33). Sentry is security, so by my definition
that's pretty good. ;-)

Patrick

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All of our projects are primarily in the recruitment business, so it does
> concern
> me that a project that's been here for over a year and hasn't managed to
> attract
> any new talent yet has some issues that need addressing.
>
> But that said I think you might be being a little hard on these guys Joe
> for failing in
> that regard.  If your advice is being ignored that's a problem, but if it's
> not and still
> no good outcomes yet, them's the breaks.  I wouldn't consider that a
> blocker for
> graduation if so.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > > On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard
> to
> > tell
> > > > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> > >
> > > I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of
> David's
> > > discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
> > > Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> > > project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> > > over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
> >
> > Joe, I'd encourage you to re-read what he says there under [2]. When he
> > says "following a roadmap the community doesn't control over" he seems
> > to be paraphrasing what has previously been stated, and when he says
> > "this is not an issue" it seems to me he is saying "this is not
> > happening" rather than "this doesn't bother me". It seems to me you are
> > misrepresenting him based upon this one email.
> >
> > > It's not specific tickets - it's (again) that there appears to be a lot
> > > of discussion and planning taking place off-list, out of sight. Take
> the
> > > 1.6.0 release discussion - no roadmap discussed for 1.6.0 at all, it
> > > just appeared [3] and then within 15 minutes there's an "I agree, and
> > > I'll be release manager!" [4] message and then several +1 / "I agree"
> > > messages, and then .. done. This looks a lot to me like planning and
> > > decisions happening off-list and then a cursory "discussion" for
> > > appearance's sake.
> > >
> > > How is a person who's not tapped into the Sentry development process
> > > already supposed to get involved? How is this building community? I see
> > > the Sentry podling creating code... just not much evidence of a
> > > community outside what Sentry came in with.
> >
> > I have no comment/perspective on the rest of this.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

All of our projects are primarily in the recruitment business, so it does
concern
me that a project that's been here for over a year and hasn't managed to
attract
any new talent yet has some issues that need addressing.

But that said I think you might be being a little hard on these guys Joe
for failing in
that regard.  If your advice is being ignored that's a problem, but if it's
not and still
no good outcomes yet, them's the breaks.  I wouldn't consider that a
blocker for
graduation if so.


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to
> tell
> > > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> >
> > I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of David's
> > discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
> > Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> > project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> > over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
>
> Joe, I'd encourage you to re-read what he says there under [2]. When he
> says "following a roadmap the community doesn't control over" he seems
> to be paraphrasing what has previously been stated, and when he says
> "this is not an issue" it seems to me he is saying "this is not
> happening" rather than "this doesn't bother me". It seems to me you are
> misrepresenting him based upon this one email.
>
> > It's not specific tickets - it's (again) that there appears to be a lot
> > of discussion and planning taking place off-list, out of sight. Take the
> > 1.6.0 release discussion - no roadmap discussed for 1.6.0 at all, it
> > just appeared [3] and then within 15 minutes there's an "I agree, and
> > I'll be release manager!" [4] message and then several +1 / "I agree"
> > messages, and then .. done. This looks a lot to me like planning and
> > decisions happening off-list and then a cursory "discussion" for
> > appearance's sake.
> >
> > How is a person who's not tapped into the Sentry development process
> > already supposed to get involved? How is this building community? I see
> > the Sentry podling creating code... just not much evidence of a
> > community outside what Sentry came in with.
>
> I have no comment/perspective on the rest of this.
>
> Upayavira
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 06:15 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
> > > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> > 
> > I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of David's
> > discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
> > Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> > project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> > over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]
> 
> Joe, I'd encourage you to re-read what he says there under [2]. When he
> says "following a roadmap the community doesn't control over" he seems
> to be paraphrasing what has previously been stated, and when he says
> "this is not an issue" it seems to me he is saying "this is not
> happening" rather than "this doesn't bother me". It seems to me you are
> misrepresenting him based upon this one email.

Thanks much for pointing this out. I honestly took it to mean "this
doesn't bother me," but I can see how it could have been "this is not
happening," which is - you know - a lot less alarming. 

