External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi,

Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.

Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.

Cheers,
Chris “board hat on” Mattmann

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:

> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>
> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality.  The ASF does not have
> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>
> What if we did the following:
> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
> 'owner' role representation.
> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
> repo.  This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it.  There are probably
> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
> be no segmentation of the community.
> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> "fork".
>
> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> direction.
>
> What do you all think?

​Will, I think it makes sense for the foundation to have a github
organisation per project, which is basically what you are saying. An
alternative might be sub- or nested organisations which I am sure, is a
thing the people at github must have thought about at some time. If
foundation policy at all allows for this we must.​



-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

Please be advised this conversation is continuing in a thread titled: Re:
External fork of Cloudstack

Mailing list link:
http://markmail.org/message/53ct2mma4x4jm6s2?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Ecloudstack-%2A+Re:+External+fork+of+Cloudstack

Please come join the conversation in that thread...

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> +1 Sounds like a plan.
>
>
>
> Paul Angus
> VP Technology   ,       ShapeBlue
>
>
> t:      @cloudyangus<te...@cloudyangus>
>
> e:      paul.angus@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com>
> |      w:      www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: John Burwell [mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:32 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> All,
>
> +1 to Will’s proposal/approach. All we are really talking about is
> rehoming the apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> The canonical repository would remain the official Apache git repository
> hosted on Apache owned hardware. Therefore, we would maintain our current
> PR merge process [1] that merges the PR branch locally and pushes it to the
> Apache git repository. If re-home the Github mirror, I think it should
> remain read-only mirror where we have the ability to grant privileges to
> our CI system to close PRs.
>
> I would also add that currently, the cloudstack organization is owned by
> individuals who happen to be Apache CloudStack PMC members and committers.
> In my opinion, in order for it to work in the long term, we would need a
> governance policy that transferred ownership to our PMC or Apache Infra.
> Our interest is not the create a fork, but provide our community with the
> ability to exploit an extremely powerful tool for collaboration and source
> management.
>
> Finally, I believing having a dedicated cloudstack Github organization may
> be a means to expand the community. Currently, we have no place to easily
> host subprojects (e.g. cloudmonkey, marvin, etc). With a dedicated
> organization, we could consider inviting other complementary projects such
> configuration management recipes/playbooks and language clients to place
> their repos in the cloudstack organization. For users, they would have a
> central, community sponsored place to find all things cloudstack and we
> further improve our collaboration with the authors/maintainers of these
> projects.
>
> In short, I think Will lays out the approach very clearly. There is **no**
> intention or action to fork Apache CloudStack. Instead, we simply want to
> re-home apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack
> without changing any other processes. Most importantly, this change can be
> made without compromising the provenance of the codebase because, as we do
> today, commits would only occur on the Apache git repo.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61311655
>
> >
>
> [ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>
> John Burwell
>
> ShapeBlue
>
>
> d:
>
> +44 (20) 3603 0542 | s: +1 (571) 403-2411
> <tel:+44%20(20)%203603%200542%20|%20s:%20+1%20(571)%20403-2411>
>
>
> e:
>
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com | t: <mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> %20|%20t:>
>
>  |
>
> w:
>
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>
>
> a:
>
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK
>
>
>
> [cid:image6929de.png@d359d3b7.49a57074]
>
>
>
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is
> a registered trademark.
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or
> opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
> upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender
> if you believe you have received this email in error.
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:
> runseb@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Top posting because keeping track is going to be hard.
> >
> >
> > Remi and I have talked several times with David about GitHub access and
> so far the answer has been no.
> >
> > There are several issues in my understanding:
> >
> > - apache on github is one single org, so if you get some write
> permission in the org then you could potentially harm other projects. that
> means that ASF needs to figure out how to use github teams to map our
> projects inside a single org (follow me…). They appear to be working on it,
> but no ETA on when this will happen.
> >
> > - location of the canonical repo. This in large a legal issue. If
> CloudStack were sued at some point, can we prove without doubt who made the
> commit. Until now, ASF has the canonical repo on its own hardware which
> means all sorts of logs including push logs. Some folks at the ASF think
> that with a project on github they would not get the same level of
> guaranteed provenance. ( I have tried to argue about it, some folks don’t
> think it is an issue, but others do).
> >
> >
> > The bottom line for me:
> >
> > -We are the ASF, the board is there for guidance but we, the communities
> and the ASF members need to tell the board what we need/want.
> >
> > -I want github, I am hearing a lot of you too.
> >
> > -We informed the board several times, David has known for a while that
> we want this. Other projects want it too (even though I don’t know which
> one).
> >
> > -cloudstack/cloudstack is just an experiment for us, like the board is
> experimenting with a Whimsy project that none of us are part of. So let’s
> work on our CI in cloudstack/cloudstack (not talking about abandoning
> apache/cloudstack) and when the board comes around to do something we will
> be ready.
> >
> > -Sebastien
> >
> >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <wstevens@cloudops.com
> <ma...@cloudops.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> >> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
> >>
> >> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> >> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
> >> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> >> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> >> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
> >>
> >> What if we did the following:
> >> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community
> have
> >> 'owner' role representation.
> >> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
> >> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> >> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> >> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> >> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to
> establish
> >> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack
> project
> >> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> >> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> >> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
> >> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure
> everything
> >> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> >> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute
> as a
> >> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there
> will
> >> be no segmentation of the community.
> >> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF
> project, so
> >> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> >> "fork".
> >>
> >> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
> >> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> >> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> >> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> >> direction.
> >>
> >> What do you all think?
> >>
> >> *Will STEVENS*
> >> Lead Developer
> >>
> >> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> >> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> >> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Ahmad Emneina <aemneina@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.
> >>>
> >>> Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
> >>> 'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to
> engage the
> >>> VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It
> appears
> >>> to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
> >>> could allow for this to be enabled.
> >>>
> >>> $0.02
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <terbolous@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >>>>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m not trying to attack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
> >>>> should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
> >>>> 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of
> our
> >>>> attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we
> >>> do?'.
> >>>>
> >>>> On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many
> >>> CloudStack
> >>>> contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
> >>>> forking the code and going their own way'. (that's my wording, not
> >>> theirs)
> >>>>
> >>>> Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date.
> Notice
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes
> etc.
> >>>> and not code changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
> >>>> (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it
> >>> comes
> >>>> to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very
> good
> >>> job
> >>>> at it.
> >>>> Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF
> >>> policies
> >>>> and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools
> necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
> >>>> specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
> >>>> surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
> >>>> I am pretty sure that I am going to.
> >>>>
> >>>> And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
> >>>> already is a better option out there.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> >>>>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> >>>>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
> >>>> Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
> >>>> CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by
> participating.
> >>>>
> >>>> In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
> >>>> Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball,
> run
> >>>> 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
> >>>> Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical
> hardware,
> >>>> network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly
> >>> pretty
> >>>> much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
> >>>>
> >>>> A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
> >>>> tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose
> discipline
> >>>> on committing to the codebase.
> >>>> Testing was optional, and hardly done.
> >>>>
> >>>> We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered
> right
> >>>> after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
> >>>> operations.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would
> have
> >>> to
> >>>> be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it,
> and
> >>>> tested by a minimum of one.
> >>>>
> >>>> And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and
> with
> >>>> far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
> >>>>
> >>>> As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes
> or
> >>>> new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
> >>>> theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
> >>>> Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR
> is
> >>> not
> >>>> going be merged.
> >>>> What kind of Community treatment is that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
> >>>> testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are two ways to do that;
> >>>> 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
> >>>> repository.
> >>>> 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions --
> none of
> >>>> which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
> >>>> That rules out option #1.
> >>>>
> >>>> This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take
> any
> >>>> grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Erik
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build/> | CSForge – rapid IaaS
> deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack
> Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid
> IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> |
> CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack
> Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>

