You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> on 2006/03/18 04:59:15 UTC
Re: Community health
I waited for some days to see if others would attempt
to answer this. No-one has, so i will try.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> I wrote a long and details reply to this, but have decided not to post
> it. The issue is too volatile and has the makings of an argument rather
> than a discussion. Maurice has made some very valuable observations,
> along with some misunderstanding of my intent.
Me too. Lets try to follow your new approach to
sort it out.
> Let me try and be clear about the "inventor" tagline:
>
> I have an issue with any claim of ownership of ASF code, not with the
> recognition of contributions.
>
> I am a strong believer in the meritocracy of the ASF and how it awards
> credit to individuals.
>
> A claim of being the "inventor" of community code implies ownership. I
> do not believe this was the intent of the original commit message, only
> an unfortunate side effect of that particular word. Thorsten has been
> around the ASF long enough to know how it works.
>
> For the record I'm happy with Tims observations, as is Thorsten. Since
> this specific instance only concerns Thorsten that can be the end of it,
> I hope.
>
> However, there are more general community issues here as well, and I
> would like to look at them. Here are three community observations (and
> as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
>
> 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different from
> other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
I reckon that we don't need to change anything that
we are currently doing. If someone feels that we do,
then they need to make an explicit proposal.
There are some things that we do need to do better.
Better use of changes.html (often we forget to
add entries). Get better at noticing new committed
people.
> 2) We see occasional mails that seem to imply "hidden agendas" on the
> part of others, yet never say anything directly. This is extremely
> damaging to our community. If someone has a genuine concern it should be
> raised in the open (or the semi-open of the PMC list if more appropriate).
I can only recall two occasions and those concerns
were quickly dispelled. Yes we need to do as you
suggest if ever they arise again.
> 3) For a while now this community has had periodic eruptions. Why is
> this happening? Is it related to the above observations, or is there
> something else?
I reckon that it is due to something else.
We are still attempting to define our project
guidelines. This requires us to investigate some
delicate issues. We don't see this on other
projects such as Apache Cocoon, perhaps because
they (we) have not yet managed to make a start
on that obligation.
Also i wonder if other projects do not talk much
about community issues, even though that is supposed
to be a big part of managing an ASF project.
Sometimes those discussions go astray. I believe
this occurs when someone has mis-interpreted another's
comments and intent, or perhaps said something like
"Joe said such-and-such" when that is not at all
what Joe meant.
Another reason for the eruptions is that some
people seem to get defensive, thinking that comments
are directed at individuals.
The sooner that we get these guidelines finished
the better. I am going to add some more to
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
http://forrest.apache.org/committed.html
to try to explain the "Apache Way" as it applies
to our project and how we recognise contributions.
Hopefully others can help to build upon that
to reflect our intent.
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley escribi??:
> >
> > The sooner that we get these guidelines finished
> > the better. I am going to add some more to
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
> > http://forrest.apache.org/committed.html
> > to try to explain the "Apache Way" as it applies
> > to our project and how we recognise contributions.
> > Hopefully others can help to build upon that
> > to reflect our intent.
>
> The only problem I see is that it will be the "Apache Forrest Way"
> as long it does not go back to the Apache main page. Further it will let other
> Apache projects define the "Apache XYZ Way", I see more danger then benefits in this.
It sounds like you don't quite understand how ASF
projects work. When each Top-Level Project is created,
its resolution causes it to create its project guidelines.
Being in line with the overall principles of the ASF,
each project defines its own rules and procedures.
That is a part of the "Apache Way".
See the wording at Forrest's resolution:
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#pmc
follow the link to "resolution". Then search
for Section E.
<quote>
...and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Forrest PMC be and hereby is
tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to
encourage open development and increased participation in the
Forrest Project; and be it further
...
</quote>
-David
Re: better use of changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 3/20/06, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Another example of how we are not using the changes.html properly.
>
> http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/changes.html#Contributors
>
> This listing implies that only three people have contributed
> to the 0.8-dev ... surely not true.
>
> This discrepancy happens because committers (all of us)
> have not done proper attributions by using the "due-to"
> attribute when adding action items to site-author/status.xml
> or we have completely neglected to add the items.
