You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> on 2020/01/10 16:17:56 UTC
Offering some project management services
Hey all,
I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
engaging in some simple project management type work (help get assignees
and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and subsequent
releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all, does
anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
We discussed about the video call on the dev list and everyone agreed to it.
I also welcome Josh in helping with the project. Like Josh and Dinesh mentioned, let’s encourage contributions by allowing non-committers to do first round of review as I don’t see a downside of doing this. These video calls and email updates can help motivate others to help with reviews and write patches. I feel it is worth a try!!
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 8:23 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>
> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings, nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database - there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be speaking on behalf of the project.
>
> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>
> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>
> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>
> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>
> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>
> Hugs and kisses friends,
> - Jeff
>
>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try really hard to do things in the right way.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>
>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>
>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration _for_ the project.
>>
>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
>>
>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
>>
>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
>>> page.
>>> Patrick
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>>>> they'd
>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>>>> them
>>>>> from time to time.
>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>>>> he's got time).
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the linked thread.
On 11/01/2020, 18:19, "Sankalp Kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Words are open to interpretation but I do not see anyone telling anyone anything but proposing it in this and other thread. AFAIK, people who tell even accidentally don’t start a discussion thread or ask for feedback before they do things.
The thread on video calls was a discussion and no one objected to it so community is starting it. No one told anyone that this must happen.
This thread Josh is asking if he can help and not telling anyone he will do it.
Ideas and suggestions can be interrupted as told but again that is interpreted differently but everyone.
(We have a thread I linked so let’s move there if anyone has suggestion on video call To keep all context in one thread)
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've tried to make my concerns as clear as possible: there's a difference between proposing and telling.
>
> People who have de-facto power (through the resources they control) are able to _tell_ other people that things are a certain way. They may easily do it accidentally. So they must be especially careful to never to do so, or to be seen to do so.
>
> If it's still not clear, there's no point flogging a dead horse.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 17:50, "Sankalp Kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
>
> What else do you suggest ?
>
>> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
>>
>> Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
>>
>> The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
>>
>> People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
>> we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
>> mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
>>> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
>>> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
>>> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
>>> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
>>> advance, etc.
>>>
>>> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
>>> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
>>> predetermined.
>>>
>>> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
>>> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>>>
>>> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
>>> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
>>> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
>>> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
>>> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>>>
>>> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
>>> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
>>> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
>>> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
>>> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
>>> speaking on behalf of the project.
>>>
>>> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
>>> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
>>> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
>>> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>>>
>>> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
>>> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
>>> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
>>> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
>>> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
>>> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
>>> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>>>
>>> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
>>> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>>>
>>> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
>>> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>>>
>>> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
>>> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>>>
>>> Hugs and kisses friends,
>>> - Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
>>> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
>>> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
>>> really hard to do things in the right way.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>>>
>>>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
>>> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
>>> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
>>> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
>>> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
>>> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
>>> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
>>> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
>>> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
>>> _for_ the project.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
>>> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
>>> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
>>> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
>>> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
>>> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
>>> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
>>> the project?
>>>>
>>>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
>>> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
>>> contributing?
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>>>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
>>> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
>>> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
>>> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
>>> confluence
>>>>> page.
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
>>> imagine
>>>>>> they'd
>>>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
>>> doing
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
>>> them if
>>>>>> he's got time).
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
Words are open to interpretation but I do not see anyone telling anyone anything but proposing it in this and other thread. AFAIK, people who tell even accidentally don’t start a discussion thread or ask for feedback before they do things.
The thread on video calls was a discussion and no one objected to it so community is starting it. No one told anyone that this must happen.
This thread Josh is asking if he can help and not telling anyone he will do it.
Ideas and suggestions can be interrupted as told but again that is interpreted differently but everyone.
(We have a thread I linked so let’s move there if anyone has suggestion on video call To keep all context in one thread)
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've tried to make my concerns as clear as possible: there's a difference between proposing and telling.
>
> People who have de-facto power (through the resources they control) are able to _tell_ other people that things are a certain way. They may easily do it accidentally. So they must be especially careful to never to do so, or to be seen to do so.
>
> If it's still not clear, there's no point flogging a dead horse.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 17:50, "Sankalp Kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
>
> What else do you suggest ?
>
>> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
>>
>> Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
>>
>> The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
>>
>> People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
>> we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
>> mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
>>> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
>>> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
>>> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
>>> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
>>> advance, etc.