RE: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>]

+1 Sounds like a plan.



Paul Angus
VP Technology   ,       ShapeBlue


t:      @cloudyangus<te...@cloudyangus>

e:      paul.angus@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com>        |      w:      www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>





From: John Burwell [mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:32 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

All,

+1 to Will’s proposal/approach. All we are really talking about is rehoming the apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack. The canonical repository would remain the official Apache git repository hosted on Apache owned hardware. Therefore, we would maintain our current PR merge process [1] that merges the PR branch locally and pushes it to the Apache git repository. If re-home the Github mirror, I think it should remain read-only mirror where we have the ability to grant privileges to our CI system to close PRs.

I would also add that currently, the cloudstack organization is owned by individuals who happen to be Apache CloudStack PMC members and committers. In my opinion, in order for it to work in the long term, we would need a governance policy that transferred ownership to our PMC or Apache Infra. Our interest is not the create a fork, but provide our community with the ability to exploit an extremely powerful tool for collaboration and source management.

Finally, I believing having a dedicated cloudstack Github organization may be a means to expand the community. Currently, we have no place to easily host subprojects (e.g. cloudmonkey, marvin, etc). With a dedicated organization, we could consider inviting other complementary projects such configuration management recipes/playbooks and language clients to place their repos in the cloudstack organization. For users, they would have a central, community sponsored place to find all things cloudstack and we further improve our collaboration with the authors/maintainers of these projects.

