You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2015/10/16 20:20:16 UTC

[reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project 
membership might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the 
purpose of actually generating a board report, I find the current 
formatting confuses me Every Single Time.

Viz:

## PMC changes:

  - Currently 10 PMC members.
  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014

## LDAP changes:

  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015



So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members, 
and the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on 
April 30. The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs 
committer and LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.

Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't 
confuse me next month?

--Rich


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

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22 October 2015 at 11:29, Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC
>> membership.
>
> That is simply not necessarily true Sebb.

What is not true?
The LDAP committee group is definitely used for determining karma.
It is used for granting access to the PMC-private area of SVN and by
default to give write access to the dist/release areas.

And PMC membership is defined by the committee-info.txt file.

> There are two LDAP groups per
> TLP/PMC.  ou=groups,cn=httpd   and  ou=pmc,ou=groups,cn=httpd - there
> are even groups that do no represent a TLP/PMC in the same OU.

True but not really relevant here.

> PMC chairs are told to add new PMC members to the PMC group, while new
> committers (where a TLP does not operate that a committer is not also a
> PMC member (ala Subversion)) are only added to the 'Unix' group.

Again true but not relevant here

> This is in fairness a carry over from the old minotaur days.  The former
> was known as the PMC unix group, and the latter was a group created to
> define the PMC membership.

As I recall, the PMC groups were created to grant access to the
PMC-private areas of SVN, not to define the PMC membership.
At the time, the definitive record of PMC membership was the board
reports and ACK mails on the board list.

> You should never a group either defines, or does not define access
> control.

Cannot parse that last sentence.

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com>.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
 
> The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC
> membership.

That is simply not necessarily true Sebb.  There are two LDAP groups per
TLP/PMC.  ou=groups,cn=httpd   and  ou=pmc,ou=groups,cn=httpd - there
are even groups that do no represent a TLP/PMC in the same OU.  

PMC chairs are told to add new PMC members to the PMC group, while new
committers (where a TLP does not operate that a committer is not also a
PMC member (ala Subversion)) are only added to the 'Unix' group.

This is in fairness a carry over from the old minotaur days.  The former
was known as the PMC unix group, and the latter was a group created to
define the PMC membership.  

You should never a group either defines, or does not define access
control. 


Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 October 2015 at 18:21, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> >My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>>> >'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The
>>> > information in
>>
>> What else should it be called?
>> It's not the same as the PMC.
>>
>
> Sure, it is. If it's not, then something is broken, right? I'm not a fan of
> documenting breakage.

Sorry, but they are not the same, and discrepancies are not
necessarily breakage.

The LDAP group is used for granting karma, not for determining PMC membership.

I can see that it might sometimes be necessary for karma to be granted
to non-PMC members and vice-versa.

In fact we had a case in the last year or two where a PMC member asked
to be removed from the LDAP group for a short while.
He was still a PMC member, but was not in the LDAP group.

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

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.

On 10/20/2015 06:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>> >My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>> >'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
> What else should it be called?
> It's not the same as the PMC.
>

Sure, it is. If it's not, then something is broken, right? I'm not a fan 
of documenting breakage.

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

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I hadn't realized that the template section was different from the top
part.  Sorry for not scrolling down.

Current:
==========================
## PMC changes (from committee-info.txt):

 - Currently 40 PMC members.
 - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
 - Last PMC addition was Paul Nicolucci on Tue Jul 14 2015

## Committer base changes:

 - Currently 76 committers.
 - No new committers added in the last 3 months
 - Last committer addition was Thomas Andraschko at Thu Jul 02 2015
==========================


Improved (mostly using Rich's wording):

==========================
## Community Roster Changes

PMC established: 02/2006 (assumed actual date: 2006-02-27)
→ Currently 76 committers and 40 PMC members.
→ Last PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Paul Nicolucci)
→ Latest committer addition: Thu Jul 02 2015 (Thomas Andraschko)
==========================

I'm ambivalent about the "No new" lines, so having those after the
actual date would be fine if it makes the board member's job easier.
I have no interest in knowing it comes from "commitee-info".
However, I can live with the latest current incarnation without
feeling like I need to post-process it.  Thanks!






On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>
>> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
>> Show the last PMC addition and date.
>> Show the last committer addition and date.
>
> That's exactly what the proposed version includes in the "report
> template section"
>
>> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
>> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
>> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
>> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
>> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
>> the reporter tool.
>
> Which is what the earlier sections in the page show.
>
>> The point of the report also isn't to tell the
>> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
>> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
>> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
>> stops being useful due to too much information.
>
> Agreed, and the proposed version I hope has got the correct balance.
>
>> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
>> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
>> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.
>
> Yes, the original (and current) version of the report template had too
> much info.
>
> It has been tidied up in the proposed version.
>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>>> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
>>>> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>>>>
>>>> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>>>> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
>>>
>>> What else should it be called?
>>> It's not the same as the PMC.
>>>
>>>> there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two sections, and I don't
>>>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someone
>>>> should be notified, and fix it, but I don't really care to see that in the
>>>> report.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, what I'd want to see is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Community Roster Changes
>>>> =======================
>>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>>>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was (what
>>>> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.
>>>>
>>>> The current output looks like:
>>>>
>>>> ================
>>>> PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
>>>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
>>>> → Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>>>> → Currently 43 PMC members.
>>>>
>>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>>>
>>>> PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
>>>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>>>> → Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>>>> → No new committers in the last 3 months.
>>>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>> ================
>>>>
>>>
>>> Remember that those sections are aimed at the PMC, not the board.
>>>
>>>> I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC.
>>>
>>> AIUI the idea was to show the latest PMC addition even if there were
>>> no changes in the last 3 months.
>>> The 2nd mention ("Latest addition") could be suppressed if there are
>>> recent changes (I've fixed that in the proposed version)
>>>
>>> The 3rd mention of Stefan is not about him being added to the PMC, it
>>> is about him being added to the LDAP group (though that distinction is
>>> lost in the current version).
>>>
>>>> I'm told twice that
>>>> there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers.
>>>
>>> The reason the current version shows duplication is because "committee
>>> group" was replaced by "PMC".
>>> This is confusing, because PMC != committee group.
>>>
>>>> And in the
>>>> earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is used, which
>>>> always makes me do a double-take.
>>>
>>> The original made it clear that the second count was about LDAP group members.
>>>
>>> Would it help to name it "LDAP committee group"?
>>>
>>>> Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.
>>>
>>> Not fully.
>>>
>>> You have not explained why you also made changes to the report template section.
>>>
>>> To make things clearer, please could you say what you think about the
>>> proposed version [1] of the report template?
>>>
>>> Is the report template section in that version clear?
>>> If not, what do you think is not clear? And how could it be improved?
>>>
>>> As to the earlier two sections, the reason I think they should be
>>> separate is that they relate to separate items that the PMC has to
>>> maintain.
>>> The committee-info.txt file and the LDAP committee group lists serve
>>> different purposes.
>>> The former is the official list of the PMC, the latter grants karma
>>> for PMC members.
>>> I can imagine non-PMC members being granted karma for PMC resources.
>>>
>>> I've made some more changes to the proposed version [1]
>>> These remove the unnecessary duplication of names in the "Latest
>>> addition" lines.
>>> Also I hope the difference between PMC  and LDAP is now clearer.
>>> If not, please say what is still unclear and how it can be improved.
>>>
>>> [1] https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just
>>>>>>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information:
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought
>>>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always
>>>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>>>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>>>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>>>>>>> the past quarter
>>>>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>>>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>>>>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>>>>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>>>>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>>>>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>>>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>>>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>>>>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>>>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>>>>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>>>>>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it
>>>>>> contains).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix
>>>>>> group.
>>>>>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>>>>>> revert to its original title.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>>>>>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>>>>>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Report template
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>>>>>> the original cause of this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>>>>>> relevant to the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>>>>>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>>>>>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>>>>>> the board.
>>>>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate
>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>>>>>> of the reporter page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>>>>>> change by Rich
>>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>>>>>> should look like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also:
>>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>>>>>> report template.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has now been implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>>>>>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>>>>>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>>>>>> interested in committer changes.
>>>>>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>>>>>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This should now display OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>>>>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>>>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members
>>>>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members, since all (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee group members added in the last 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 October 2015 at 12:52, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>
> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
> Show the last PMC addition and date.
> Show the last committer addition and date.