>>>
>>> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
>>> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
>>> predetermined.
>>>
>>> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
>>> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>>>
>>> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
>>> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
>>> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
>>> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
>>> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>>>
>>> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
>>> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
>>> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
>>> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
>>> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
>>> speaking on behalf of the project.
>>>
>>> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
>>> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
>>> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
>>> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>>>
>>> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
>>> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
>>> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
>>> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
>>> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
>>> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
>>> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>>>
>>> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
>>> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>>>
>>> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
>>> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>>>
>>> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
>>> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>>>
>>> Hugs and kisses friends,
>>> - Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
>>> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
>>> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
>>> really hard to do things in the right way.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>>>
>>>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
>>> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
>>> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
>>> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
>>> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
>>> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
>>> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
>>> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
>>> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
>>> _for_ the project.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
>>> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
>>> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
>>> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
>>> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
>>> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
>>> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
>>> the project?
>>>>
>>>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
>>> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
>>> contributing?
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>>>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
>>> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
>>> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
>>> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
>>> confluence
>>>>> page.
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
>>> imagine
>>>>>> they'd
>>>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
>>> doing
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
>>> them if
>>>>>> he's got time).
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
I've tried to make my concerns as clear as possible: there's a difference between proposing and telling.
People who have de-facto power (through the resources they control) are able to _tell_ other people that things are a certain way. They may easily do it accidentally. So they must be especially careful to never to do so, or to be seen to do so.
If it's still not clear, there's no point flogging a dead horse.
On 11/01/2020, 17:50, "Sankalp Kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
What else do you suggest ?
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
>
> Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
>
> The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
>
> People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
> we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
> mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
>> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
>> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
>> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
>> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
>> advance, etc.
>>
>> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
>> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
>> predetermined.
>>
>> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
>> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>>
>> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
>> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
>> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
>> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
>> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>>
>> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
>> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
>> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
>> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
>> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
>> speaking on behalf of the project.
>>
>> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
>> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
>> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
>> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>>
>> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
>> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
>> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
>> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
>> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
>> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
>> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>>
>> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
>> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>>
>> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
>> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>>
>> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
>> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>>
>> Hugs and kisses friends,
>> - Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
>> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
>> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
>> really hard to do things in the right way.
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>>
>>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
>> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
>> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
>> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
>> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
>> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
>> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>>
>>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
>> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
>> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
>> _for_ the project.
>>>
>>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
>> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
>> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
>> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
>> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
>> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
>> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
>> the project?
>>>
>>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
>> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
>> contributing?
>>>
>>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
>> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
>> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
>> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
>> confluence
>>>> page.
>>>> Patrick
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
>> Jeff
>>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
>> imagine
>>>>> they'd
>>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
>> doing
>>>>> them
>>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
>> them if
>>>>> he's got time).
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
What else do you suggest ?
> On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
>
> Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
>
> The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
>
> People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
> we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
> mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
>
>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
>> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
>> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
>> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
>> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
>> advance, etc.
>>
>> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
>> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
>> predetermined.
>>
>> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
>> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>>
>> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
>> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
>> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
>> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
>> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>>
>> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
>> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
>> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
>> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
>> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
>> speaking on behalf of the project.
>>
>> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
>> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
>> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
>> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>>
>> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
>> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
>> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
>> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
>> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
>> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
>> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>>
>> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
>> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>>
>> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
>> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>>
>> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
>> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>>
>> Hugs and kisses friends,
>> - Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
>> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
>> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
>> really hard to do things in the right way.
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>>>
>>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
>> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
>> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
>> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
>> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
>> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
>> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>>>
>>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
>> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
>> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
>> _for_ the project.
>>>
>>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
>> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
>> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
>> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
>> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
>> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
>> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
>> the project?
>>>
>>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
>> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
>> contributing?
>>>
>>> -Jeremiah Jordan
>>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
>> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
>> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
>> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
>> confluence
>>>> page.
>>>> Patrick
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
>> Jeff
>>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
>> imagine
>>>>> they'd
>>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
>> doing
>>>>> them
>>>>>> from time to time.
>>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
>> them if
>>>>> he's got time).
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an agenda, is the wrong way to do it.
Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?"
The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it.
People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with.
On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
> advance, etc.
>
> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
> predetermined.
>
> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>
> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>
> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
> speaking on behalf of the project.