>
> -David
I'm just realizing that we should be doing this. I think I'm seeing a
need for a new Forrest Committers Guide as a fairly simple extension
to docs that already exist elsewhere.
--tim
Re: better use of changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Another example of how we are not using the changes.html properly.
http://forrest.apache.org/docs_0_80/changes.html#Contributors
This listing implies that only three people have contributed
to the 0.8-dev ... surely not true.
This discrepancy happens because committers (all of us)
have not done proper attributions by using the "due-to"
attribute when adding action items to site-author/status.xml
or we have completely neglected to add the items.
-David
better use of changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >We have already suggested to create a "timeline"
> >to help the history. It will take me a long time
> >to get that together, so be patient.
> >
> >The history of how the project came into being
> >is a minor issue. The main issue seems to be
> >recognition of contributions.
>
> We already have an infrastructure for this. Mark an entry in status.xml
> as having importance="high" and that entry will be highlighted in the
> release notes. There is no reason why we can't create a timeline form
> this as well. Perhaps by allowing a "historic" setting for @importance
> (possibly needed as "high" is intended to mean important from users
> perspectives, whereas "historic" is from a dev perspective.
Great idea. Although i reckon that we can try to
do without the "historic" setting. At least we need
to add some missing entries and mark as high.
Anyone who wanted to know the timeline could just
review the listing and discard the superfluous bits.
cd forrest-trunk/site-author
forrest run
http://localhost:8888/releaseNotes_0.8-dev.html
http://localhost:8888/releaseNotes_0.7.html
http://localhost:8888/releaseNotes_0.6.html
We have some work to do. There were surely more
important changes.
> I don't hink there is any need to go over the past history since nobody
> has asked for it until now. If any individual would like to see their
> contribution marked as historic they should go over status.xml
> themselves, I see no reason wy it should fall to David.
We should all review the archives from time-to-time
and add the missing entries to the top-level status.xml
and to the plugins/*/status.xml for the details.
Not just for our own stuff.
The trouble is that it is easy to be side-tracked.
It is actually very rewarding. There is a goldmine
to stumble across. Many ideas that were discussed but
not implemented, yet still relevant. We can add Jira
issues on the way so that we don't lose these gems.
Newcomers to the project can help with this.
While browsing/searching the mail/svn archives, if you
spot an important event that is not listed in status.xml
then send a patch.
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> We have already suggested to create a "timeline"
> to help the history. It will take me a long time
> to get that together, so be patient.
>
> The history of how the project came into being
> is a minor issue. The main issue seems to be
> recognition of contributions.
We already have an infrastructure for this. Mark an entry in status.xml
as having importance="high" and that entry will be highlighted in the
release notes. There is no reason why we can't create a timeline form
this as well. Perhaps by allowing a "historic" setting for @importance
(possibly needed as "high" is intended to mean important from users
perspectives, whereas "historic" is from a dev perspective.
I don't hink there is any need to go over the past history since nobody
has asked for it until now. If any individual would like to see their
contribution marked as historic they should go over status.xml
themselves, I see no reason wy it should fall to David.
Ross
Re: Community health
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gav.... wrote:
>
> This has been discussed many times (see archives). The summary is that
> it is not seen as a good idea. The only reason for the PMC is to have a
> private place to discuss issues that cannot be discussed in public, for
> example, security issues.
One minor correction. Ross means the pmc@ mailing list
(which should be called private@). The role of the
PMC itself: http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#pmc
and the linked references.
> PMC membership does not, generally, requrie
> any more commitment than being a committer. Therefore, having a second
> level of committership will not really change the situation. Either
> someone has the time/inclination to apply patches or they do not - not
> being in the PMC will not change that.
>
> ...
>
> >Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous
> >discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely
> >reminder :)
>
> If there is any reason to change past decisions we need to hear them.
> Otherwise we are ust wasting time going over old gound. In other words,
> is there anything in the past discussions that you feel is no longer
> appropriate to this decision?
The main discussion for this is in the pmc@ private
archives following our creation of the project.
The reason that it was on the private list is that
we formulated the policy during the voting for the
first new committers.
Since then there is also some in the dev@ archives
and at http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#elect
We want to avoid classes of committers, either they
are committed or not committed.