That's exactly what the proposed version includes in the "report
template section"

> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
> the reporter tool.

Which is what the earlier sections in the page show.

> The point of the report also isn't to tell the
> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
> stops being useful due to too much information.

Agreed, and the proposed version I hope has got the correct balance.

> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.

Yes, the original (and current) version of the report template had too
much info.

It has been tidied up in the proposed version.

>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
>>> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>>>
>>> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>>> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
>>
>> What else should it be called?
>> It's not the same as the PMC.
>>
>>> there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two sections, and I don't
>>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someone
>>> should be notified, and fix it, but I don't really care to see that in the
>>> report.
>>>
>>> Ideally, what I'd want to see is:
>>>
>>>
>>> Community Roster Changes
>>> =======================
>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>>
>>>
>>> ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was (what
>>> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.
>>>
>>> The current output looks like:
>>>
>>> ================
>>> PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
>>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
>>> → Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>>> → Currently 43 PMC members.
>>>
>>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>>
>>> PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
>>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>>> → Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>>> → No new committers in the last 3 months.
>>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>> ================
>>>
>>
>> Remember that those sections are aimed at the PMC, not the board.
>>
>>> I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC.
>>
>> AIUI the idea was to show the latest PMC addition even if there were
>> no changes in the last 3 months.
>> The 2nd mention ("Latest addition") could be suppressed if there are
>> recent changes (I've fixed that in the proposed version)
>>
>> The 3rd mention of Stefan is not about him being added to the PMC, it
>> is about him being added to the LDAP group (though that distinction is
>> lost in the current version).
>>
>>> I'm told twice that
>>> there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers.
>>
>> The reason the current version shows duplication is because "committee
>> group" was replaced by "PMC".
>> This is confusing, because PMC != committee group.
>>
>>> And in the
>>> earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is used, which
>>> always makes me do a double-take.
>>
>> The original made it clear that the second count was about LDAP group members.
>>
>> Would it help to name it "LDAP committee group"?
>>
>>> Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.
>>
>> Not fully.
>>
>> You have not explained why you also made changes to the report template section.
>>
>> To make things clearer, please could you say what you think about the
>> proposed version [1] of the report template?
>>
>> Is the report template section in that version clear?
>> If not, what do you think is not clear? And how could it be improved?
>>
>> As to the earlier two sections, the reason I think they should be
>> separate is that they relate to separate items that the PMC has to
>> maintain.
>> The committee-info.txt file and the LDAP committee group lists serve
>> different purposes.
>> The former is the official list of the PMC, the latter grants karma
>> for PMC members.
>> I can imagine non-PMC members being granted karma for PMC resources.
>>
>> I've made some more changes to the proposed version [1]
>> These remove the unnecessary duplication of names in the "Latest
>> addition" lines.
>> Also I hope the difference between PMC  and LDAP is now clearer.
>> If not, please say what is still unclear and how it can be improved.
>>
>> [1] https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just
>>>>>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information:
>>>>>>>>>> I thought
>>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always
>>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>>>>>> the past quarter
>>>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>>>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>>>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>>>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>>>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>>>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>>>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>>>>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>>>>
>>>>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it
>>>>> contains).
>>>>>
>>>>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix
>>>>> group.
>>>>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>>>>> revert to its original title.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>>>>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>>>>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Report template
>>>>>
>>>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>>>>> the original cause of this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>>>>> relevant to the board.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>>>>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>>>>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>>>>> the board.
>>>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate
>>>>> to.
>>>>>
>>>>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>>>>> of the reporter page:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>>>>> change by Rich
>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>>>>> should look like
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also:
>>>>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>>>>
>>>>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>>>>> report template.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has now been implemented.
>>>>
>>>>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>>>>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>>>>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>>>>> interested in committer changes.
>>>>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>>>>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should now display OK.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>>>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be useful
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members
>>>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members, since all (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee group members added in the last 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Yay to that!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:27, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
> be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
> directly.  The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
> should be a matter of a few mouse clicks.

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 October 2015 at 17:54, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>>>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>>>
>>>> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
>>>> Show the last PMC addition and date.
>>>> Show the last committer addition and date.
>>>>
>>>> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
>>>> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
>>>> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
>>>> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
>>>> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
>>>> the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
>>>> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
>>>> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
>>>> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
>>>> stops being useful due to too much information.
>>>>
>>>> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
>>>> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
>>>> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> The proposed version should make this particular editing unnecessary.
>>
>>> I'd suggest that the reporter tool and Whimsy roster tool provide
>>> pointers to each other, where the latter focuses on the differences.
>>
>> That is what I have tried to do in the proposed version - please have
>> a look and see if it makes sense.
>
> I'm not sure what I should be looking at at this point.

Judging by your comments below, you are looking at the correct section
as far as the report template is concerned.

There are other sections with similar information earlier in the page,
but let's get the report template sorted first.

> ---
>
> Going to:
>
> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html
>
> And then scrolling to "Report template", I see:
>
> PMC changes (from committee-info.txt)
>
> I'd like to see the (from committee-info.txt) parenthetical removed.

OK, done.

> I also see "Currently 1 committers."
>
> ---
>
> Going to:
>
> https://reporter.apache.org/index.html
>
> I see "## PMC changes: " which I prefer over the proposed version.
>
> I also see "8 PMC members" mentioned twice.  As well as "No new PMC
> members added in the last 3 months " mentioned twice. I also see
> "Currently 1 committers".

I assume you were looking at the Whimsy PMC?

Does the proposed version seem clear to you, and does it fulfill the
needs of the board?

Would it be better to combine the "PMC changes" and "Committer base
changes" sections into one "Community" section as suggested
elsethread.


> ---
>
> Something I haven't seen mentioned yet, but please remove the "Report
> from the Apache Whimsy committee [Ross Gardler]" line as many people
> interpret that as being part of the template, and paste it immediately
> after the line in the agenda containing the same information.

OK, done.

>>> I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
>>> be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
>>> directly.  The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
>>> should be a matter of a few mouse clicks.
>>>
>>> Examples (currently read-only):
>>>
>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/myfaces
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>>
>>> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
>>> Show the last PMC addition and date.
>>> Show the last committer addition and date.
>>>
>>> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
>>> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
>>> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
>>> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
>>> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
>>> the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
>>> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
>>> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
>>> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
>>> stops being useful due to too much information.
>>>
>>> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
>>> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
>>> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.
>>
>> +1
>
> The proposed version should make this particular editing unnecessary.
>
>> I'd suggest that the reporter tool and Whimsy roster tool provide
>> pointers to each other, where the latter focuses on the differences.
>
> That is what I have tried to do in the proposed version - please have
> a look and see if it makes sense.