In short, I think Will lays out the approach very clearly. There is **no** intention or action to fork Apache CloudStack. Instead, we simply want to re-home apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack without changing any other processes. Most importantly, this change can be made without compromising the provenance of the codebase because, as we do today, commits would only occur on the Apache git repo.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61311655

>

[ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com>

John Burwell

ShapeBlue


d:

+44 (20) 3603 0542 | s: +1 (571) 403-2411 <tel:+44%20(20)%203603%200542%20|%20s:%20+1%20(571)%20403-2411>


e:

john.burwell@shapeblue.com | t: <mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:>

 |

w:

www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>


a:

53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK



[cid:image6929de.png@d359d3b7.49a57074]



Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.



On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Top posting because keeping track is going to be hard.
>
>
> Remi and I have talked several times with David about GitHub access and so far the answer has been no.
>
> There are several issues in my understanding:
>
> - apache on github is one single org, so if you get some write permission in the org then you could potentially harm other projects. that means that ASF needs to figure out how to use github teams to map our projects inside a single org (follow me…). They appear to be working on it, but no ETA on when this will happen.
>
> - location of the canonical repo. This in large a legal issue. If CloudStack were sued at some point, can we prove without doubt who made the commit. Until now, ASF has the canonical repo on its own hardware which means all sorts of logs including push logs. Some folks at the ASF think that with a project on github they would not get the same level of guaranteed provenance. ( I have tried to argue about it, some folks don’t think it is an issue, but others do).
>
>
> The bottom line for me:
>
> -We are the ASF, the board is there for guidance but we, the communities and the ASF members need to tell the board what we need/want.
>
> -I want github, I am hearing a lot of you too.
>
> -We informed the board several times, David has known for a while that we want this. Other projects want it too (even though I don’t know which one).
>
> -cloudstack/cloudstack is just an experiment for us, like the board is experimenting with a Whimsy project that none of us are part of. So let’s work on our CI in cloudstack/cloudstack (not talking about abandoning apache/cloudstack) and when the board comes around to do something we will be ready.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
>> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>>
>> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
>> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
>> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
>> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
>> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>>
>> What if we did the following:
>> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
>> 'owner' role representation.
>> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
>> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
>> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
>> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
>> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
>> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
>> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
>> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
>> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
>> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
>> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
>> be no segmentation of the community.
>> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
>> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
>> "fork".
>>
>> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
>> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
>> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
>> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
>> direction.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> *Will STEVENS*
>> Lead Developer
>>
>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> +BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.
>>>
>>> Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
>>> 'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to engage the
>>> VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It appears
>>> to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
>>> could allow for this to be enabled.
>>>
>>> $0.02
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not trying to attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
>>>> should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
>>>> 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
>>>> attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we
>>> do?'.
>>>>
>>>> On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many
>>> CloudStack
>>>> contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
>>>> forking the code and going their own way'. (that's my wording, not
>>> theirs)
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
>>>> anything?
>>>> Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
>>>> and not code changes.
>>>>
>>>> This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
>>>> (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it
>>> comes
>>>> to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good
>>> job
>>>> at it.
>>>> Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
>>>>
>>>> Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF
>>> policies
>>>> and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.
>>>>
>>>> When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
>>>> specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
>>>> surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
>>>> I am pretty sure that I am going to.
>>>>
>>>> And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
>>>> already is a better option out there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>>>>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>>>>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
>>>> Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
>>>> CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.
>>>>
>>>> In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
>>>> Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
>>>> 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
>>>> Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
>>>> network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly
>>> pretty
>>>> much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
>>>>
>>>> A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
>>>> tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
>>>>
>>>> Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
>>>> on committing to the codebase.
>>>> Testing was optional, and hardly done.
>>>>
>>>> We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
>>>> after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have
>>> to
>>>> be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
>>>> tested by a minimum of one.
>>>>
>>>> And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
>>>> far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
>>>> new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
>>>> theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
>>>> Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is
>>> not
>>>> going be merged.
>>>> What kind of Community treatment is that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
>>>> testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways to do that;
>>>> 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
>>>> repository.
>>>> 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
>>>>
>>>> Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
>>>> which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
>>>> That rules out option #1.
>>>>
>>>> This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
>>>> grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Erik
>>>>
>>>
>
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build/> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>]

All,

+1 to Will’s proposal/approach. All we are really talking about is rehoming the apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack. The canonical repository would remain the official Apache git repository hosted on Apache owned hardware. Therefore, we would maintain our current PR merge process [1] that merges the PR branch locally and pushes it to the Apache git repository. If re-home the Github mirror, I think it should remain read-only mirror where we have the ability to grant privileges to our CI system to close PRs.