Note that this aspect is different at other projects.
Some have committer=PMC member, others do not, and each
has different ways of creating new PMC members.
-David
Re: better committer IDs for changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El vie, 24-03-2006 a las 12:09 +1100, David Crossley escribió:
>
>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>>Gav.... wrote:
>>>
>>>>Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about
>>>>their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the
>>>>changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the
>>>>place is hardly informing to the outsider.
>>>
>>>I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However,
>>>I have no objection to such links if others want them.
>>
>>It is reasonably clear from the bottom of
>>the changes page who is who. Perhaps we need
>>a link to this section from the top of the page.
>>[1] http://forrest.apache.org/docs/changes.html#Committers
>>and at
>>[2] http://forrest.apache.org/who.html
>
>
> It seems I will develope again with Struts for a customer project and
> while browsing their site I found:
> http://struts.apache.org/volunteers.html
>
> I really like it, maybe something for us as well.
I trust you mean the "mini-bio" for each committer. Personally, I don't
use the Forrest sites for self promotion, but I have no problem with
others doing it (my reasoning is a business one, not an ethical one). If
I did I'd probably just want a link, maybe, if the bio was pulled from
the committers own site, that would ease the need to keep multiple
copies of a bio in synch. Perhaps a small extension to the Resume plugin.
Anyway, if people want to add bios to [1] I am +/-0 for that.
Ross
[1] http://forrest.apache.org/who.html
Re: better committer IDs for changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@wyona.com>.
El vie, 24-03-2006 a las 12:09 +1100, David Crossley escribió:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Gav.... wrote:
> > >
> > >Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about
> > >their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the
> > >changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the
> > >place is hardly informing to the outsider.
> >
> > I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However,
> > I have no objection to such links if others want them.
>
> It is reasonably clear from the bottom of
> the changes page who is who. Perhaps we need
> a link to this section from the top of the page.
> [1] http://forrest.apache.org/docs/changes.html#Committers
> and at
> [2] http://forrest.apache.org/who.html
It seems I will develope again with Struts for a customer project and
while browsing their site I found:
http://struts.apache.org/volunteers.html
I really like it, maybe something for us as well.
salu2
--
Thorsten Scherler
COO Spain
Wyona Inc. - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
thorsten.scherler@wyona.com thorsten@apache.org
better committer IDs for changes.html (Was: Community health)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Gav.... wrote:
> >
> >Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about
> >their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the
> >changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the
> >place is hardly informing to the outsider.
>
> I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However,
> I have no objection to such links if others want them.
It is reasonably clear from the bottom of
the changes page who is who. Perhaps we need
a link to this section from the top of the page.
[1] http://forrest.apache.org/docs/changes.html#Committers
and at
[2] http://forrest.apache.org/who.html
Regarding the initials of each committer, i was
wondering about this aspect while doing those
recent guidelines.
Long ago Nicola Ken suggested that we should
use committer IDs rather than initials, e.g.
"diwaker" rather than "DG". This would help
immensely with the issue that Gav raised.
Cannot find all the past email yet, but here is one:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=forrest-dev&m=103771181516653
Cannot yet find what Nicola Ken means in that
message when he said it was tried once before
and reverted. There must have been a reason (perhaps
just because it was only partially implemented).
-- oOo --
Regarding the suggestion about links to
Contributors/Committers home pages ...
We cannot do so for "Contributors" because
we don't know all their pages and it would
be too much overhead to list everyone and we
would need to leave some out. Messy.
For "Committers" we could just suggest that
they add their own links to [2] if they want to.
This is similar to the ASF members page [3]
where some choose to link themselves, others don't.
It is up to each member what they do.
[3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Gav.... wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Crossley" <cr...@apache.org>
> To: <de...@forrest.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Community health
>
>
>> David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>> > David Crossley escribi??:
>>> > > Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> > > > However, there are more general community issues here as well,
>>> and > > > I
>>> > > > would like to look at them. Here are three community
>>> observations > > > (and
>>> > > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
>>> > > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be
>>> different > > > from
>>> > > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>>> >
>>> > Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
>>>
>>> See the end of my previous email in this thread.
>>> In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
>>> to our project guidelines to define exactly
>>> how we currently acknowledge contributions.