I'm not sure what I should be looking at at this point.

---

Going to:

https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html

And then scrolling to "Report template", I see:

PMC changes (from committee-info.txt)

I'd like to see the (from committee-info.txt) parenthetical removed.

I also see "Currently 1 committers."

---

Going to:

https://reporter.apache.org/index.html

I see "## PMC changes: " which I prefer over the proposed version.

I also see "8 PMC members" mentioned twice.  As well as "No new PMC
members added in the last 3 months " mentioned twice. I also see
"Currently 1 committers".

---

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet, but please remove the "Report
from the Apache Whimsy committee [Ross Gardler]" line as many people
interpret that as being part of the template, and paste it immediately
after the line in the agenda containing the same information.

>> I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
>> be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
>> directly.  The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
>> should be a matter of a few mouse clicks.
>>
>> Examples (currently read-only):
>>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/myfaces
>>
>> - Sam Ruby

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 21 October 2015 at 13:27, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
>> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>>
>> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
>> Show the last PMC addition and date.
>> Show the last committer addition and date.
>>
>> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
>> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
>> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
>> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
>> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
>> the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
>> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
>> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
>> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
>> stops being useful due to too much information.
>>
>> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
>> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
>> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.
>
> +1

The proposed version should make this particular editing unnecessary.

> I'd suggest that the reporter tool and Whimsy roster tool provide
> pointers to each other, where the latter focuses on the differences.

That is what I have tried to do in the proposed version - please have
a look and see if it makes sense.

> I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
> be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
> directly.  The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
> should be a matter of a few mouse clicks.
>
> Examples (currently read-only):
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/myfaces
>
> - Sam Ruby

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
> a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.
>
> Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
> Show the last PMC addition and date.
> Show the last committer addition and date.
>
> That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
> need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
> committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
> sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
> fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
> the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
> board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
> how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
> board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
> stops being useful due to too much information.
>
> I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
> MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
> reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.

+1

I'd suggest that the reporter tool and Whimsy roster tool provide
pointers to each other, where the latter focuses on the differences.
I'm working slowly on making the roster tool read/write so that it can
be used instead of the Perl scripts and editing committee-info.txt
directly.  The idea is that adding an existing committer to the PMC
should be a matter of a few mouse clicks.

Examples (currently read-only):

https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/myfaces

- Sam Ruby

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Rich already made it clear what would be the best improvement and gave
a specific example, but I'll put it in generic terms.

Show the current count of the PMC members and committers.
Show the last PMC addition and date.
Show the last committer addition and date.

That's also all I'm looking for as PMC Chair of MyFaces.   I don't
need this report to tell me if the info came from LDAP or
committee-info as they should always be the same.  If they are out of
sync, then you can add section with the details for identifying and
fixing that if you think that's important, but that's not the point of
the reporter tool.   The point of the report also isn't to tell the
board the exact day someone was added, it is to give the board an idea
how often the community is growing.  Let's not worry about making the
board report template so accurate and precise and in-depth that it
stops being useful due to too much information.

I ended up going through and rewriting the membership section for the
MyFaces October report by hand, defeating the point of using the
reporter tool to write the boilerplate section for me.


On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:22 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
>> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>>
>> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
>> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in
>
> What else should it be called?
> It's not the same as the PMC.
>
>> there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two sections, and I don't
>> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someone
>> should be notified, and fix it, but I don't really care to see that in the
>> report.
>>
>> Ideally, what I'd want to see is:
>>
>>
>> Community Roster Changes
>> =======================
>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>>
>>
>> ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was (what
>> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.
>>
>> The current output looks like:
>>
>> ================
>> PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
>> → Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>> → Currently 43 PMC members.
>>
>> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>>
>> PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
>> Changes within the last 3 months:
>> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
>> → Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
>> → No new committers in the last 3 months.
>> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
>> ================
>>
>
> Remember that those sections are aimed at the PMC, not the board.
>
>> I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC.
>
> AIUI the idea was to show the latest PMC addition even if there were
> no changes in the last 3 months.
> The 2nd mention ("Latest addition") could be suppressed if there are
> recent changes (I've fixed that in the proposed version)
>
> The 3rd mention of Stefan is not about him being added to the PMC, it
> is about him being added to the LDAP group (though that distinction is
> lost in the current version).
>
>> I'm told twice that
>> there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers.
>
> The reason the current version shows duplication is because "committee
> group" was replaced by "PMC".
> This is confusing, because PMC != committee group.
>
>> And in the
>> earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is used, which
>> always makes me do a double-take.
>
> The original made it clear that the second count was about LDAP group members.
>
> Would it help to name it "LDAP committee group"?
>
>> Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.
>
> Not fully.
>
> You have not explained why you also made changes to the report template section.
>
> To make things clearer, please could you say what you think about the
> proposed version [1] of the report template?
>
> Is the report template section in that version clear?
> If not, what do you think is not clear? And how could it be improved?
>
> As to the earlier two sections, the reason I think they should be
> separate is that they relate to separate items that the PMC has to
> maintain.
> The committee-info.txt file and the LDAP committee group lists serve
> different purposes.
> The former is the official list of the PMC, the latter grants karma
> for PMC members.
> I can imagine non-PMC members being granted karma for PMC resources.
>
> I've made some more changes to the proposed version [1]
> These remove the unnecessary duplication of names in the "Latest
> addition" lines.
> Also I hope the difference between PMC  and LDAP is now clearer.
> If not, please say what is still unclear and how it can be improved.
>
> [1] https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just
>>>>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information:
>>>>>>>>> I thought
>>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always
>>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>>>>> the past quarter
>>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>>>
>>>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>>>
>>>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>>>
>>>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>>>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>>>
>>>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>>>
>>>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>>>
>>>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it
>>>> contains).
>>>>
>>>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix
>>>> group.
>>>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>>>> revert to its original title.
>>>>
>>>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>>>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>>>
>>>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>>>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Report template
>>>>
>>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>>>> the original cause of this thread.
>>>>
>>>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>>>
>>>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>>>> relevant to the board.
>>>>
>>>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>>>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>>>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>>>> the board.
>>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate
>>>> to.
>>>>
>>>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>>>> of the reporter page:
>>>>
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>>>> change by Rich
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>>>> should look like
>>>>
>>>> There is also:
>>>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>>>
>>>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>>>
>>>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>>>> report template.
>>>
>>>
>>> This has now been implemented.
>>>
>>>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>>>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>>>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>>>> interested in committer changes.
>>>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>>>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> This should now display OK.
>>>
>>>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would
>>>>>>>>>>> be useful
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC
>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members
>>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous
>>>>>>>>>>>> version which
>>>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to
>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members, since all (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants
>>>>>>>>>>>>> karma to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> group,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee group members added in the last 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 20 October 2015 at 21:23, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation after
> my first one. Not sure what happened there ...
>
> My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The
> 'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The information in

What else should it be called?
It's not the same as the PMC.

> there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two sections, and I don't
> feel that this adds anything. If the two sources are in conflict, someone
> should be notified, and fix it, but I don't really care to see that in the
> report.
>
> Ideally, what I'd want to see is:
>
>
> Community Roster Changes
> =======================
> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
>
>
> ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was (what
> they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.
>
> The current output looks like:
>
> ================
> PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
> Changes within the last 3 months:
> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
> → Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
> → Currently 43 PMC members.
>
> PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
>
> PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
> Changes within the last 3 months:
> → Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
> → Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
> → No new committers in the last 3 months.
> → Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
> → Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
> ================
>

Remember that those sections are aimed at the PMC, not the board.