I would also add that currently, the cloudstack organization is owned by individuals who happen to be Apache CloudStack PMC members and committers. In my opinion, in order for it to work in the long term, we would need a governance policy that transferred ownership to our PMC or Apache Infra. Our interest is not the create a fork, but provide our community with the ability to exploit an extremely powerful tool for collaboration and source management.

Finally, I believing having a dedicated cloudstack Github organization may be a means to expand the community. Currently, we have no place to easily host subprojects (e.g. cloudmonkey, marvin, etc). With a dedicated organization, we could consider inviting other complementary projects such configuration management recipes/playbooks and language clients to place their repos in the cloudstack organization. For users, they would have a central, community sponsored place to find all things cloudstack and we further improve our collaboration with the authors/maintainers of these projects.

In short, I think Will lays out the approach very clearly. There is **no** intention or action to fork Apache CloudStack. Instead, we simply want to re-home apache/cloudstack repository mirror to cloudstack/cloudstack without changing any other processes. Most importantly, this change can be made without compromising the provenance of the codebase because, as we do today, commits would only occur on the Apache git repo.

Thanks,
-John

[1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61311655

>

[ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com>
John Burwell
ShapeBlue

d:      +44 (20) 3603 0542 | s: +1 (571) 403-2411 <tel:+44%20(20)%203603%200542%20|%20s:%20+1%20(571)%20403-2411>

e:      john.burwell@shapeblue.com | t: <mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:>     |      w:      www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>

a:      53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK


[cid:image6929de.png@d359d3b7.49a57074]


Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.




On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Top posting because keeping track is going to be hard.
>
>
> Remi and I have talked several times with David about GitHub access and so far the answer has been no.
>
> There are several issues in my understanding:
>
> - apache on github is one single org, so if you get some write permission in the org then you could potentially harm other projects. that means that ASF needs to figure out how to use github teams to map our projects inside a single org (follow me…). They appear to be working on it, but no ETA on when this will happen.
>
> - location of the canonical repo. This in large a legal issue. If CloudStack were sued at some point, can we prove without doubt who made the commit. Until now, ASF has the canonical repo on its own hardware which means all sorts of logs including push logs. Some folks at the ASF think that with a project on github they would not get the same level of guaranteed provenance. ( I have tried to argue about it, some folks don’t think it is an issue, but others do).
>
>
> The bottom line for me:
>
> -We are the ASF, the board is there for guidance but we, the communities and the ASF members need to tell the board what we need/want.
>
> -I want github, I am hearing a lot of you too.
>
> -We informed the board several times, David has known for a while that we want this. Other projects want it too (even though I don’t know which one).
>
> -cloudstack/cloudstack is just an experiment for us, like the board is experimenting with a Whimsy project that none of us are part of. So let’s work on our CI in cloudstack/cloudstack (not talking about abandoning apache/cloudstack) and when the board comes around to do something we will be ready.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
>>
>> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
>> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
>>
>> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
>> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality. The ASF does not have
>> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
>> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
>> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
>>
>> What if we did the following:
>> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
>> 'owner' role representation.
>> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
>> repo. This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
>> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
>> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
>> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
>> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
>> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
>> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it. There are probably
>> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
>> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
>> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
>> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
>> be no segmentation of the community.
>> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
>> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
>> "fork".
>>
>> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
>> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
>> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
>> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
>> direction.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> *Will STEVENS*
>> Lead Developer
>>
>> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.
>>>
>>> Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
>>> 'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to engage the
>>> VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It appears
>>> to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
>>> could allow for this to be enabled.
>>>
>>> $0.02
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m not trying to attack.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
>>>> should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
>>>> 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
>>>> attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we
>>> do?'.
>>>>
>>>> On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many
>>> CloudStack
>>>> contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
>>>> forking the code and going their own way'. (that's my wording, not
>>> theirs)
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
>>>> anything?
>>>> Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
>>>> and not code changes.
>>>>
>>>> This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
>>>> (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it
>>> comes
>>>> to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good
>>> job
>>>> at it.
>>>> Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
>>>>
>>>> Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF
>>> policies
>>>> and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.
>>>>
>>>> When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
>>>> specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
>>>> surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
>>>> I am pretty sure that I am going to.
>>>>
>>>> And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
>>>> already is a better option out there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>>>>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>>>>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
>>>> Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
>>>> CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.
>>>>
>>>> In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
>>>> Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
>>>> 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
>>>> Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
>>>> network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly
>>> pretty
>>>> much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
>>>>
>>>> A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
>>>> tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
>>>>
>>>> Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
>>>> on committing to the codebase.
>>>> Testing was optional, and hardly done.
>>>>
>>>> We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
>>>> after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have
>>> to
>>>> be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
>>>> tested by a minimum of one.
>>>>
>>>> And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
>>>> far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
>>>> new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
>>>> theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
>>>> Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is
>>> not
>>>> going be merged.
>>>> What kind of Community treatment is that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
>>>> testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways to do that;
>>>> 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
>>>> repository.
>>>> 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
>>>>
>>>> Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
>>>> which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
>>>> That rules out option #1.
>>>>
>>>> This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
>>>> grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Erik
>>>>
>>>
>

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>]

Top posting because keeping track is going to be hard.