>>>
>>> Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
>>> any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
>>> one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
>>> the normal opensource fashion.
>>
>>
>> Okay i have made an attempt to capture how we
>> currently do this. Not yet published to the site,
>> so look at your local copy.
>>
>> cd site-author
>> svn up
>> forrest run
>> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#way
>> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#contribution
>>
>> "Lazy approval" applies.
>
>
> That looks pretty good to me and something I am happy
> to go with as is.
+1000
> Of the 12 Active Committers, probably about 7 of those are what I call
> at the moment Currently Active Commiters, of those 7 I dont remember how
> many are committing other contributors patches.
> Is this enough do you think, considering the current speed of
> development of 0.8 and the need to support and patch 0.7 ?
This is not enough. All committers need to put time into maintaining the
project as a whole. It is not just about committing code patches, but
updating docs, publishing the website, user support etc.
However, the reality is this is a volunteer effort and we all do what we
can. The problem with saying "out loud" that *we*, the community, need
to do more, is that individuals who do not currently have the time may
feel that the words are targetted at them
> Maybe, to reduce pressure of the busiest committers and to let them get
> on with their own coding, maybe there should be an initial level of
> Committer that is not a PMC member until such time as they would
> normally be voted in as is current a Committer/PMC Member. This level of
> Committer only will allow for more contributors to help by applying
> other peoples patches and reduce the workload for others currently doing
> the job.
This has been discussed many times (see archives). The summary is that
it is not seen as a good idea. The only reason for the PMC is to have a
private place to discuss issues that cannot be discussed in public, for
example, security issues. PMC membership does not, generally, requrie
any more commitment than being a committer. Therefore, having a second
level of committership will not really change the situation. Either
someone has the time/inclination to apply patches or they do not - not
being in the PMC will not change that.
...
> Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous
> discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely
> reminder :)
If there is any reason to change past decisions we need to hear them.
Otherwise we are ust wasting time going over old gound. In other words,
is there anything in the past discussions that you feel is no longer
appropriate to this decision?
> Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about
> their being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the
> changes document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the
> place is hardly informing to the outsider.
I am of the opinon that who applies what change is irrelevant. However,
I have no objection to such links if others want them.
Ross
Re: Community health
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Gav.... wrote:
>
> Maybe the PMC should think about this NOT being 'extraordinary' but as a
> 'trial period' of Committership before full PMC Membership. Give
> contributors the chance to gain this level of entry based on the rule that
> their priority is sorting through JIRA and applying relevent patches.
Nope, we don't have any such rules. Committers will only
be as active as they wish to be. Also we must ensure
that all committers are treated as equals.
> This, of course, boils down to the trust factor, who would you trust that
> is not already a Committer, to become one and have access to the repository
> with ballsing up all the code and other committers/contributors work. By
> the time someone gets to this level of trust, I guess is when you would
> vote for them to become PMC/Committer in the first place.
They main thing is to ensure that people are committed
to the project and can collaborate.
Sure we generally do wait to see their patches and
make sure that they can drive SVN. However we actually
trust new committers to know their own capabilities
and not do anything radical if they are not comfortable
with SVN. Start small with documentation tweaks and such.
That is one reason that we have oversight of the svn@
mailing list and have all our sources in Subversion.
It is possible for other committers to roll back changes
if an accident happens.
By the way, applying patches is not always an easy task.
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Crossley" <cr...@apache.org>
To: <de...@forrest.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Community health
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> > David Crossley escribi??:
>> > > Ross Gardler wrote:
>> > > > However, there are more general community issues here as well, and
>> > > > I
>> > > > would like to look at them. Here are three community observations
>> > > > (and
>> > > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
>> > > >
>> > > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
>> > > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different
>> > > > from
>> > > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>> >
>> > Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
>>
>> See the end of my previous email in this thread.
>> In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
>> to our project guidelines to define exactly
>> how we currently acknowledge contributions.
>>
>> Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
>> any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
>> one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
>> the normal opensource fashion.
>
> Okay i have made an attempt to capture how we
> currently do this. Not yet published to the site,
> so look at your local copy.
>
> cd site-author
> svn up
> forrest run
> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#way
> http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#contribution
>
> "Lazy approval" applies.