> I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC.

AIUI the idea was to show the latest PMC addition even if there were
no changes in the last 3 months.
The 2nd mention ("Latest addition") could be suppressed if there are
recent changes (I've fixed that in the proposed version)

The 3rd mention of Stefan is not about him being added to the PMC, it
is about him being added to the LDAP group (though that distinction is
lost in the current version).

> I'm told twice that
> there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers.

The reason the current version shows duplication is because "committee
group" was replaced by "PMC".
This is confusing, because PMC != committee group.

> And in the
> earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is used, which
> always makes me do a double-take.

The original made it clear that the second count was about LDAP group members.

Would it help to name it "LDAP committee group"?

> Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.

Not fully.

You have not explained why you also made changes to the report template section.

To make things clearer, please could you say what you think about the
proposed version [1] of the report template?

Is the report template section in that version clear?
If not, what do you think is not clear? And how could it be improved?

As to the earlier two sections, the reason I think they should be
separate is that they relate to separate items that the PMC has to
maintain.
The committee-info.txt file and the LDAP committee group lists serve
different purposes.
The former is the official list of the PMC, the latter grants karma
for PMC members.
I can imagine non-PMC members being granted karma for PMC resources.

I've made some more changes to the proposed version [1]
These remove the unnecessary duplication of names in the "Latest
addition" lines.
Also I hope the difference between PMC  and LDAP is now clearer.
If not, please say what is still unclear and how it can be improved.

[1] https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html

>
>
> On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just
>>>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information:
>>>>>>>> I thought
>>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always
>>>>>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>>
>>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>>>> the past quarter
>>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>>
>>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>>
>>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>>
>>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>>
>>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>>
>>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>>
>>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>>
>>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it
>>> contains).
>>>
>>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix
>>> group.
>>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>>> revert to its original title.
>>>
>>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>>
>>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>>
>>> 3) Report template
>>>
>>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>>> the original cause of this thread.
>>>
>>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>>
>>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>>> relevant to the board.
>>>
>>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>>
>>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>>> the board.
>>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate
>>> to.
>>>
>>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>>> of the reporter page:
>>>
>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>>> change by Rich
>>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>>> should look like
>>>
>>> There is also:
>>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>>
>>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>>
>>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>>> report template.
>>
>>
>> This has now been implemented.
>>
>>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>>> interested in committer changes.
>>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>>
>>
>> This should now display OK.
>>
>>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>>
>>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would
>>>>>>>>>> be useful
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC
>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members
>>>>>>>>>> listed in
>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous
>>>>>>>>>>> version which
>>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11
>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to
>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY
>>>>>>>>>>>> <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (=
>>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership is
>>>>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members, since all (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants
>>>>>>>>>>>> karma to
>>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion
>>>>>>>>>>>> allow any
>>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix
>>>>>>>>>>>> group,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer
>>>>>>>>>>>> base.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee group members added in the last 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
Somehow, I haven't received any of the messages in this conversation 
after my first one. Not sure what happened there ...

My change was because the phrasing of the reports is confusing. The 
'committee group' phrasing trips me up every single time. The 
information in there is useful, but it's duplicated between the two 
sections, and I don't feel that this adds anything. If the two sources 
are in conflict, someone should be notified, and fix it, but I don't 
really care to see that in the report.

Ideally, what I'd want to see is:


Community Roster Changes
=======================
PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)
→ Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
→ Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
→ Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)


ie, if there was a change in the last 3 months, tell me what it was 
(what they were). If there wasn't tell me when the most recent one was.

The current output looks like:

================
PMC changes (From committee-info)     ↑ Back to top
Changes within the last 3 months:
→ Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Mon Jul 20 2015
→ Latest PMC addition: Mon Jul 20 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
→ Currently 43 PMC members.

PMC established: 02/1995 (assumed actual date: 1995-02-27)

PMC changes (From LDAP)     ↑ Back to top
Changes within the last 3 months:
→ Stefan Eissing was added to the PMC on Tue Jul 21 2015
→ Latest PMC addition: Tue Jul 21 2015 (Stefan Eissing)
→ No new committers in the last 3 months.
→ Latest committer addition: Tue Jul 07 2015 (Edward Lu)
→ Currently 113 committers and 43 PMC members.
================


I'm told three times that Stefan was added to the PMC. I'm told twice 
that there's 43 PMC members, and once that there's 113 committers. And 
in the earlier version, instead of PMC, the phrase "committee group" is 
used, which always makes me do a double-take.

Hopefully that communicates more clearly what my thoughts here were.


On 10/20/2015 03:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
>>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>>
>>> That's indeed possible.
>>>
>>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>>> the past quarter
>>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>>
>>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>>
>>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>>
>>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>>
>>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP)"
>>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>>
>>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>>> improvement.  Thanks!
>>
>> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>>
>> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>>
>> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>>
>> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
>> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>>
>> I think this section is OK as it is.
>>
>> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>>
>> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it contains).
>>
>> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix group.
>> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
>> revert to its original title.
>>
>> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
>> intended as information for the PMC.
>>
>> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
>> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>>
>> 3) Report template
>>
>> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
>> the original cause of this thread.
>>
>> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>>
>> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
>> relevant to the board.
>>
>> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
>> useful to the board; should be removed.
>>
>> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
>> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
>> the board.
>> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate to.
>>
>> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
>> of the reporter page:
>>
>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
>> change by Rich
>> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
>> should look like
>>
>> There is also:
>> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>>
>> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>>
>> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
>> report template.
>
> This has now been implemented.
>
>> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
>> comment on whether it is clear or not.
>> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
>> interested in committer changes.
>> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
>> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.
>
> This should now display OK.
>
>>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>>
>>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>>
>>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>>>>>>>> (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>>>>>>>> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>>>>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>>>>>>>>> was:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>>>>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>>>>>   - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>>>>>>>>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> from my understanding:
>>>>>>>>>>>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>>>>>>>>>>> golden
>>>>>>>>>>>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>>>>>> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> two.>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>>>>>>>>>> SVN.
>>>>>>>>>>> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>>>>>>>>>> ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>>>>>>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>>>>>>>>>> could be repeated here.
>>>>>>>>>>> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>>>>>>>>>> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>>>>>> general.
>>>>>>>>>>> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>>>>>>>>>> even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>>>>>> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a while back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierre Smits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> membership
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single Time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viz:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   2014
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>>


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

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 October 2015 at 17:37, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>>
>>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
>>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>>
>>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>>
>> That's indeed possible.
>>
>>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>>> the past quarter
>>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>>
>> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
>> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
>> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
>> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
>> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>>
>>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>>
>>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>>
>>> "PMC changes (From LDAP) "
>>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>>
>> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
>> improvement.  Thanks!
>
> Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.
>
> There are 3 sections currently under discussion:
>
> 1) PMC changes (From committee-info)
>
> This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
> which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.
>
> I think this section is OK as it is.
>
> 2) PMC changes (From LDAP)
>
> This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it contains).
>
> It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix group.
> Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
> revert to its original title.
>
> The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
> intended as information for the PMC.
>
> As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
> section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.
>
> 3) Report template
>
> This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
> the original cause of this thread.
>
> This section was - and still is - confusing.
>
> It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
> relevant to the board.
>
> It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
> useful to the board; should be removed.
>
> And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
> - this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
> the board.
> However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate to.
>
> To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
> of the reporter page:
>
> https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
> change by Rich
> https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
> should look like
>
> There is also:
> https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation
>
> Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.
>
> Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
> report template.