Best,

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

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

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

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 08:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
> > what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.
> 
> I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of David's
> discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
> Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
> project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
> over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]

Joe, I'd encourage you to re-read what he says there under [2]. When he
says "following a roadmap the community doesn't control over" he seems
to be paraphrasing what has previously been stated, and when he says
"this is not an issue" it seems to me he is saying "this is not
happening" rather than "this doesn't bother me". It seems to me you are
misrepresenting him based upon this one email.

> It's not specific tickets - it's (again) that there appears to be a lot
> of discussion and planning taking place off-list, out of sight. Take the
> 1.6.0 release discussion - no roadmap discussed for 1.6.0 at all, it
> just appeared [3] and then within 15 minutes there's an "I agree, and
> I'll be release manager!" [4] message and then several +1 / "I agree"
> messages, and then .. done. This looks a lot to me like planning and
> decisions happening off-list and then a cursory "discussion" for
> appearance's sake.
> 
> How is a person who's not tapped into the Sentry development process
> already supposed to get involved? How is this building community? I see
> the Sentry podling creating code... just not much evidence of a
> community outside what Sentry came in with.

I have no comment/perspective on the rest of this.

Upayavira

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

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/02/2015 01:09 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
> what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.

I'll (again) point to the previous conversation that came out of David's
discussion with Sentry folks at ApacheCon [1] and then the reply from
Arvind which basically says he doesn't consider it an issue if the
project is "following a roadmap the community does not have control
over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all." [2]

It's not specific tickets - it's (again) that there appears to be a lot
of discussion and planning taking place off-list, out of sight. Take the
1.6.0 release discussion - no roadmap discussed for 1.6.0 at all, it
just appeared [3] and then within 15 minutes there's an "I agree, and
I'll be release manager!" [4] message and then several +1 / "I agree"
messages, and then .. done. This looks a lot to me like planning and
decisions happening off-list and then a cursory "discussion" for
appearance's sake.

How is a person who's not tapped into the Sentry development process
already supposed to get involved? How is this building community? I see
the Sentry podling creating code... just not much evidence of a
community outside what Sentry came in with.

[1] http://s.apache.org/611
[2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
[3] http://s.apache.org/ZRV
[4] http://s.apache.org/g9v
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

Joe, can we see some jira tickets that you find questionable?  Hard to tell
what the problem is just by scanning the email traffic.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli <vi...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> Missed that part, that sounds really bad.
>
> +Vinod
>
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net<mailto:
> jzb@zonker.net>> wrote:
>
> Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
> Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
> have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."
>
>

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

[Vinod Vavilapalli <vi...@hortonworks.com>]

Missed that part, that sounds really bad.

+Vinod

On Nov 2, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>> wrote:

Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."

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

[Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>]

On 11/02/2015 12:27 PM, Vinod Vavilapalli wrote:
> Many of the active TLPs do tend to center all project discussions on JIRA as opposed to mailing lists. OTOH, non-code discussions are usually best served on mailing lists.
> 
> Instead of making it a JIRA vs mailing list discussion, how about the podling be advised about putting a cool-off period for JIRA resolutions - 24-36hrs before they get closed. Again, this is something a bunch of active TLPs practice in the interest of leaving enough time windows for everyone (many times around the world in different time-zones) to pitch in.

It's not merely a Jira vs. mailing list discussion - please re-read the
original message. Discussions are happening out of sight, and - in
Arvind's own words - "as if following a roadmap the community does not
have control over... that too is not an issue in my opinion at all."

(Note Arvind is also a mentor for the project.)

This is not just "Jira vs. Mailing list" this is "where are discussions
happening, and can the community outside the existing group effectively
participate?" The answer is clearly *no*. It boggles my mind that anyone
would argue for this as an Apache project, especially a mentor. But
that's why I brought this to the Incubator list - as a sanity check.*

As best I can tell, Sentry development is largely guided outside Apache
infrastructure and that's not acceptable - at least as I understand what
we are trying to achieve.

* A sanity check on this specific issue. I'm not inviting the Incubator
to comment on my sanity in general, I can guess the answer already. ;-)
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
jzb@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

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

[Vinod Vavilapalli <vi...@hortonworks.com>]

Many of the active TLPs do tend to center all project discussions on JIRA as opposed to mailing lists. OTOH, non-code discussions are usually best served on mailing lists.