>
> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>
> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>
> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>
> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>
> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>
> Hugs and kisses friends,
> - Jeff
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
> really hard to do things in the right way.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
> >
> > Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
> >
> > In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
> _for_ the project.
> >
> > Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
> >
> >
> > On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
> the project?
> >
> > Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
> contributing?
> >
> > -Jeremiah Jordan
> > Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
> >
> >>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
> >> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
> >> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
> >> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
> confluence
> >> page.
> >> Patrick
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> >>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
> Jeff
> >>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
> imagine
> >>> they'd
> >>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
> >>>>> +1, those were great
> >>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
> doing
> >>> them
> >>>> from time to time.
> >>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
> them if
> >>> he's got time).
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that
we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on
mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed
> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project
> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were
> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in
> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in
> advance, etc.
>
> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date,
> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is
> predetermined.
>
> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon,
> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
>
> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to
> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things
> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of
> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The
> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
>
> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things
> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings,
> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database -
> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police
> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be
> speaking on behalf of the project.
>
> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call
> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the
> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to
> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
>
> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that
> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or
> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent
> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about
> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that
> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or
> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
>
> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that
> can devolve over time despite good intentions.
>
> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not
> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
>
> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should
> make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
>
> Hugs and kisses friends,
> - Jeff
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm
> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even
> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try
> really hard to do things in the right way.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
> >
> > Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of
> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making
> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation
> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort
> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look
> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the
> fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
> >
> > In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a
> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt -
> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration
> _for_ the project.
> >
> > Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how
> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably
> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to
> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead
> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even
> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
> >
> >
> > On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code
> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit
> the project?
> >
> > Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is
> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss
> contributing?
> >
> > -Jeremiah Jordan
> > Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
> >
> >>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two
> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions
> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will
> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
> >> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
> >> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
> >> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project
> confluence
> >> page.
> >> Patrick
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> >>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that
> Jeff
> >>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I
> imagine
> >>> they'd
> >>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
> >>>>> +1, those were great
> >>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into
> doing
> >>> them
> >>>> from time to time.
> >>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do
> them if
> >>> he's got time).
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in advance, etc.
Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date, time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is predetermined.
A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon, brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on.
It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions.
On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings, nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database - there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be speaking on behalf of the project.
A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that can devolve over time despite good intentions.
As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
Hugs and kisses friends,
- Jeff
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try really hard to do things in the right way.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>
> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>
> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration _for_ the project.
>
> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
>
> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
>
> -Jeremiah Jordan
> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
>> page.
>> Patrick
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>>> they'd
>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>>> them
>>>> from time to time.
>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>>> he's got time).
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The Office and I’m not going to proofread, but:
PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings, nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database - there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be speaking on behalf of the project.
A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening.
It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call.
I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that can devolve over time despite good intentions.
As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent.
Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should make a point of over communicating to the dev list.
Hugs and kisses friends,
- Jeff
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try really hard to do things in the right way.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
>
> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
>
> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration _for_ the project.
>
> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
>
> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
>
> -Jeremiah Jordan
> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
>> page.
>> Patrick
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>>> they'd
>>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>>> +1, those were great
>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>>> them
>>>> from time to time.
>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>>> he's got time).
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>.
Happy to add detail on the origin of this from my side –
At NGCC 2019 alongside ApacheCon in Las Vegas this year, I proposed the idea of periodic public video calls and an approach toward executing on the roles of product and release management as a community of volunteers. The thesis of the presentation was that "we can perform the functions of [product and release] management as volunteers and the project’s governance can help support it" (quoting my presenters' notes), attached.
The presentation also proposed periodic public video calls among contributors, and ideally among the user community:
–––
* Public video calls
– Moderated, published agenda, recorded, and hosts rotated.
– Emcee owns timekeeping and execution of meeting agenda.
– Low-fi: light on prep and production value.
– Could be applied either among contributors or Cassandra users.
–––
After the presentation, Patrick came up to me and generously offered to donate the use of a Zoom account to host such a call among contributors. A hypothetical agenda might look like covering the status of tickets screened to 4.0, the status of test/qualification plans on Confluence, a quick check-in on the 3.0 and 3.11 branches, and recognizing recent contributions from community members (such as thanking folks like Mick for the work he's done on CI). Patrick and I would be thrilled to help organize this and think such calls would help us work better together as contributors if the PMC values that as a contribution.
So I may be responsible for this controversy – but I am proud to be if so.