This has now been implemented.

> The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
> comment on whether it is clear or not.
> I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
> interested in committer changes.
> Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
> changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.

This should now display OK.

>>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>>
>>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>>
>>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hervé
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>>>>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>>>>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Hervé
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>>>>>> >> was:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> So what I propose is:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>>>>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >> from my understanding:
>>>>>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>>>>>> >> >> golden
>>>>>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>>>>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>>>>>> >> > the
>>>>>>> >> > two.>
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>>>>>> >> > SVN.
>>>>>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>>>>>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>>>>>> >> >> consistent)
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>>>>>> >> > could be repeated here.
>>>>>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> WDYT?
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>>>>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>>> >> > general.
>>>>>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>>>>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> Hervé
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>>>>>> >> >>> > that
>>>>>>> >> >>> > no
>>>>>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>>>>>> >> >>> a while back.
>>>>>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>>>>>> >> >>> LDAP.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>>>>>> >> >>> so
>>>>>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>>>>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> membership
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> actually
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> me
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Every
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  2014
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> members,
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> April
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> 30.
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> committer
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> won't
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> --
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 October 2015 at 16:19, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>>
>>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>>
>>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>>
>>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
>>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>>
>>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>>> Here's an index of such pages:
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> I think we are talking about two different things here.
>
> That's indeed possible.
>
>> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
>> the past quarter
>> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
>> committers (though there are of course caveats).
>> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
>> tool (and has been in the template for some while).
>
> Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
> source of that information in each and every report is at best an
> implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
> far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
> there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.
>
>> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
>> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
>> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
>> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
>> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>>
>> This would be done from the section currently called:
>>
>> "PMC changes (From LDAP) "
>> (previously "LDAP changes")
>
> I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
> improvement.  Thanks!

Again, I think we are talking about different sections of the report.

There are 3 sections currently under discussion:

1) PMC changes (From committee-info)

This is a relatively new section (originally headed "PMC Changes")
which only reports changes from committee-info.txt.

I think this section is OK as it is.

2) PMC changes (From LDAP)

This was previously called "LDAP Changes" (because that's what it contains).

It only deals with changes to the LDAP committee group and the LDAP unix group.
Dropping the "(From LDAP)" will make things worse; the section should
revert to its original title.

The above 2 sections are not part of the report template, and are
intended as information for the PMC.

As such, it seems to me that it needs to be clear that the info in
section 2 is derived from LDAP because that is where it is maintained.

3) Report template

This section is intended as a basis for the board report, and AIUI was
the original cause of this thread.

This section was - and still is - confusing.

It contains details of PMC (committee-info) changes - these are
relevant to the board.

It also contains details of changes to the LDAP committee group - not
useful to the board; should be removed.

And it contains details of changes to the LDAP committer (unix) group
- this relates to the committer base, so is potentially of interest to
the board.
However the description could be clearer as to what the numbers relate to.

To try and make this clearer, I have created two additional versions
of the reporter page:

https://reporter.apache.org/index_previous.html - before the recent
change by Rich
https://reporter.apache.org/index_proposed.html - what I think it
should look like

There is also:
https://reporter.apache.org - current implementation

Please compare the "Report template" section to see the main changes.

Note that I have not implemented all the necessary changes to the
report template.
The intention is to show what it could look like so readers can
comment on whether it is clear or not.
I have not yet allowed for the fact that this section is only
interested in committer changes.
Where there are only changes to the committee (and no committer
changes) in the last quarter the display is likely to be wrong.

>> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
>> would not be added to the report template section.
>>
>> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
>> discrepancies in the numbers.
>>
>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hervé
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>>>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>>>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hervé
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>>>>> >> was:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So what I propose is:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>>>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> from my understanding:
>>>>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>>>>> >> >> golden
>>>>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>>>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>>>>> >> > the
>>>>>> >> > two.>
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>>>>> >> > SVN.
>>>>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>>>>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>>>>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>>>>> >> >> consistent)
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>>>>> >> > could be repeated here.
>>>>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> WDYT?
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>>>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>>> >> > general.
>>>>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>>>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> Hervé
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>>>>> >> >>> > that
>>>>>> >> >>> > no
>>>>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>>>>> >> >>> a while back.
>>>>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>>>>> >> >>> LDAP.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>>>>> >> >>> so
>>>>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>>>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>>>>> >> >>> >> membership
>>>>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>>>>> >> >>> >> actually
>>>>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>>>>> >> >>> >> me
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Every
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  2014
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>>>>> >> >>> >> members,
>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>>>>> >> >>> >> April
>>>>>> >> >>> >> 30.
>>>>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>>> >> >>> >> committer
>>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>>>>> >> >>> >> won't
>>>>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>>> >> >>> >> --
>>>>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>>
>>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>>
>>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>>
>>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
>>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>>
>> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
>> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
>> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
>> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
>> Here's an index of such pages:
>
> Huh?
>
> I think we are talking about two different things here.

That's indeed possible.

> 1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
> the past quarter
> IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
> committers (though there are of course caveats).
> This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
> tool (and has been in the template for some while).

Changes in committers is indeed useful.  I think highlighting the
source of that information in each and every report is at best an
implementation detail and at worst confusing.  I would actually go so
far as to say that the word LDAP should not be in the report unless
there is a reason to draw this to the attention of the board.

> 2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
> and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
> These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
> It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
> to the page if the numbers don't agree.
>
> This would be done from the section currently called:
>
> "PMC changes (From LDAP) "
> (previously "LDAP changes")

I think the (From LDAP) should be omitted, but this is still a big
improvement.  Thanks!

> The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
> would not be added to the report template section.
>
> However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
> discrepancies in the numbers.
>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Hervé
>>
>> - Sam Ruby

- Sam Ruby

>>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>>>
>>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>>
>>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>>
>>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>>
>>>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>>
>>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hervé
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>>>> >> was:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So what I propose is:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> from my understanding:
>>>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>>>> >> >> golden
>>>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>>>> >> > the
>>>>> >> > two.>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>>>> >> > SVN.
>>>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>>>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>>>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>>>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>>>> >> >> consistent)
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>>>> >> > could be repeated here.
>>>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> WDYT?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>>> >> > general.
>>>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> Hervé
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>>>> >> >>> > that
>>>>> >> >>> > no
>>>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>>>> >> >>> a while back.
>>>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>>>> >> >>> LDAP.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>>>> >> >>> so
>>>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>>> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>>>> >> >>> >> membership
>>>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>>>> >> >>> >> actually
>>>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>>>> >> >>> >> me
>>>>> >> >>> >> Every
>>>>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>>>> >> >>> >>  2014
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>>>> >> >>> >> members,
>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>>>> >> >>> >> April
>>>>> >> >>> >> 30.
>>>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>>> >> >>> >> committer
>>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>>>> >> >>> >> won't
>>>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >>> >> --
>>>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 October 2015 at 12:55, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>>
>> That's not what I am suggesting.
>>
>>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>>
>> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
>> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
>> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
>> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
>> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.
>
> I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
> whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
> page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
> raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
> Here's an index of such pages:

Huh?

I think we are talking about two different things here.