Instead of making it a JIRA vs mailing list discussion, how about the podling be advised about putting a cool-off period for JIRA resolutions - 24-36hrs before they get closed. Again, this is something a bunch of active TLPs practice in the interest of leaving enough time windows for everyone (many times around the world in different time-zones) to pitch in.

+Vinod


> On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> development and discussion out-of-sight. 
> 
> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1] 
> 
> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask." 
> 
> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind: 
> 
> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> opinion at all. And here is why:
> 
> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> intuitively."
> 
> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved. 
> 
> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
> 
> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.) 
> 
> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
> the majority here.
> 
> [1] http://s.apache.org/611
> [2] http://s.apache.org/bhQ
> [3] http://theapacheway.com/
> 
> Best,
> 
> jzb
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 


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

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

[Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org>]

Thanks Ted for pointing this out.

The question is "[are you] vouching that all of Sentry's development is
> happening in the open and Sentry development decisions are not being taken
> offlist?"


Yes, to the best of my knowledge, that is the case.

Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Just to be clear - you're
> > > vouching that all of Sentry's development is happening in the open, and
> > > Sentry development decisions are not being taken offlist?
> > >
> > </snip>
> >
> >
> > Yes, in my best judgement, I feel the Sentry community is flourishing and
> > very welcoming of interactions with the broader community of users and
> > developers. They happen to be Jira centric and I agree that it may not
> seem
> > to be as welcoming as a non-Jira centric project. That said, the
> project's
> > focus is low-level security integration and it is not something that the
> > users interact with directly - which in my opinion naturally fits the
> Jira
> > centric model.
>
>
>
> Arvind,
>
> Since we just came off of a misunderstanding about an ambiguous statement,
> I would like to point out that your response did not actually answer the
> question.
>
> It might be good to nip any further misunderstanding in the bud by
> clarifying what you said.
>
> The question is "[are you] vouching that all of Sentry's development is
> happening in the open and Sentry development decisions are not being taken
> offlist?"
>

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

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> <snip>
>
> Just to be clear - you're
> > vouching that all of Sentry's development is happening in the open, and
> > Sentry development decisions are not being taken offlist?
> >
> </snip>
>
>
> Yes, in my best judgement, I feel the Sentry community is flourishing and
> very welcoming of interactions with the broader community of users and
> developers. They happen to be Jira centric and I agree that it may not seem
> to be as welcoming as a non-Jira centric project. That said, the project's
> focus is low-level security integration and it is not something that the
> users interact with directly - which in my opinion naturally fits the Jira
> centric model.



Arvind,

Since we just came off of a misunderstanding about an ambiguous statement,
I would like to point out that your response did not actually answer the
question.

It might be good to nip any further misunderstanding in the bud by
clarifying what you said.

The question is "[are you] vouching that all of Sentry's development is
happening in the open and Sentry development decisions are not being taken
offlist?"

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

[Arvind Prabhakar <ar...@apache.org>]

Sorry for the tardy response, I am mostly on the road for this week and
have limited time and access to emails. Some comments below.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> <snip>
> If that was your meaning, I do apologize for misinterpreting what you
> said. I do appreciate you understanding that my response was based on an
> honest interpretation of what you wrote.

</snip>


No apologies necessary Joe, I am glad we are on the same page. If anything,
I will be more careful in the future in wording my opinion... I can see how
it may be interpreted the way you read it.

<snip>

Just to be clear - you're
> vouching that all of Sentry's development is happening in the open, and
> Sentry development decisions are not being taken offlist?
>
</snip>


Yes, in my best judgement, I feel the Sentry community is flourishing and
very welcoming of interactions with the broader community of users and
developers. They happen to be Jira centric and I agree that it may not seem
to be as welcoming as a non-Jira centric project. That said, the project's
focus is low-level security integration and it is not something that the
users interact with directly - which in my opinion naturally fits the Jira
centric model.