That looks pretty good to me and something I am happy
to go with as is.
The bullet points in #contribution are spot on and I
feel that these need to be followed as much as
possible. Quick response times in some of these points
are expecially important - like responding to and applying
patches. This may seem a chore to those that want to concentrate
on their own Forrest agendas and code code code, applying
other peoples patches distract attention from their own work
and can be off-putting.
My wife knows only too well that
when I deep in coding thought, that only something important is
worth getting me out of the zone. :)
Of the 12 Active Committers, probably about 7 of those are what I call at
the moment Currently Active Commiters, of those 7 I dont remember how many
are committing other contributors patches.
Is this enough do you think, considering the current speed of development of
0.8 and the need to support and patch 0.7 ?
Maybe, to reduce pressure of the busiest committers and to let them get on
with their own coding, maybe there should be an initial level of Committer
that is not a PMC member until such time as they would normally be voted in
as is current a Committer/PMC Member. This level of Committer only will
allow for more contributors to help by applying other peoples patches and
reduce the workload for others currently doing the job.
http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#elect states already
<quote>
...However, there may be extraordinary cases where we want limited
work-related commit access (not also a PMC member)...
</quote>
Maybe the PMC should think about this NOT being 'extraordinary' but as a
'trial period' of Committership before full PMC Membership. Give
contributors the chance to gain this level of entry based on the rule that
their priority is sorting through JIRA and applying relevent patches.
This, of course, boils down to the trust factor, who would you trust that is
not already a Committer, to become one and have access to the repository
with ballsing up all the code and other committers/contributors work. By the
time someone gets to this level of trust, I guess is when you would vote for
them to become PMC/Committer in the first place.
Ah well, something to think about anyway. And yes, I have seen previous
discussions about this in the past and remember them well. Just a timely
reminder :)
Second point (hmm, so all the above is just one point!) , how about their
being hyperlinks to Contributors/Committers sites within the changes
document. Seeing a load of [TS] [RDG] [DC] etc all over the place is hardly
informing to the outsider.
So, at the end of all that ...
confirming my lazy non-binding +1
Gav...
>
> -David
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/288 - Release Date: 22/03/2006
>
Re: Community health
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > David Crossley escribi??:
> > > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > > However, there are more general community issues here as well, and I
> > > > would like to look at them. Here are three community observations (and
> > > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
> > > >
> > > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> > > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different from
> > > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
> >
> > Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
>
> See the end of my previous email in this thread.
> In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
> to our project guidelines to define exactly
> how we currently acknowledge contributions.
>
> Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
> any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
> one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
> the normal opensource fashion.
Okay i have made an attempt to capture how we
currently do this. Not yet published to the site,
so look at your local copy.
cd site-author
svn up
forrest run
http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#way
http://localhost:8888/guidelines.html#contribution
"Lazy approval" applies.
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> David Crossley escribi??:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > However, there are more general community issues here as well, and I
> > > would like to look at them. Here are three community observations (and
> > > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
> > >
> > > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> > > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different from
> > > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>
> Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
See the end of my previous email in this thread.
In my copius spare time i plan to add a section
to our project guidelines to define exactly
how we currently acknowledge contributions.
Then we can discuss in a calm manner whether
any of that needs changing. Or hopefully each
one of us can fine-tune and edit that in
the normal opensource fashion.
> I assume then that
> http://cocoon.apache.org/history.html
> http://lenya.apache.org/history.html
> ...
> are not normal?
>
> If not, should we not then bring this up either in a broader audience or
> in this projects directly?
>
> If it is normal, then why should Forrest be different from other ASF
> projects?
We have already suggested to create a "timeline"
to help the history. It will take me a long time
to get that together, so be patient.
The history of how the project came into being
is a minor issue. The main issue seems to be
recognition of contributions.
> > I reckon that we don't need to change anything that
> > we are currently doing. If someone feels that we do,
> > then they need to make an explicit proposal.
>
> Did you not read my words and Tims about live-site?
>
> Do you think we should write them again?
See above.
> > There are some things that we do need to do better.
> > Better use of changes.html (often we forget to
> > add entries). Get better at noticing new committed
> > people.
>
> Well, how do you want to do that?