1) The first is the number of people added to the LDAP unix group in
the past quarter
IMO this is useful for the board, as it shows activity in recruiting
committers (though there are of course caveats).
This info is not provided by Whimsy but it is provided by the reporter
tool (and has been in the template for some while).

2) Discrepancies between the PMC roster defined in committee-info.txt
and the LDAP committee and unix groups.
These are already clearly laid out in the Whimsy page.
It is not my intention to repeat that info in Reporter, merely to link
to the page if the numbers don't agree.

This would be done from the section currently called:

"PMC changes (From LDAP) "
(previously "LDAP changes")

The discrepancy information is not really relevant to the board so it
would not be added to the report template section.

However it does seem useful to flag up to the PMC if there are any
discrepancies in the numbers.


> https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/
>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hervé
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>> >
>>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>>
>>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>>
>>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>>
>>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>>
>>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>>
>>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>>
>>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>>> belong in the report template.
>>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>>
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > Hervé
>>>> >
>>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>>> >> was:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So what I propose is:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >> from my understanding:
>>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>>> >> >> golden
>>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>>> >> > the
>>>> >> > two.>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>>> >> > SVN.
>>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>>> >> >> consistent)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>>> >> > could be repeated here.
>>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> WDYT?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>>> >> > general.
>>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> Hervé
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>>> >> >>> > that
>>>> >> >>> > no
>>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>>> >> >>> a while back.
>>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>>> >> >>> LDAP.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>>> >> >>> so
>>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>>>> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>>>> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>>> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>>> >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>>> >> >>> >> membership
>>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>>> >> >>> >> actually
>>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>>> >> >>> >> me
>>>> >> >>> >> Every
>>>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>>> >> >>> >>  2014
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>>> >> >>> >> members,
>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>>> >> >>> >> April
>>>> >> >>> >> 30.
>>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>>> >> >>> >> committer
>>>> >> >>> >> and
>>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>>> >> >>> >> won't
>>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> --
>>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:42 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
>> LDAP part: this only adds confusion
>
> That's not what I am suggesting.
>
>> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
>> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
>> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)
>
> The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
> may relate to changes in the committer roster.
> However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
> Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
> Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.

I see it as adding more confusion than insight.  And in any case, the
whimsy board agenda tool provides a direct link to the roster tool's
page for the PMC associated with the report which provides more than
raw numbers, as it will actually indicate what the differences are.
Here's an index of such pages:

https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/

>> Regards,
>>
>> Hervé

- Sam Ruby

>> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>> >
>>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>>
>>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>>
>>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>>
>>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>>
>>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>>
>>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>>
>>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>>> belong in the report template.
>>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>>
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Hervé
>>> >
>>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>>> >> was:
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>> >>
>>> >> So what I propose is:
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>>> >>
>>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>> >>
>>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>> >>
>>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
>> wrote:
>>> >> >> from my understanding:
>>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>>> >> >> golden
>>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > two.>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>>> >> > SVN.
>>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>>> >> >> consistent)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>>> >> > could be repeated here.
>>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> WDYT?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>>> >> > general.
>>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hervé
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>>> >> >>> > that
>>> >> >>> > no
>>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>> >> >>> a while back.
>>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>>> >> >>> LDAP.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>>> >> >>> so
>>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>> >> >>> >> membership
>>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>> >> >>> >> actually
>>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>>> >> >>> >> me
>>> >> >>> >> Every
>>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>>> >> >>> >>  2014
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>>> >> >>> >> members,
>>> >> >>> >> and
>>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>>> >> >>> >> April
>>> >> >>> >> 30.
>>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>>> >> >>> >> committer
>>> >> >>> >> and
>>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>>> >> >>> >> won't
>>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> --
>>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 October 2015 at 06:58, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the
> LDAP part: this only adds confusion

That's not what I am suggesting.

> adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought
> information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to
> know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)

The LDAP unix group section is potentially useful for the board, as it
may relate to changes in the committer roster.
However, as you say, it does not apply to all TLPs.
Also rarely are inactive committers removed.
Maybe the best would be to include a note to this effect.

> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
>> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>> >>
>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>> >
>> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
>>
>> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
>>
>> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
>> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
>>
>> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
>>
>> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
>>
>> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
>> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
>>
>> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
>> belong in the report template.
>> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
>>
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>> >> The app currently says for OODT:
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>> >> was:
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>> >>
>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
>> >>
>> >> So what I propose is:
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>> >>
>> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>> >>  - Currently 44 members
>> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> >>
>> >> ---------- cut here ----------
>> >>
>> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
>> >>
>> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>> >>
>> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>
> wrote:
>> >> >> from my understanding:
>> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
>> >> >> golden
>> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>> >> >
>> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>> >> >
>> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>> >> >
>> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>> >> >
>> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
>> >> > the
>> >> > two.>
>> >> >
>> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>> >> >
>> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
>> >> > SVN.
>> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>> >> > ASF committer to commit.
>> >> >
>> >> >> then instead of displaying:
>> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
>> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>> >> >>
>> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>> >> >> consistent)
>> >> >
>> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>> >> > could be repeated here.
>> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>> >> >
>> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WDYT?
>> >> >
>> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
>> >> > general.
>> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>> >> >
>> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hervé
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>> >> >>> > that
>> >> >>> > no
>> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>> >> >>> a while back.
>> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>> >> >>> LDAP.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
>> >> >>> so
>> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Best regards,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>> >> >>> >> membership
>> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>> >> >>> >> actually
>> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
>> >> >>> >> me
>> >> >>> >> Every
>> >> >>> >> Single Time.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Viz:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
>> >> >>> >>  2014
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>> >> >>> >> members,
>> >> >>> >> and
>> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
>> >> >>> >> April
>> >> >>> >> 30.
>> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
>> >> >>> >> committer
>> >> >>> >> and
>> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>> >> >>> >> won't
>> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> --Rich
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> --
>> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
ok, if you stay only on PMC composition information, please just remove the 
LDAP part: this only adds confusion

adding another section is useful if it's about another information: I thought 
information about count of committers was useful (even if not always easy to 
know which are the few TLPs who let every ASF committer commit)