Regards,
Arvind Prabhakar



On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The point I'm making about project dysfunction is something I've learned to
> expect from projects
> that are using inappropriate means to control the project.  Any time you
> challenge their means of
> control, the response you get will indicate whether or not you are barking
> up the wrong tree.
> The absence of inappropriate feedback is in fact a sign that we are not
> gauging things such
> as they actually are, but are projecting our own perceptions onto the
> project.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is to ensure these types of
> > concerns can
> > be examined objectively by others.  With jira we have the ability to
> drill
> > down in considerably
> > more detail than we do trawling the email archives, but in either case
> any
> > objective attempts
> > to discover inappropriate conduct will fail to yield much fruit.  The
> > committers do work fast
> > when it comes to repairing bugs they discover, but that doesn't mean they
> > are doing things
> > in the wrong order.  I have yet to see a large patch prematurely applied
> > to the repo: the bulk
> > of the patches are minor changes that certainly can be worked out hours
> > after discovering the
> > problem and filing the ticket.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction.  Even with this thread,
> >> with serious consequences for the podling,
> >> nobody is behaving in a territorial or defensive way about the project.
> >> The feedback has been very reasonable,
> >> respectful of Joe's concerns, and direct.
> >>
> >> I have a strong suspicion that the core problem here is that the mentors
> >> aren't following the commit list, which is
> >> where the jira email trail gets sent.  Looking there you will see a
> >> plethora of examples where tickets, many filed by
> >> non-project participants, are being discussed by several project
> members,
> >> far from the presentation that discussions
> >> are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without
> >> public review.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
> >>> low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to
> allow
> >>> outside contributors the ability to participate.  Coupled with
> identifying
> >>> these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside
> >>> contributions.
> >>>
> >>> I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that
> >>> haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level.
> >>> Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
> >>> mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually
> look
> >>>> at their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the
> past
> >>>> month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating
> this in
> >>>> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the
> same.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > David,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
> >>>>> evidence
> >>>>> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
> >>>>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about
> >>>>> repair-oriented
> >>>>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
> >>>>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that
> development
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above
> >>>>> scenario
> >>>>> described to me by two different people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

The point I'm making about project dysfunction is something I've learned to
expect from projects
that are using inappropriate means to control the project.  Any time you
challenge their means of
control, the response you get will indicate whether or not you are barking
up the wrong tree.
The absence of inappropriate feedback is in fact a sign that we are not
gauging things such
as they actually are, but are projecting our own perceptions onto the
project.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is to ensure these types of
> concerns can
> be examined objectively by others.  With jira we have the ability to drill
> down in considerably
> more detail than we do trawling the email archives, but in either case any
> objective attempts
> to discover inappropriate conduct will fail to yield much fruit.  The
> committers do work fast
> when it comes to repairing bugs they discover, but that doesn't mean they
> are doing things
> in the wrong order.  I have yet to see a large patch prematurely applied
> to the repo: the bulk
> of the patches are minor changes that certainly can be worked out hours
> after discovering the
> problem and filing the ticket.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction.  Even with this thread,
>> with serious consequences for the podling,
>> nobody is behaving in a territorial or defensive way about the project.
>> The feedback has been very reasonable,
>> respectful of Joe's concerns, and direct.
>>
>> I have a strong suspicion that the core problem here is that the mentors
>> aren't following the commit list, which is
>> where the jira email trail gets sent.  Looking there you will see a
>> plethora of examples where tickets, many filed by
>> non-project participants, are being discussed by several project members,
>> far from the presentation that discussions
>> are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without
>> public review.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
>>> low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to allow
>>> outside contributors the ability to participate.  Coupled with identifying
>>> these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside
>>> contributions.
>>>
>>> I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that
>>> haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level.
>>> Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
>>> mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually look
>>>> at their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past
>>>> month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in
>>>> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
>>>>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about
>>>>> repair-oriented
>>>>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
>>>>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development
>>>>> is
>>>>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above
>>>>> scenario
>>>>> described to me by two different people.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is to ensure these types of
concerns can
be examined objectively by others.  With jira we have the ability to drill
down in considerably
more detail than we do trawling the email archives, but in either case any
objective attempts
to discover inappropriate conduct will fail to yield much fruit.  The
committers do work fast
when it comes to repairing bugs they discover, but that doesn't mean they
are doing things
in the wrong order.  I have yet to see a large patch prematurely applied to
the repo: the bulk
of the patches are minor changes that certainly can be worked out hours
after discovering the
problem and filing the ticket.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction.  Even with this thread,
> with serious consequences for the podling,
> nobody is behaving in a territorial or defensive way about the project.
> The feedback has been very reasonable,
> respectful of Joe's concerns, and direct.
>
> I have a strong suspicion that the core problem here is that the mentors
> aren't following the commit list, which is
> where the jira email trail gets sent.  Looking there you will see a
> plethora of examples where tickets, many filed by
> non-project participants, are being discussed by several project members,
> far from the presentation that discussions
> are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without
> public review.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
>> low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to allow
>> outside contributors the ability to participate.  Coupled with identifying
>> these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside
>> contributions.
>>
>> I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that
>> haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level.
>> Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
>> mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually look
>>> at their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past
>>> month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in
>>> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > David,
>>>> >
>>>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
>>>> evidence
>>>> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
>>>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about
>>>> repair-oriented
>>>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
>>>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development
>>>> is
>>>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above scenario
>>>> described to me by two different people.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction.  Even with this thread,
with serious consequences for the podling,
nobody is behaving in a territorial or defensive way about the project.
The feedback has been very reasonable,
respectful of Joe's concerns, and direct.