Remi and I have talked several times with David about GitHub access and so far the answer has been no.

There are several issues in my understanding:

- apache on github is one single org, so if you get some write permission in the org then you could potentially harm other projects. that means that ASF needs to figure out how to use github teams to map our projects inside a single org (follow me…). They appear to be working on it, but no ETA on when this will happen.

- location of the canonical repo. This in large a legal issue. If CloudStack were sued at some point, can we prove without doubt who made the commit. Until now, ASF has the canonical repo on its own hardware which means all sorts of logs including push logs. Some folks at the ASF think that with a project on github they would not get the same level of guaranteed provenance. ( I have tried to argue about it, some folks don’t think it is an issue, but others do).


The bottom line for me:

-We are the ASF, the board is there for guidance but we, the communities and the ASF members need to tell the board what we need/want.

-I want github, I am hearing a lot of you too.

-We informed the board several times, David has known for a while that we want this. Other projects want it too (even though I don’t know which one).

-cloudstack/cloudstack is just an experiment for us, like the board is experimenting with a Whimsy project that none of us are part of. So let’s work on our CI in cloudstack/cloudstack (not talking about abandoning apache/cloudstack) and when the board comes around to do something we will be ready.

-Sebastien

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:37 AM, Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> 
> I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
> likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.
> 
> Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
> integrate CI in order to maintain code quality.  The ASF does not have
> enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
> apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
> entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.
> 
> What if we did the following:
> - Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
> 'owner' role representation.
> - The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
> repo.  This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
> apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
> - This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
> the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
> without being bound by its implications on other projects.
> - The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
> cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it.  There are probably
> some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
> is consistent with the ASF requirements.
> - There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
> community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
> be no segmentation of the community.
> - The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
> no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
> "fork".
> 
> I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
> are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
> viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
> requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
> direction.
> 
> What do you all think?
> 
> *Will STEVENS*
> Lead Developer
> 
> *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> +BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.
>> 
>> Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
>> 'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to engage the
>> VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It appears
>> to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
>> could allow for this to be enabled.
>> 
>> $0.02
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not trying to attack.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
>>> should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
>>> 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
>>> attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we
>> do?'.
>>> 
>>> On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many
>> CloudStack
>>> contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
>>> forking the code and going their own way'.  (that's my wording, not
>> theirs)
>>> 
>>> Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
>>> anything?
>>> Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
>>> and not code changes.
>>> 
>>> This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
>>> (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it
>> comes
>>> to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good
>> job
>>> at it.
>>> Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
>>> 
>>> Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF
>> policies
>>> and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.
>>> 
>>> When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
>>> specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
>>> surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
>>> I am pretty sure that I am going to.
>>> 
>>> And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
>>> already is a better option out there.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>>>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>>>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
>>> Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
>>> CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.
>>> 
>>> In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
>>> Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
>>> 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
>>> Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
>>> network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly
>> pretty
>>> much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
>>> 
>>> A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
>>> tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
>>> 
>>> Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
>>> on committing to the codebase.
>>> Testing was optional, and hardly done.
>>> 
>>> We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
>>> after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
>>> operations.
>>> 
>>> For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have
>> to
>>> be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
>>> tested by a minimum of one.
>>> 
>>> And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
>>> far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
>>> 
>>> As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
>>> new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
>>> 
>>> Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
>>> theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
>>> Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is
>> not
>>> going be merged.
>>> What kind of Community treatment is that?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
>>> testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
>>> 
>>> There are two ways to do that;
>>> 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
>>> repository.
>>> 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
>>> 
>>> Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
>>> which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
>>> That rules out option #1.
>>> 
>>> This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
>>> grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Erik
>>> 
>> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

I may be thinking too far outside the box, but hear me out as this is
likely the best way to satisfy everyone's requirements.

Recap: The community needs additional github permissions in order to
integrate CI in order to maintain code quality.  The ASF does not have
enough granular control via github to give permissions on the
apache/cloudstack repository without giving the permissions across the
entire github apache org, which they are presently not comfortable with.