Regards,

Hervé

Le lundi 19 octobre 2015 01:22:37 sebb a écrit :
> On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> >> 
> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
> >>  - Currently 44 members
> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
> > 
> > IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
> 
> There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.
> 
> > Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
> > (I expect it to be the committers group)
> 
> The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl
> 
> The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl
> 
> > and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
> > committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section
> 
> Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
> belong in the report template.
> It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.
> 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Hervé
> > 
> > Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
> >> The app currently says for OODT:
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
> >> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
> >> was:
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> >> 
> >> ## LDAP changes:
> >>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
> >>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
> >>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
> >> changes to be listed in the board report.
> >> 
> >> So what I propose is:
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> >> 
> >> ## LDAP unix group changes:
> >>  - Currently 44 members
> >>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
> >> 
> >> ---------- cut here ----------
> >> 
> >> Would that satisfy everyone?
> >> 
> >> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
> >> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
> >> 
> >> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> 
wrote:
> >> >> from my understanding:
> >> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (=
> >> >> golden
> >> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
> >> > 
> >> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
> >> > 
> >> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
> >> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
> >> > 
> >> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
> >> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
> >> > 
> >> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse
> >> > the
> >> > two.>
> >> > 
> >> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
> >> > 
> >> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to
> >> > SVN.
> >> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
> >> > ASF committer to commit.
> >> > 
> >> >> then instead of displaying:
> >> >> * PMC from committee-info
> >> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
> >> >> 
> >> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
> >> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
> >> >> consistent)
> >> > 
> >> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
> >> > could be repeated here.
> >> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
> >> > 
> >> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
> >> >> 
> >> >> WDYT?
> >> > 
> >> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
> >> > 
> >> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
> >> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
> >> > 
> >> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in
> >> > general.
> >> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
> >> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
> >> > even if they have stopped contributing.
> >> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
> >> > 
> >> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
> >> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
> >> > 
> >> >> Hervé
> >> >> 
> >> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
> >> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
> >> >>> > that
> >> >>> > no
> >> >>> > one will object to improvement.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
> >> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
> >> >>> a while back.
> >> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
> >> >>> LDAP.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board,
> >> >>> so
> >> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
> >> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> > Best regards,
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > Pierre Smits
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> >> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >> >>> > 
> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
> >> >>> >> membership
> >> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
> >> >>> >> actually
> >> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses
> >> >>> >> me
> >> >>> >> Every
> >> >>> >> Single Time.
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> Viz:
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
> >> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
> >> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07
> >> >>> >>  2014
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
> >> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
> >> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
> >> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
> >> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
> >> >>> >> members,
> >> >>> >> and
> >> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on
> >> >>> >> April
> >> >>> >> 30.
> >> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs
> >> >>> >> committer
> >> >>> >> and
> >> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
> >> >>> >> won't
> >> >>> >> confuse me next month?
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> --Rich
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> 
> >> >>> >> --
> >> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon


Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 October 2015 at 00:44, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>
>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 44 members
>>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>
>> Would that satisfy everyone?
> IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful

There is only one LDAP unix group for each PMC.

> Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
> (I expect it to be the committers group)

The committers group maintained using modify_unix_group.pl

The committee group is maintained using modify_committee.pl

> and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in
> committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section

Such a warning does not belong in the report to the board, so does not
belong in the report template.
It might be worth adding a warning to the previous LDAP section.

> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
>> The app currently says for OODT:
>>
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>
>>
>>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>
>> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
>> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
>> was:
>>
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>
>> ## LDAP changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>
>> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
>> changes to be listed in the board report.
>>
>> So what I propose is:
>>
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
>>
>> ## LDAP unix group changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 44 members
>>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
>> ---------- cut here ----------
>>
>> Would that satisfy everyone?
>>
>> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
>> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
>>
>> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>> >> from my understanding:
>> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
>> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>> >
>> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>> >
>> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
>> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>> >
>> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
>> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
>> >
>> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse the
>> > two.>
>> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>> >
>> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to SVN.
>> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
>> > ASF committer to commit.
>> >
>> >> then instead of displaying:
>> >> * PMC from committee-info
>> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>> >>
>> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>> >> consistent)
>> >
>> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
>> > could be repeated here.
>> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>> >
>> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>> >>
>> >> WDYT?
>> >
>> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>> >
>> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
>> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>> >
>> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in general.
>> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
>> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
>> > even if they have stopped contributing.
>> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>> >
>> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
>> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>> >
>> >> Hervé
>> >>
>> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
>> >>> > that
>> >>> > no
>> >>> > one will object to improvement.
>> >>>
>> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>> >>>
>> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>> >>> a while back.
>> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
>> >>> LDAP.
>> >>>
>> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>> >>>
>> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
>> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>> >>>
>> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>> >>>
>> >>> > Best regards,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Pierre Smits
>> >>> >
>> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>
> wrote:
>> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>> >>> >> membership
>> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>> >>> >> actually
>> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me
>> >>> >> Every
>> >>> >> Single Time.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Viz:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
>> >>> >> members,
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April
>> >>> >> 30.
>> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
>> >>> >> won't
>> >>> >> confuse me next month?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --Rich
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
> ---------- cut here ----------
> ## PMC changes:
> 
>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> 
> ## LDAP unix group changes:
> 
>  - Currently 44 members
>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
> ---------- cut here ----------
> 
> Would that satisfy everyone?
IMHO, making explicit which "LDAP unix group" is looked at would be useful
Since I still don't understand if it's the committers group or PMC group
(I expect it to be the committers group)

and if oodt-pmc LDAP does not have the same count as PMC members listed in 
committee-info.txt, a warning should be added in the first section

Regards,

Hervé

Le dimanche 18 octobre 2015 14:19:00 sebb a écrit :
> The app currently says for OODT:
> 
> ---------- cut here ----------
> ## PMC changes:
> 
>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> 
> 
>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
>  - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
> ---------- cut here ----------
> 
> Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
> I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which
> was:
> 
> ---------- cut here ----------
> ## PMC changes:
> 
>  - Currently 42 PMC members.
>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> 
> ## LDAP changes:
> 
>  - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
>  - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
>  - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
> ---------- cut here ----------
> 
> As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
> changes to be listed in the board report.
> 
> So what I propose is:
> 
> ---------- cut here ----------
> ## PMC changes:
> 
>  - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>  - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015
> 
> ## LDAP unix group changes:
> 
>  - Currently 44 members
>  - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
> ---------- cut here ----------
> 
> Would that satisfy everyone?
> 
> (*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
> so is not yet officially a member of the PMC
> 
> On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> from my understanding:
> >> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
> >> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
> > 
> > The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
> > 
> > The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
> > granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
> > 
> > They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
> > only) PMC members should have the karma.
> > 
> > However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse the
> > two.> 
> >> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
> > 
> > The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to SVN.
> > However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
> > ASF committer to commit.
> > 
> >> then instead of displaying:
> >> * PMC from committee-info
> >> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
> >> 
> >> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
> >> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
> >> consistent)
> > 
> > The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
> > could be repeated here.
> > Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
> > 
> >> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
> >> 
> >> WDYT?
> > 
> > That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
> > 
> > Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
> > (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
> > 
> > There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in general.
> > Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
> > Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
> > even if they have stopped contributing.
> > So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
> > 
> > Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
> > committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
> > 
> >> Hervé
> >> 
> >> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
> >>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> >>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and
> >>> > that
> >>> > no
> >>> > one will object to improvement.
> >>> 
> >>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
> >>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
> >>> 
> >>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
> >>> a while back.
> >>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only
> >>> LDAP.
> >>> 
> >>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
> >>> 
> >>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
> >>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
> >>> 
> >>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
> >>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
> >>> 
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> > 
> >>> > Pierre Smits
> >>> > 
> >>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> >>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >>> > 
> >>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> 
wrote:
> >>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
> >>> >> membership
> >>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
> >>> >> actually
> >>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me
> >>> >> Every
> >>> >> Single Time.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Viz:
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
> >>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> ## LDAP changes:
> >>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
> >>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
> >>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
> >>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC
> >>> >> members,
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April
> >>> >> 30.
> >>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it
> >>> >> won't
> >>> >> confuse me next month?
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> --Rich
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon


Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
The app currently says for OODT:

---------- cut here ----------
## PMC changes:

 - Currently 42 PMC members.
 - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
 - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015


 - Currently 44 committers and 43 PMC members.
 - Radu Manole was added to the PMC on Sun Oct 11 2015
 - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
---------- cut here ----------

Note that there are either 42 or 43 PMC members. (*)
I think the above is a lot more confusing than the previous version which was:

---------- cut here ----------
## PMC changes:

 - Currently 42 PMC members.
 - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
 - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015

## LDAP changes:

 - Currently 44 committers and 43 committee group members.
 - Radu Manole was added to the committee group on Sun Oct 11 2015
 - Radu Manole was added as a committer on Tue Oct 06 2015
---------- cut here ----------

As I already wrote, there is now no reason for the LDAP committee
changes to be listed in the board report.