I apologize if we've gone about this improperly, but if so it's only because learning the proper way is terribly difficult - even when in regular conversation with many members of the PMC and including on this very topic. If the PMC would like to discuss privately how community members can be chartered to lead initiatives like discussions on scope and release management and/or periodic community calls, it looks like several in this thread would be eager to contribute.
I believe that each contributor on this thread means well, and think it's essential we work toward every goal that's been stated in this thread.
Link to slides in case attachments are stripped by the mailing list: https://github.com/ngcc/ngcc2019/blob/master/Committing%20to%20our%20Users%20-%20Product%20and%20Release%20Management%20in%20Apache%20Cassandra.pdf
Cheers,
– Scott
________________________________________
From: Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 6:05 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Offering some project management services
To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try really hard to do things in the right way.
https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration _for_ the project.
Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
-Jeremiah Jordan
Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
> page.
>
> Patrick
>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>> they'd
>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>> +1, those were great
>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>> them
>>> from time to time.
>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>> he's got time).
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try really hard to do things in the right way.
https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings
Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the fallout with DataStax many moons ago.
In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration _for_ the project.
Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness.
On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
-Jeremiah Jordan
Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
> page.
>
> Patrick
>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>> they'd
>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>> +1, those were great
>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>> them
>>> from time to time.
>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>> he's got time).
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by "J. D. Jordan" <je...@gmail.com>.
Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit the project?
Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss contributing?
-Jeremiah Jordan
Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project.
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
>
>
> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
> page.
>
> Patrick
>
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
>> they'd
>>>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>>> +1, those were great
>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
>> them
>>> from time to time.
>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
>> he's got time).
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making.
On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
page.
Patrick
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> > benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
> >> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
> they'd
> >> also make writing the board report easier.
> >>
> >> +1, those were great
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
> them
> > from time to time.
> >
> >
> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
> he's got time).
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Patrick McFadin <pm...@gmail.com>.
Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor
meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in
September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project confluence
page.
Patrick
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> > benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
> >> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
> they'd
> >> also make writing the board report easier.
> >>
> >> +1, those were great
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
> them
> > from time to time.
> >
> >
> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
> he's got time).
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
If I gave the impression I was advocating for just plopping tickets on
people as assignees that was a significant miscommunication on my part.
My mental model is to go back to the Jirsa approach of a pulsed status
update with a list of open unassigned tickets and call for volunteers on
the dev list. Sorry if my phrasing earlier gave anyone an impression
otherwise.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 6:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> > benedict@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
> >> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine
> they'd
> >> also make writing the board report easier.
> >>
> >> +1, those were great
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing
> them
> > from time to time.
> >
> >
> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
> he's got time).
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd
>> also make writing the board report easier.
>>
>> +1, those were great
>>
>>
>>
> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing them
> from time to time.
>
>
(I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do them if
he's got time).
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff
> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd
> also make writing the board report easier.
>
> +1, those were great
>
>
>
I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into doing them
from time to time.
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also make writing the board report easier.
+1, those were great
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
> Isn’t this the point of project management; to avoid this issue?
Is the point of project management to avoid the problems caused by project management? That feels like a Dilbert cartoon.
To be clear, I'm simply responding to the apparent suggestion that we assign every 4.0 ticket to somebody. These tickets will be worked on when contributors have time, but assigning them makes it harder to self-organise their delivery. As far as I can tell, this is creating a project management _dependency_, without solving any exigent problem.
Also to be clear, there is no role of "project manager" to step into, back or forwards. We're all equals here, and we have to be careful to maintain the ability to self-organise our work. Any help in this area should aim to facilitate without developing a dependency on the service.
On 10/01/2020, 19:23, "David Capwell" <dc...@gmail.com> wrote:
I also find that assigning tickets to people when they have no bandwidth to
implement them is counterproductive.
Isn’t this the point of project management; to avoid this issue?
Lets say there are 10 blocking tickets for 4.0, and they are all on you; a
PM could help by finding others who could help out and make sure that no
one steps on each other.
At the same time, PMs help give visibility into how much work is left and
are previous time estimates off (we expect M2 done January, are we close?
Do we need to punt things to M3? Do we need to load balance to make this
date?, etc.).
I don't think anything is currently languishing because nobody realises it
needs to be done, but if you can get things magically moving faster, I will
of course be thrilled! __
So lets try and see what happens! =D
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > One thing I'd love to see
> > again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
> > (similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a
> call
> > for reviews iirc).