I have a strong suspicion that the core problem here is that the mentors
aren't following the commit list, which is
where the jira email trail gets sent.  Looking there you will see a
plethora of examples where tickets, many filed by
non-project participants, are being discussed by several project members,
far from the presentation that discussions
are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without
public review.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
> low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to allow
> outside contributors the ability to participate.  Coupled with identifying
> these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside
> contributions.
>
> I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that
> haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level.
> Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
> mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually look
>> at their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past
>> month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in
>> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > David,
>>> >
>>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
>>> evidence
>>> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
>>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about
>>> repair-oriented
>>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
>>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development is
>>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
>>>
>>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above scenario
>>> described to me by two different people.
>>>
>>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave
low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to allow
outside contributors the ability to participate.  Coupled with identifying
these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside
contributions.

I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that haven't
yet advanced to the ppmc level.
Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC
mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually look at
> their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past
> month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in
> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same.
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > David,
>> >
>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
>> evidence
>> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented
>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development is
>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
>>
>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above scenario
>> described to me by two different people.
>>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

I still consider that hearsay evidence.  If you bother to actually look at
their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past
month remain open.  I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in
some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <joesuf4@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
> evidence
> > to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented
> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development is
> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it.
>
> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above scenario
> described to me by two different people.
>

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid
evidence
> to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
> All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented
> tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
> I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development is
> happening prior to filing a ticket about it.

Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above scenario
described to me by two different people.

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

David,

The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid evidence
to that effect.  Certainly not on a systematic level.
All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about repair-oriented
tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies.
I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development is
happening prior to filing a ticket about it.


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM, David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will.
> However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all
> other projects I’ve worked on.  I don’t see the point in duplicating a
> proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same
> information.  And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly.  I
> would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is
> proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see
> how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project.  So I’d be
> concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7”
> but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being
> proposed or done.
> >
> > What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a
> major new feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands
> implementing that feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is shut
> down, because it's a done deal.
> >
>
> Well, for me closing an issue by no means discussion is shut down…. I’m
> happy to complain years later.  However irrespective of the level of detail
> in a jira, I’d expect it to be filed when the idea behind it is hatched,
> not when development on it is complete.  The behavior you describe seems
> completely inappropriate to me, and I’m fairly shocked a mentor would
> support it.
>
> thanks for the clarification.
>
> david jencks
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>]

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will.  However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all other projects I’ve worked on.  I don’t see the point in duplicating a proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same information.  And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly.  I would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project.  So I’d be concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7” but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being proposed or done.
> 
> What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a major new feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands implementing that feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is shut down, because it's a done deal.
> 

Well, for me closing an issue by no means discussion is shut down…. I’m happy to complain years later.  However irrespective of the level of detail in a jira, I’d expect it to be filed when the idea behind it is hatched, not when development on it is complete.  The behavior you describe seems completely inappropriate to me, and I’m fairly shocked a mentor would support it.

thanks for the clarification.

david jencks



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

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

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@gmail.com>]

What we do here is practice open *development*.  That means if it is a
foregone conclusion that some jira ticket gets opened with a patch already
cooked up for it, you're not doing it right.  The entire development
process needs to be subject to public scrutiny, not just the end result.