So what I propose is:

---------- cut here ----------
## PMC changes:

 - Currently 42 PMC members listed in committee-info.txt.
 - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
 - Last PMC addition was Dana Freeborn at Fri Mar 27 2015

## LDAP unix group changes:

 - Currently 44 members
 - Radu Manole was added on Tue Oct 06 2015
---------- cut here ----------

Would that satisfy everyone?

(*) that is because Radu has not yet been added to committee-info.txt
so is not yet officially a member of the PMC


On 18 October 2015 at 10:12, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
>> from my understanding:
>> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
>> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
>
> The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.
>
> The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
> granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.
>
> They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
> only) PMC members should have the karma.
>
> However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse the two.
>
>> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group
>
> The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to SVN.
> However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
> ASF committer to commit.
>
>>
>> then instead of displaying:
>> * PMC from committee-info
>> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>>
>> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
>> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
>> consistent)
>
> The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
> could be repeated here.
> Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.
>
>> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> That is basically what it did say before the recent change.
>
> Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
> (modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.
>
> There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in general.
> Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
> Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
> even if they have stopped contributing.
> So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.
>
> Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
> committers, so that is probably worth reporting.
>
>> Hervé
>>
>> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that
>>> > no
>>> > one will object to improvement.
>>>
>>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>>
>>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>>> a while back.
>>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only LDAP.
>>>
>>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>>
>>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
>>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>>
>>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>>
>>> > Best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Pierre Smits
>>> >
>>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>>> >> membership
>>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>>> >> actually
>>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me
>>> >> Every
>>> >> Single Time.
>>> >>
>>> >> Viz:
>>> >>
>>> >> ## PMC changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
>>> >>
>>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>> >>
>>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members,
>>> >> and
>>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April 30.
>>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer and
>>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>> >>
>>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't
>>> >> confuse me next month?
>>> >>
>>> >> --Rich
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 October 2015 at 09:31, Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr> wrote:
> from my understanding:
> - PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden
> source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group

The *only* record of current PMC membership is committee-info.txt.

The LDAP committee group (modify_committee.pl) is only used for
granting karma, e.g. to PMC-private SVN and dist/release.

They should generally have the same members, since all (and perhaps
only) PMC members should have the karma.

However this is not always the case, and it's important not to confuse the two.

> - committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group

The LDAP unix group (modify_unix_group.pl) generally grants karma to SVN.
However not every PMC uses it - e.g. Commons and Subversion allow any
ASF committer to commit.

>
> then instead of displaying:
> * PMC from committee-info
> * LDAP info: PMC + committers
>
> it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
> * PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not
> consistent)

The consistency check is already done by Whimsy, but I suppose it
could be repeated here.
Or the Whimsy page could be linked if there was a discrepancy.

> * committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)
>
> WDYT?

That is basically what it did say before the recent change.

Except that I do think it's necessary to explain that the committer
(modify_unix_group.pl) info is just an LDAP group.

There is no direct relationship with committers on a project in general.
Commons and Subversion don't use the group for commit karma.
Also it's relatively rare that people are dropped from the unix group,
even if they have stopped contributing.
So the group does not have any bearing on the current committer base.

Additions to the unix group generally are associated with new
committers, so that is probably worth reporting.

> Hervé
>
> Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
>> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that
>> > no
>> > one will object to improvement.
>>
>> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
>> The two are completely distinct (although related).
>>
>> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
>> a while back.
>> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only LDAP.
>>
>> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
>>
>> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
>> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
>>
>> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
>> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
>>
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Pierre Smits
>> >
>> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
>> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
>> >> membership
>> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
>> >> actually
>> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me
>> >> Every
>> >> Single Time.
>> >>
>> >> Viz:
>> >>
>> >> ## PMC changes:
>> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
>> >>
>> >> ## LDAP changes:
>> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>> >>
>> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members,
>> >> and
>> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April 30.
>> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer and
>> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>> >>
>> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't
>> >> confuse me next month?
>> >>
>> >> --Rich
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
from my understanding:
- PMC composition is available in 2 forms: committee-info.txt (= golden 
source) and LDAP xxx-pmc group
- committers list is available only in LDAP as xxx group


then instead of displaying:
* PMC from committee-info
* LDAP info: PMC + committers

it would be easier to understand if the structure was more:
* PMC info from committee-info (and warning if LDAP PMC info is not 
consistent)
* committers info (no need to explain that it comes from LDAP)


WDYT?

Hervé

Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 23:24:16 sebb a écrit :
> On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that
> > no
> > one will object to improvement.
> 
> I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
> The two are completely distinct (although related).
> 
> This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
> a while back.
> At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only LDAP.
> 
> However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.
> 
> The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
> could now be dropped from the report skeleton.
> 
> But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
> committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Pierre Smits
> > 
> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> >> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project
> >> membership
> >> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of
> >> actually
> >> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me
> >> Every
> >> Single Time.
> >> 
> >> Viz:
> >> 
> >> ## PMC changes:
> >>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
> >>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
> >> 
> >> ## LDAP changes:
> >>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
> >>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
> >>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
> >>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
> >> 
> >> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members,
> >> and
> >> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April 30.
> >> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer and
> >> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
> >> 
> >> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't
> >> confuse me next month?
> >> 
> >> --Rich
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon


Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16 October 2015 at 21:08, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no
> one will object to improvement.

I do object to conflating LDAP committee and PMC membership.
The two are completely distinct (although related).

This is why I changed the text to show LDAP committee rather than PMC
a while back.
At the time, the tool did not analyse the actual PMC membership, only LDAP.

However it does now, so the output shows them as distinct items.

The LDAP committee information is not really relevant to the board, so
could now be dropped from the report skeleton.

But I think it is completely wrong to imply that changes to the LDAP
committee group have any bearing on PMC membership.

> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project membership
>> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of actually
>> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me Every
>> Single Time.
>>
>> Viz:
>>
>> ## PMC changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
>>
>> ## LDAP changes:
>>
>>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members, and
>> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April 30.
>> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer and
>> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>>
>> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't
>> confuse me next month?
>>
>> --Rich
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
>> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>>

Re: [reporter] Confusing PMC/Committeer/Committee/LDAP report format

Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
I feel confident that anybody objects to ambiguous information, and that no
one will object to improvement.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

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

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> Although I acknowledge that the LDAP membership and the project membership
> might be different in certain weird edge cases, for the purpose of actually
> generating a board report, I find the current formatting confuses me Every
> Single Time.
>
> Viz:
>
> ## PMC changes:
>
>  - Currently 10 PMC members.
>  - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
>  - Last PMC addition was Jean-Fran=C3=A7ois Maury at Mon Apr 07 2014
>
> ## LDAP changes:
>
>  - Currently 26 committers and 10 committee group members.
>  - No new committee group members added in the last 3 months
>  - No new committers added in the last 3 months
>  - Last committer addition was Lyor Goldstein at Thu Apr 30 2015
>
>
>
> So, I can tease out of that there's 26 committers, and 10 PMC members, and
> the latest additions were Jean Francois on April 7, and Lyor on April 30.
> The rest of that phrasing is confusing to me. committee vs committer and
> LDAP vs ... whatever. Not sure.
>
> Does anybody object to me reformatting this a little, so that it won't
> confuse me next month?
>
> --Rich
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>