>
>
> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used
> to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also
> make writing the board report easier.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
Just to be clear, I welcome Josh's help with project management.
Dinesh
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 12:53 PM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> My 2¢.
>
> We need more folks reviewing tickets and providing feedback and testing the submitted patches. There are many low complexity patches out there that are in need of reviews. Any help in that direction is appreciated. Even if they aren't familiar with the part of codebase, a first review gives them the opportunity to learn. Obviously a committer who is familiar with that part of the codebase can do a second review and commit it.
>
> Dinesh
>
>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 11:23 AM, David Capwell <dc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I also find that assigning tickets to people when they have no bandwidth to
>> implement them is counterproductive.
>>
>>
>> Isn’t this the point of project management; to avoid this issue?
>>
>> Lets say there are 10 blocking tickets for 4.0, and they are all on you; a
>> PM could help by finding others who could help out and make sure that no
>> one steps on each other.
>>
>> At the same time, PMs help give visibility into how much work is left and
>> are previous time estimates off (we expect M2 done January, are we close?
>> Do we need to punt things to M3? Do we need to load balance to make this
>> date?, etc.).
>>
>> I don't think anything is currently languishing because nobody realises it
>> needs to be done, but if you can get things magically moving faster, I will
>> of course be thrilled! __
>>
>>
>> So lets try and see what happens! =D
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> One thing I'd love to see
>>>> again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
>>>> (similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a
>>> call
>>>> for reviews iirc).
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used
>>> to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also
>>> make writing the board report easier.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
My 2¢.
We need more folks reviewing tickets and providing feedback and testing the submitted patches. There are many low complexity patches out there that are in need of reviews. Any help in that direction is appreciated. Even if they aren't familiar with the part of codebase, a first review gives them the opportunity to learn. Obviously a committer who is familiar with that part of the codebase can do a second review and commit it.
Dinesh
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 11:23 AM, David Capwell <dc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also find that assigning tickets to people when they have no bandwidth to
> implement them is counterproductive.
>
>
> Isn’t this the point of project management; to avoid this issue?
>
> Lets say there are 10 blocking tickets for 4.0, and they are all on you; a
> PM could help by finding others who could help out and make sure that no
> one steps on each other.
>
> At the same time, PMs help give visibility into how much work is left and
> are previous time estimates off (we expect M2 done January, are we close?
> Do we need to punt things to M3? Do we need to load balance to make this
> date?, etc.).
>
> I don't think anything is currently languishing because nobody realises it
> needs to be done, but if you can get things magically moving faster, I will
> of course be thrilled! __
>
>
> So lets try and see what happens! =D
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> One thing I'd love to see
>>> again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
>>> (similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a
>> call
>>> for reviews iirc).
>>
>>
>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used
>> to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also
>> make writing the board report easier.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by David Capwell <dc...@gmail.com>.
I also find that assigning tickets to people when they have no bandwidth to
implement them is counterproductive.
Isn’t this the point of project management; to avoid this issue?
Lets say there are 10 blocking tickets for 4.0, and they are all on you; a
PM could help by finding others who could help out and make sure that no
one steps on each other.
At the same time, PMs help give visibility into how much work is left and
are previous time estimates off (we expect M2 done January, are we close?
Do we need to punt things to M3? Do we need to load balance to make this
date?, etc.).
I don't think anything is currently languishing because nobody realises it
needs to be done, but if you can get things magically moving faster, I will
of course be thrilled! __
So lets try and see what happens! =D
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:12 AM Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > One thing I'd love to see
> > again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
> > (similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a
> call
> > for reviews iirc).
>
>
> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used
> to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also
> make writing the board report easier.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>.
> One thing I'd love to see
> again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
> (similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a call
> for reviews iirc).
Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that Jeff used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I imagine they'd also make writing the board report easier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Jordan West <jo...@gmail.com>.
Extra time contributed to the project by an experienced community member in
either developer or project management areas would be very helpful in
completing 4.0. Thanks for volunteering Josh -- and +1 on thanking Scott
for his existing efforts (and Benedict and others who worked to improve the
JIRA workflow this release cycle). I agree that having folks driving
regular community check ins on progress (or working to keep progress up to
date), among other things, would be beneficial. One thing I'd love to see
again is a regular (every two weeks?) update on progress on the dev list
(similar to what Jeff Jirsa used to send around -- it also included a call
for reviews iirc).