What if we did the following:
- Setup the 'cloudstack' github org so both the ASF and the community have
'owner' role representation.
- The apache/cloudstack repo is transferred to the cloudstack/cloudstack
repo.  This will move all of the PRs and everything over to the
cloudstack/cloudstack repo and will also setup redirection from
apache/cloudstack to cloudstack/cloudstack.
- This allows for the ASF and the community to work together to establish
the github permissions which make the most sense for the cloudstack project
without being bound by its implications on other projects.
- The official ASF repo would still be the source of truth and the
cloudstack/cloudstack repo would be a mirror of it.  There are probably
some details in this that we will need to address to make sure everything
is consistent with the ASF requirements.
- There will only be one cloudstack repository on which to contribute as a
community member, so there will be no confusion introduced and there will
be no segmentation of the community.
- The cloudstack/cloudstack repo would still be an official ASF project, so
no need for rebranding or worrying about the unpleasant logistics of a
"fork".

I am sure I have not thought through all the details and I am sure there
are some gotchas that we have to sort out, but I think this is a real
viable stepping stone towards being able to satisfy both parties
requirements while keeping the community strong and headed in the same
direction.

What do you all think?

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.
>
> Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
> 'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to engage the
> VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It appears
> to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
> could allow for this to be enabled.
>
> $0.02
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> > > >> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> > > >
> > > >I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> > >
> > > I’m not trying to attack.
> > >
> > >
> > This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
> > should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
> > 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
> > attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we
> do?'.
> >
> > On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many
> CloudStack
> > contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
> > forking the code and going their own way'.  (that's my wording, not
> theirs)
> >
> > Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
> > anything?
> > Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
> > and not code changes.
> >
> > This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
> > (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it
> comes
> > to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good
> job
> > at it.
> > Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
> >
> > Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF
> policies
> > and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.
> >
> > When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
> > specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
> > surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
> > I am pretty sure that I am going to.
> >
> > And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
> > already is a better option out there.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> > > is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> > > attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> > >
> > >
> > The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
> > Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
> > CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.
> >
> > In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
> > Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
> > 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
> > Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
> > network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly
> pretty
> > much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
> >
> > A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
> > tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
> >
> > Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
> > on committing to the codebase.
> > Testing was optional, and hardly done.
> >
> > We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
> > after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
> > operations.
> >
> > For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have
> to
> > be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
> > tested by a minimum of one.
> >
> > And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
> > far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
> >
> > As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
> > new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
> >
> > Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
> > theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
> > Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is
> not
> > going be merged.
> > What kind of Community treatment is that?
> >
> >
> > The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
> > testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
> >
> > There are two ways to do that;
> > 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
> > repository.
> > 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
> >
> > Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
> > which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
> > That rules out option #1.
> >
> > This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
> > grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik
> >
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>]

+BCC: David Nalley for possible guidance.

Apache infra stated that 'The VP' dictated the policy to not allow
'repo:status' across the board for projects. Has anyone tried to engage the
VP, in order to get them to have a closer look at this policy? It appears
to be no way to exploit that function maliciously... so hopefully they
could allow for this to be enabled.

$0.02

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > >> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> > >> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> > >
> > >I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >
> > I’m not trying to attack.
> >
> >
> This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
> should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
> 'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
> attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we do?'.
>
> On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many CloudStack
> contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
> forking the code and going their own way'.  (that's my wording, not theirs)
>
> Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
> anything?
> Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
> and not code changes.
>
> This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
> (there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it comes
> to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good job
> at it.
> Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.
>
> Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF policies
> and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.
>
> When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
> specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
> surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
> I am pretty sure that I am going to.
>
> And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
> already is a better option out there.
>
>
>
> > I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> > is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> > attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >
> >
> The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
> Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
> CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.
>
> In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
> Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
> 'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
> Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
> network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly pretty
> much every hypervisor that is being used out there.
>
> A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
> tests a small fraction of the total codebase.
>
> Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
> on committing to the codebase.
> Testing was optional, and hardly done.
>
> We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
> after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
> operations.
>
> For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have to
> be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
> tested by a minimum of one.
>
> And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
> far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).
>
> As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
> new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.
>
> Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
> theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
> Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is not
> going be merged.
> What kind of Community treatment is that?
>
>
> The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
> testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.
>
> There are two ways to do that;
> 1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack
> repository.
> 2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.
>
> Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
> which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
> That rules out option #1.
>
> This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
> grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429
>
>
> --
> Erik
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> >> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >
> >I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>
> I’m not trying to attack.
>
>
This is not the result of people getting together and saying 'hey, we
should fork and work somewhere else, that'd be fun!', but rather
'hey, we are currently unable to do what we need to do, and none of our
attempts of getting assistance have resulted in anything. what can we do?'.