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will.
>> However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all
>> other projects I’ve worked on.  I don’t see the point in duplicating a
>> proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same
>> information.  And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly.  I
>> would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is
>> proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see
>> how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project.  So I’d be
>> concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7”
>> but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being
>> proposed or done.
>>
>
> What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a major
> new feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands implementing that
> feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is shut down, because
> it's a done deal.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 11/02/2015 09:50 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will.  However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all other projects I’ve worked on.  I don’t see the point in duplicating a proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same information.  And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly.  I would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project.  So I’d be concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7” but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being proposed or done.

What has been described to me is that a ticket is filed proposing a 
major new feature, and then seconds later a *large* patch lands 
implementing that feature, and the ticket is closed, and discussion is 
shut down, because it's a done deal.

-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

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

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

[David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>]

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 8:08 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/02/2015 06:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
>> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
>> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
>> development and discussion out-of-sight.
>> 
>> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
>> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
>> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
>> 
>> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
>> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
>> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
>> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
>> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
>> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
>> 
>> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
>> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
>> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
>> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
>> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
>> 
>> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
>> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
>> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
>> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
>> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
>> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
>> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
>> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
>> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
>> opinion at all. And here is why:
>> 
>> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
>> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
>> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
>> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
>> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
>> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
>> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
>> intuitively."
>> 
>> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
>> 
>> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
>> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
>> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
>> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
>> 
>> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
>> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
>> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
>> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
>> 
>> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
>> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
>> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
>> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
>> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
>> the majority here.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think you're outdated or out of line. This pattern - open ticket, commit change, close ticket, without time for community input - does indicate that decision making is not open and collaborative, but rather that the decision is being made offline somewhere.
> 
> Furthermore, if the mentors are in agreement that something is awry, and the podling disagrees, that's an indication that the podling is out of line, not the mentors. After all, it's the mentors' job to guide the podling, not vice versa.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd consider your -1 vote on their graduation to be binding here, and I'd consider you to be doing the right thing to prevent that vote happening in the first place until this community process is straightened out.
> 
> 

I haven’t looked at what they are doing and don’t expect I will.  However, I’m assuming that jira changes all get to the dev list, as in all other projects I’ve worked on.  I don’t see the point in duplicating a proposal between a jira issue and a separate dev list post with the same information.  And I don’t have a problem with people working quickly.  I would like to see that the jira issue explains sufficiently what is proposed or implemented in enough detail that an interested party can see how it fits in with the code and the purpose of the project.  So I’d be concerned if the jira descriptions were “fix bug” or “implement javaee7” but possibly not if there are reasonable explanations of what is being proposed or done.

david jencks


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

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

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

>
> On 11/02/2015 06:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
>> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
>> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
>> development and discussion out-of-sight.
>>
>> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
>> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
>> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
>>
>> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
>> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
>> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
>> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
>> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
>> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
>>
>> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
>> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
>> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
>> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
>> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
>>
>> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
>> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
>> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
>> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
>> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
>> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
>> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
>> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
>> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
>> opinion at all. And here is why:
>>
>> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
>> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
>> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
>> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
>> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
>> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
>> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
>> intuitively."
>>
>> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
>> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
>> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
>> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
>>
>> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
>> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
>> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
>> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
>>
>> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
>> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
>> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
>> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
>>
>> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
>> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
>> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
>> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
>> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
>> the majority here.
>>
>
> No, I don't think you're outdated or out of line. This pattern - open
> ticket, commit change, close ticket, without time for community input -
> does indicate that decision making is not open and collaborative, but
> rather that the decision is being made offline somewhere.
>
> Furthermore, if the mentors are in agreement that something is awry, and
> the podling disagrees, that's an indication that the podling is out of
> line, not the mentors. After all, it's the mentors' job to guide the
> podling, not vice versa.
>

I'm wondering, though, how this varies from our preference for the
'scratch-your-own-itch' model? In this case, it might be one programmer,
or might be a customer of that programmer who noted a bug, or might
be a small collaborative team working at their day job. All of these have
every right to scratch their specific itch.

In any case, the ASF and the dev@ list never dictate 'Jira ticket A
is more important than Jira ticket B', any of the committers are welcome
to work on any features, any open Jira tickets, anything that they feel
improves a given project's code. It does not matter if this is a volunteer
or employee, everyone is given equal treatment.