Jordan
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:04 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> >
> > developer time from your employer would probably be more impactful
>
> Certainly, and there's movement on that side as well but that's
> independent from my current purview so I don't feel it appropriate for me
> to speak to that.
>
> the project has already largely agreed on the work that is necessary for
> > 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow
>
> This JQL on the release
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20and%20fixversion%20~%204.0%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved%20and%20status%20!%3D%20resolved%20and%20(assignee%20is%20empty%20or%20(reviewer%20is%20empty%20and%20reviewers%20is%20empty))%20order%20by%20priority%20desc%2C%20assignee
> >
> indicates that 49 of the 72 open issues are lacking either an assignee or a
> reviewer. I can only speak to my experience on this and other software
> projects, but I find a lot of things slip through the cracks by virtue of
> not having ownership for various points in their pipeline or stall based on
> people not realizing things are on their plate (we had quite a few tickets
> marked 4.0 assigned to people no longer active on the project, for
> instance).
>
> I also believe that what qualifies as scope for a release requires constant
> vigilance and healthy gentle skepticism from the devil's advocate position
> on minimizing scope to help counter-balance our tendencies as engineers to
> want to get things into releases, especially when there are longer cycle
> times. We've seen it on almost every major release on this project, and
> it's healthy and a great sign of people's passion and dedication to this
> project and their craft, but without a countering force I personally
> believe it leads to lengthened cycle times and isn't a healthy balance for
> the project. This is a strong opinion of mine but it's loosely held; I'm
> open to other data or experiences that can help shape this perspective.
>
> One thing I want to clarify - Scott in particular and the community as a
> whole has been doing great work both managing this project and driving
> things forward; I'm not trying to step into some perceived gap or rescue
> something, but rather meet people where they are and add what value I can
> and work with the project to help keep momentum high and remove blockers or
> stalls from people's workflows.
>
> Does the above make sense?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:30 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I personally welcome your increased participation in any role, and more
> > focus on project delivery is certainly a great thing. But developer time
> > from your employer would probably be more impactful, as the main active
> > contributors right now have their own project management infrastructure,
> > and are already dedicating what resources they have to 4.0. So it's not
> > 100% clear what resources you'll be able to facilitate better deploying.
> >
> > I think the project has already largely agreed on the work that is
> > necessary for 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow.
> >
> >
> > On 10/01/2020, 16:18, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the
> open-source
> > project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> > engaging in some simple project management type work (help get
> > assignees
> > and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> > facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and
> > subsequent
> > releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
> >
> > Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all,
> > does
> > anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role,
> or
> > have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
> I can only speak to my experience on this and other software projects, but I find a lot of things slip through the cracks by virtue of not having ownership for various points in their pipeline or stall based on people not realizing things are on their plate.
I also find that assigning tickets to people when they have no bandwidth to implement them is counterproductive. I don't think anything is currently languishing because nobody realises it needs to be done, but if you can get things magically moving faster, I will of course be thrilled! __
> I also believe that what qualifies as scope for a release requires constant vigilance and healthy gentle skepticism from the devil's advocate position on minimizing scope to help counter-balance our tendencies as engineers to want to get things into releases
I tend to agree here, somewhat, but the project has repeatedly (and again recently at ApacheCon) endorsed the idea of 4.0 stability being key, significantly raising the bar to releasing it beyond any prior major release. Any change to the 4.0 release timeline entails weakening that proposition. So I don't think much is likely to change in that regard in the near future, and it's not really a matter of project management, but one of release policy.
The non-verification work outstanding for inclusion in 4.0 are mostly bugs, so I don't see much being cut there whatever we decide.
On 10/01/2020, 17:05, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> developer time from your employer would probably be more impactful
Certainly, and there's movement on that side as well but that's
independent from my current purview so I don't feel it appropriate for me
to speak to that.
the project has already largely agreed on the work that is necessary for
> 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow
This JQL on the release
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20and%20fixversion%20~%204.0%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved%20and%20status%20!%3D%20resolved%20and%20(assignee%20is%20empty%20or%20(reviewer%20is%20empty%20and%20reviewers%20is%20empty))%20order%20by%20priority%20desc%2C%20assignee>
indicates that 49 of the 72 open issues are lacking either an assignee or a
reviewer. I can only speak to my experience on this and other software
projects, but I find a lot of things slip through the cracks by virtue of
not having ownership for various points in their pipeline or stall based on
people not realizing things are on their plate (we had quite a few tickets
marked 4.0 assigned to people no longer active on the project, for
instance).