On January 27th 2016, Schuberg Philis (SBP), a company with many CloudStack
contributors/committers/pmcs, announced that they are 'jumping ship,
forking the code and going their own way'.  (that's my wording, not theirs)

Take a look at our git commit history before and after that date. Notice
anything?
Most, if not all, are trivial commits to fix typos, simple mistakes etc.
and not code changes.

This may be rude to everyone else, but the fact is that after 4.5 SBP
(there are a few exceptions) has done more or less everything when it comes
to testing code and gatekeeping the code base. And they did a very good job
at it.
Frankly I am surprised they even coped with it that long.

Apache CloudStack now has a fork (Cosmic), that's not bound by ASF policies
and it's lack of progress when it comes to providing the tools necessary.

When (or if -- with their own governing they don't have to call it a
specific version) SBP release an official version of Cosmic, it would
surprise me if not a lot of CloudStack users would atleast try it out.
I am pretty sure that I am going to.

And wha-bang, there (potentially) goes your community, because there
already is a better option out there.



> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>
>
The answer would most likely be 'anyone and everyone'.
Contrary to what you might believe, this is being done to /help/
CloudStack, not hurt it. Atleast that is my intention by participating.

In case you are unfamiliar with Apache CloudStack, it is a beast.
Unlike many typical ASF projects you cannot just unpack the tarball, run
'make test', wait a few minutes and have it properly tested.
Testing Apache CloudStack requires a broad variety of physical hardware,
network appliances, storage solutions and least but most importantly pretty
much every hypervisor that is being used out there.

A subset of the test tasks we have take multiple hours to run and only
tests a small fraction of the total codebase.

Pre 4.6, the Apache CloudStack community had a little to loose discipline
on committing to the codebase.
Testing was optional, and hardly done.

We had multiple versions that had major flaws in them, discovered right
after release as people tried to use it -- even for the most basic
operations.

For the 4.6 release we decided that from now on, every commit would have to
be looked through by two different persons, saying they approve it, and
tested by a minimum of one.

And it worked, the voting process improved, we released rapidly and with
far less issues than previously (no software is bug free after all).

As mentioned, we require that code changes (be it improvements, fixes or
new features) are tested before they are allowed to be committed.

Which means that anyone wanting to interact (with code) have to do it
theirselves at the moment, and that is _NOT_ an easy task.
Which again means that no matter how good your intention is, your PR is not
going be merged.
What kind of Community treatment is that?


The way I see it there is only one solution to this -- we need better
testing, and to automate that we need more access to GitHub.

There are two ways to do that;
1) By being granted certain permissions to the apache/cloudstack repository.
2) By doing it somewhere else where we have those permissions.

Will Stevens asked infra [1] for a small subset of permissions -- none of
which should be any real risk for disasters, and got rejected.
That rules out option #1.

This turned out to be a long, and emotional email, please don't take any
grunts personally -- they are not meant to be.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11429


-- 
Erik

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>]

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:23 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> “cloudstack” is a trademark of the ASF.
> 
> 
> ​ok, good. I thought is was refused on the grounds of being to generic a
> term.​
> 
> 

something too check with VP brand. AFAIK, Cloudstack is a tradermark of ASF but not registered (because it’s too broad).

which potentially means anyone could take it..I know ASF was reluctant to pay $5k to finish the legal stuff at some point.

> 
> -- 
> Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:23 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> “cloudstack” is a trademark of the ASF.


​ok, good. I thought is was refused on the grounds of being to generic a
term.​



-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>]

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> As to forks being against Apache
>> policy, forks are not, however forks that use the Apache e.g.,
>> namespace, that have the Apache logo, that use the Apache name for
>> the project *are* against Apache policy. If it’s a fork, it needs
>> a new name, it
>> ​...
>> 
> 
> ​I am afraid the name cloudstack is open for use by anyone! Apache
> CloudStack is not and that we can act upon.​ I am not sure about the
> cloudstack specific apache logo but of course it can not use the feather.
> 
> 

No Daan, “cloudstack” is a trademark of the ASF.

> -- 
> Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:

> As to forks being against Apache
> policy, forks are not, however forks that use the Apache e.g.,
> namespace, that have the Apache logo, that use the Apache name for
> the project *are* against Apache policy. If it’s a fork, it needs
> a new name, it
> ​...
>

​I am afraid the name cloudstack is open for use by anyone! Apache
CloudStack is not and that we can act upon.​ I am not sure about the
cloudstack specific apache logo but of course it can not use the feather.


-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>]

OK, last comment for a bit, sorry for the top post, going to try
and mix 2 replies in 1 email.