Each one of us needs to add entries to status.xml
for the substantial changes. Not for every miniscule
change that an automated svn log system would do.
People can use 'svn log' for that.
On the committer front, you already know the process.
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#elect
The trouble is that existing committers are not
doing their job. It is a long time since we added
any new committers. It is up to each of us committers
to notice other deserving potential committers,
then propose them.
That is what i mean by "get better".
-David
Re: Community health
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
El sáb, 18-03-2006 a las 14:59 +1100, David Crossley escribió:
> I waited for some days to see if others would attempt
> to answer this. No-one has, so i will try.
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > I wrote a long and details reply to this, but have decided not to post
> > it. The issue is too volatile and has the makings of an argument rather
> > than a discussion. Maurice has made some very valuable observations,
> > along with some misunderstanding of my intent.
>
> Me too. Lets try to follow your new approach to
> sort it out.
>
> > Let me try and be clear about the "inventor" tagline:
> >
> > I have an issue with any claim of ownership of ASF code, not with the
> > recognition of contributions.
> >
> > I am a strong believer in the meritocracy of the ASF and how it awards
> > credit to individuals.
> >
> > A claim of being the "inventor" of community code implies ownership. I
> > do not believe this was the intent of the original commit message, only
> > an unfortunate side effect of that particular word. Thorsten has been
> > around the ASF long enough to know how it works.
> >
> > For the record I'm happy with Tims observations, as is Thorsten. Since
> > this specific instance only concerns Thorsten that can be the end of it,
> > I hope.
> >
> > However, there are more general community issues here as well, and I
> > would like to look at them. Here are three community observations (and
> > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
> >
> > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different from
> > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?
>
Hmm, what is your definition of normal?
I assume then that
http://cocoon.apache.org/history.html
http://lenya.apache.org/history.html
...
are not normal?
If not, should we not then bring this up either in a broader audience or
in this projects directly?
If it is normal, then why should Forrest be different from other ASF
projects?
> I reckon that we don't need to change anything that
> we are currently doing. If someone feels that we do,
> then they need to make an explicit proposal.
Did you not read my words and Tims about live-site?
Do you think we should write them again?
>
> There are some things that we do need to do better.
> Better use of changes.html (often we forget to
> add entries). Get better at noticing new committed
> people.
Well, how do you want to do that?
>
> > 2) We see occasional mails that seem to imply "hidden agendas" on the
> > part of others, yet never say anything directly. This is extremely
> > damaging to our community. If someone has a genuine concern it should be
> > raised in the open (or the semi-open of the PMC list if more appropriate).
>
> I can only recall two occasions and those concerns
> were quickly dispelled. Yes we need to do as you
> suggest if ever they arise again.
Well, I reckon in all communities there will occasionally such mails and
like David said we all have to dispell them quickly.
>
> > 3) For a while now this community has had periodic eruptions. Why is
> > this happening? Is it related to the above observations, or is there
> > something else?
>
> I reckon that it is due to something else.
> We are still attempting to define our project
> guidelines. This requires us to investigate some
> delicate issues. We don't see this on other
> projects such as Apache Cocoon, perhaps because
> they (we) have not yet managed to make a start
> on that obligation.
>
> Also i wonder if other projects do not talk much
> about community issues, even though that is supposed
> to be a big part of managing an ASF project.
Well, I have made the experience in other ml that communities issues are
somehow handled different and talking about it will as well produce such
eruptions.
> Sometimes those discussions go astray. I believe
> this occurs when someone has mis-interpreted another's
> comments and intent, or perhaps said something like
> "Joe said such-and-such" when that is not at all
> what Joe meant.
>
> Another reason for the eruptions is that some
> people seem to get defensive, thinking that comments
> are directed at individuals.
>
> The sooner that we get these guidelines finished
> the better. I am going to add some more to
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
> http://forrest.apache.org/committed.html
> to try to explain the "Apache Way" as it applies
> to our project and how we recognise contributions.
> Hopefully others can help to build upon that
> to reflect our intent.
The only problem I see is that it will be the "Apache Forrest Way"
as long it does not go back to the Apache main page. Further it will let other
Apache projects define the "Apache XYZ Way", I see more danger then benefits in this.
I think we rather have to address a bigger audience with our concerns.
salu2
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)