Where this goes full-stop is where a significant change is introduced
(Jira or not) without some time for the dev@ community to react. What
constitutes "significant" varies from project to project, and also varies
by whether it is changed on a C-T-R or R-T-C branch. The community
business of deciding which branches are C-T-R or R-T-C, what the
"significant" threshold is, and agreeing to such changes does belong
on the dev@ list (or Jira ticket, as ticket activity also hits the mailing
list)... and at a pace that the community worldwide can react to.

At the Apache APR and HTTP Server projects, we have set that
threshold to about 72 hours, which means not missing people who
have day jobs / leave town for the weekend, and not excluding one
time zone or another from larger discussions.

I hope this is the sort of feedback you were asking for, Joe.

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

[Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>]

On 11/02/2015 06:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
> concern is that the podling is doing [in my opinion] too much
> development and discussion out-of-sight.
>
> I've raised issues about this, as has David Nalley. David had a
> conversation with members of Sentry at ApacheCon Big Data in September,
> and that discussion was brought back to the list. [1]
>
> Jiras are being filed, and swiftly acted on, in a way that strongly
> suggests that a lot of discussion and direction of the project are
> happening off-list and out-of-sight to the average participant. David
> and myself have suggested ways that the community can remedy this, but
> the most recent mail from Arvind indicates that he (and others in the
> podling) don't feel it is a "valid ask."
>
> At this point, I'm raising this to general@ because I'd like second (and
> third, etc.) opinions. Perhaps I'm deeply wrong, and others here feel
> Sentry is ready to graduate. My feeling is that the podling is not
> operating in "the Apache Way" and doesn't show a great deal of interest
> in doing so. [2] To quote Arvind:
>
> "I feel another issue being pointed out or which has been eluded to in
> the past is - who decides which Jiras should be fixed, what features to
> create etc, specially when they show up as Jira issues directly with
> patches that follow soon. It seems that in some ways the lack of using
> mailing lists directly for discussion is linked to this behavior of
> filing issues and fixing them rapidly, as if following a roadmap that
> the community does not have control over. Please pardon me if my
> interpretation/understanding of the issue is not right. But if it is
> right, then I do want to say that - that too is not an issue in my
> opinion at all. And here is why:
>
> When someone files a Jira, they are inviting the entire community to
> comment on it and provide feedback. If it is not in the interest of the
> project, I do believe that responsible members of the community will be
> quick to bring that out for discussion and even Veto it if necessary. If
> that is not happening, it is not an issue with lack of community
> participation, but rather it is an indicator of a project team that
> knows where the gaps are and understands how to go about filling them
> intuitively."
>
> The model that Sentry is pursing may work very well *for the existing
> members of the podling.* In my opinion, its process is entirely too
> opaque to allow for interested parties outside of the existing podling
> and companies interested in Sentry development to become involved.
>
> The podling is pressing to move to graduation, and I cannot in good
> conscience vote +1 or even +0 at this point. I'm strongly -1 as a mentor
> and don't feel the podling has any interest in working in "the Apache
> Way" as commonly understood. [3]
>
> However, I feel we've reached an impasse and there's little value in
> continuing to debate amongst the mentors / podling. They've stated their
> position(s) and I've stated mine. (I *think* David Nalley is in
> agreement with me, but I don't wish to speak for him.)
>
> I'm bringing this to the IPMC fully understanding that I might be
> totally wrong - maybe I'm holding to a too strict or outdated idea of
> how projects should operate. I'm happy to be told so if that's the case
> so I can improve as a mentor or decide to bow out from mentoring in the
> future, if it's the case that my idea of a project is out-of-line with
> the majority here.
>



No, I don't think you're outdated or out of line. This pattern - open 
ticket, commit change, close ticket, without time for community input - 
does indicate that decision making is not open and collaborative, but 
rather that the decision is being made offline somewhere.

Furthermore, if the mentors are in agreement that something is awry, and 
the podling disagrees, that's an indication that the podling is out of 
line, not the mentors. After all, it's the mentors' job to guide the 
podling, not vice versa.

So, yeah, I'd consider your -1 vote on their graduation to be binding 
here, and I'd consider you to be doing the right thing to prevent that 
vote happening in the first place until this community process is 
straightened out.



-- 
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

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