I also believe that what qualifies as scope for a release requires constant
vigilance and healthy gentle skepticism from the devil's advocate position
on minimizing scope to help counter-balance our tendencies as engineers to
want to get things into releases, especially when there are longer cycle
times. We've seen it on almost every major release on this project, and
it's healthy and a great sign of people's passion and dedication to this
project and their craft, but without a countering force I personally
believe it leads to lengthened cycle times and isn't a healthy balance for
the project. This is a strong opinion of mine but it's loosely held; I'm
open to other data or experiences that can help shape this perspective.
One thing I want to clarify - Scott in particular and the community as a
whole has been doing great work both managing this project and driving
things forward; I'm not trying to step into some perceived gap or rescue
something, but rather meet people where they are and add what value I can
and work with the project to help keep momentum high and remove blockers or
stalls from people's workflows.
Does the above make sense?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:30 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I personally welcome your increased participation in any role, and more
> focus on project delivery is certainly a great thing. But developer time
> from your employer would probably be more impactful, as the main active
> contributors right now have their own project management infrastructure,
> and are already dedicating what resources they have to 4.0. So it's not
> 100% clear what resources you'll be able to facilitate better deploying.
>
> I think the project has already largely agreed on the work that is
> necessary for 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow.
>
>
> On 10/01/2020, 16:18, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
> project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> engaging in some simple project management type work (help get
> assignees
> and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and
> subsequent
> releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
>
> Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all,
> does
> anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
> have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
>
> developer time from your employer would probably be more impactful
Certainly, and there's movement on that side as well but that's
independent from my current purview so I don't feel it appropriate for me
to speak to that.
the project has already largely agreed on the work that is necessary for
> 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow
This JQL on the release
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20and%20fixversion%20~%204.0%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved%20and%20status%20!%3D%20resolved%20and%20(assignee%20is%20empty%20or%20(reviewer%20is%20empty%20and%20reviewers%20is%20empty))%20order%20by%20priority%20desc%2C%20assignee>
indicates that 49 of the 72 open issues are lacking either an assignee or a
reviewer. I can only speak to my experience on this and other software
projects, but I find a lot of things slip through the cracks by virtue of
not having ownership for various points in their pipeline or stall based on
people not realizing things are on their plate (we had quite a few tickets
marked 4.0 assigned to people no longer active on the project, for
instance).
I also believe that what qualifies as scope for a release requires constant
vigilance and healthy gentle skepticism from the devil's advocate position
on minimizing scope to help counter-balance our tendencies as engineers to
want to get things into releases, especially when there are longer cycle
times. We've seen it on almost every major release on this project, and
it's healthy and a great sign of people's passion and dedication to this
project and their craft, but without a countering force I personally
believe it leads to lengthened cycle times and isn't a healthy balance for
the project. This is a strong opinion of mine but it's loosely held; I'm
open to other data or experiences that can help shape this perspective.
One thing I want to clarify - Scott in particular and the community as a
whole has been doing great work both managing this project and driving
things forward; I'm not trying to step into some perceived gap or rescue
something, but rather meet people where they are and add what value I can
and work with the project to help keep momentum high and remove blockers or
stalls from people's workflows.
Does the above make sense?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:30 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I personally welcome your increased participation in any role, and more
> focus on project delivery is certainly a great thing. But developer time
> from your employer would probably be more impactful, as the main active
> contributors right now have their own project management infrastructure,
> and are already dedicating what resources they have to 4.0. So it's not
> 100% clear what resources you'll be able to facilitate better deploying.
>
> I think the project has already largely agreed on the work that is
> necessary for 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow.
>
>
> On 10/01/2020, 16:18, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
> project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> engaging in some simple project management type work (help get
> assignees
> and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and
> subsequent
> releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
>
> Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all,
> does
> anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
> have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
I personally welcome your increased participation in any role, and more focus on project delivery is certainly a great thing. But developer time from your employer would probably be more impactful, as the main active contributors right now have their own project management infrastructure, and are already dedicating what resources they have to 4.0. So it's not 100% clear what resources you'll be able to facilitate better deploying.
I think the project has already largely agreed on the work that is necessary for 4.0, and is executing on it as quickly as resources allow.
On 10/01/2020, 16:18, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
Hey all,
I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
engaging in some simple project management type work (help get assignees
and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and subsequent
releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all, does
anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
> I think as long as we all believe we're all good faith actors, truly believe we all want what's best for the project (even if we don't necessarily all agree on what that is all the time), and internalize that nobody wants to see a monoculture on the project, we'll be fine.
I realised reading this I'd never really properly spelled out my underlying point. The above has always held true for the community* and things have not always been fine. All that matters is how our actions are interpreted and _not by each other_. I'd prefer everyone internalised that.
* except maybe one truly master troll; we'll never know for sure
On 12/01/2020, 01:34, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
Thanks Jeff - I have an initial rough draft of basically exactly what
you've enumerated above from starting to formally ramp back up last week
I'll tidy up and try to get out here Monday.
And thanks everyone for the discussion. This is Hard Stuff; a huge part of
the Apache Way (at least on our project ;) ) is Lazy Consensus
<https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html> and a lot of
"ask for forgiveness, not permission", and it can be really hard to
navigate that and can also deform cultures in the case of uneven
cross-vendor resourcing. I think as long as we all believe we're all good
faith actors, truly believe we all want what's best for the project (even
if we don't necessarily all agree on what that is all the time), and
internalize that nobody wants to see a monoculture on the project, we'll be
fine.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to the original question in the thread - I think a critical pass
> through open issues is warranted -
>
> What hasn’t been triaged?
> What is slated for 4.0 but unassigned ?
> What is patch available but needs more engineering ?
> What is ready to commit and uncommitted?
>
> You’ve got the context to understand what’s critical and what justifies
> sending to someone as a potentially concerning bug even without a repro,
> where a lot of others wouldn’t / don’t. So I’d suggest starting there and
> trying to make sure there aren’t any critical bug reports around that
> slipped through past triage attempts.
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
> > project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> > engaging in some simple project management type work (help get assignees
> > and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> > facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and
> subsequent
> > releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
> >
> > Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all, does
> > anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
> > have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
Thanks Jeff - I have an initial rough draft of basically exactly what
you've enumerated above from starting to formally ramp back up last week
I'll tidy up and try to get out here Monday.
And thanks everyone for the discussion. This is Hard Stuff; a huge part of
the Apache Way (at least on our project ;) ) is Lazy Consensus
<https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html> and a lot of
"ask for forgiveness, not permission", and it can be really hard to
navigate that and can also deform cultures in the case of uneven
cross-vendor resourcing. I think as long as we all believe we're all good
faith actors, truly believe we all want what's best for the project (even
if we don't necessarily all agree on what that is all the time), and
internalize that nobody wants to see a monoculture on the project, we'll be
fine.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to the original question in the thread - I think a critical pass
> through open issues is warranted -
>
> What hasn’t been triaged?
> What is slated for 4.0 but unassigned ?
> What is patch available but needs more engineering ?
> What is ready to commit and uncommitted?
>
> You’ve got the context to understand what’s critical and what justifies
> sending to someone as a potentially concerning bug even without a repro,
> where a lot of others wouldn’t / don’t. So I’d suggest starting there and
> trying to make sure there aren’t any critical bug reports around that
> slipped through past triage attempts.
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
> > project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> > engaging in some simple project management type work (help get assignees
> > and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> > facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and
> subsequent
> > releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
> >
> > Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all, does
> > anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
> > have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: Offering some project management services
Posted by Jeff Jirsa <jj...@gmail.com>.
Back to the original question in the thread - I think a critical pass through open issues is warranted -
What hasn’t been triaged?
What is slated for 4.0 but unassigned ?
What is patch available but needs more engineering ?
What is ready to commit and uncommitted?
You’ve got the context to understand what’s critical and what justifies sending to someone as a potentially concerning bug even without a repro, where a lot of others wouldn’t / don’t. So I’d suggest starting there and trying to make sure there aren’t any critical bug reports around that slipped through past triage attempts.
> On Jan 10, 2020, at 8:18 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I've recently had some cycles free up I can dedicate to the open-source
> project. My intuition is that I can add the most value right now by
> engaging in some simple project management type work (help get assignees
> and reviewers for things critical path for 4.0, help stimulate and
> facilitate discussions about scope for the upcoming release and subsequent
> releases, general triage and test board health, etc).
>
> Before I wade into the project and start poking and prodding us all, does
> anyone have any concerns with me stepping (back ;) ) into this role, or
> have any feedback or recommendations before doing so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org