To Sebastien:

It’s more than just permissions - it’s where people *go to* and
*believe* that the community making the code is at. In all of your
statements, that community will be cloudstack/cloudstack by virtue
of all the whiz-bang things you all will have access to there
provided by GitHub, but not managed by Apache. I can easily see a
situation where the activity shifts to there b/c of all the control
those that manage cloudstack/cloudstack will have. Realize that
control is outside of the ASF purview which is set up to ensure
that the *community* is at the ASF on ASF hardware and that people
aren’t disadvantaged when e.g., they come to the project mailing
list (at Apache) and that they can pick up and know what’s going
on. I’m telling you that AFAIK, if you go off on cloudstack/cloudstack
and do a ton of work there, it will not go to the ASF list, and
further, those that appear on the ASF CloudStack list will have
access to, but will be most likely far behind of, what’s actually
went on. They can see what *went on*, but not participate in it as
*it’s going on* if our core message to them is *this community is
at Apache, you can go to the dev list, figure out what’s going on,
participate there as it’s happening*.

To Daan:

Thanks for your email. It’s not just the PMC that is the community
of Apache CloudStack. It’s those members that aren’t PMC yet or
committer, or people that want to jump on the dev list and figure
out how to contribute.  You’ve now made it harder for *them* to
participate per all my comments in this thread and you’ve now
confused *them* as to what’s the gold source or canonical repo, and
what’s not, etc. That’s the point. As to forks being against Apache
policy, forks are not, however forks that use the Apache e.g.,
namespace, that have the Apache logo, that use the Apache name for
the project *are* against Apache policy. If it’s a fork, it needs
a new name, it needs to be managed in a different way and it’s *not*
an Apache project. Is that the road you want to go down?

Glad to see you that you are interested in keeping the project under
the Apache umbrella and I’m here trying to help and participate
since I was part of the discussion at the board meeting yesterday.

Cheers, 
Chris “no emails for a while” Mattmann






-----Original Message-----
From: sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:43 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

>
>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
>><ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
>> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
>> 
>> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
>> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
>> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
>> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
>> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.
>
>That statement is very strange to me.
>
>Membership in a github organization just sets privileges. Anyone can
>participate.
>Just like we currently have people with karma on wiki and jira or
>committers and non committers.
>
>What is disadvantageous is not being able to use the tools we want to use.
>
>> 
>> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>pull
>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> 
>>> As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
>>> help with developer workflow and CI.
>>> 
>>> To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in
>>>the
>>> canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
>>> apache/cloudstack).
>>> 
>>> This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
>>> issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>>> 
>>> I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
>>> and going off in a different direction.
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>> pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>> 
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [..]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>>> 
>>>> We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>>> and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>>> 
>>> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>>> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>>> I’ll get back to later in this message.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us
>>>>contacted
>>>> github and we got the “control” of it.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>>>> active GitHub issue,
>>>> 
>>>> As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>>> [..snip..]
>>>> To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>>> [..snip..]
>>>> Be able to use labels
>>>> Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>>> 
>>> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>>> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>>> 
>>> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>>> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>>> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>>> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>>> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>>> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>>> you can take my response until then.
>>> 
>>>> [..snip..]
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>>> 
>>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>>> 
>>> I’m not trying to attack.
>>> 
>>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>>> 
>>> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>>> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>>> 
>>>> [..snip..]
>>>> Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>>> productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>>> 
>>>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>>> hardware.
>>>> 
>>>> And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>>> 
>>> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF
>>>Infra@
>>> and based on
>>> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of
>>>the
>>> board
>>> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
>>>other
>>> PMCs
>>> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>>> potential
>>> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>>> capability
>>> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>>> canonical
>>>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
>>>>> the
>>>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment
>>>>>with
>>>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is
>>>>>still
>>>>> an
>>>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>>> 
>>> Not at this time.
>>> 
>>>> [..snip..]
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>>> board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after
>>>>seeing
>>>> our report ?
>>>> I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>>> the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>>> 
>>> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>>> that
>>> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based
>>>on
>>> the
>>> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>>> long-time
>>> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I
>>>have
>>> seen
>>> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>>> that there
>>> is something more than meets the eye here.
>>> 
>>> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>>> community besides
>>> the two of us.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>>> pull
>>>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>>> threads.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>>> interim
>>>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>>> Ruby
>>>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>>> feel
>>>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>]

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
> 
> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.

That statement is very strange to me.

Membership in a github organization just sets privileges. Anyone can participate.
Just like we currently have people with karma on wiki and jira or committers and non committers.

What is disadvantageous is not being able to use the tools we want to use.

> 
> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> 
>> As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
>> help with developer workflow and CI.
>> 
>> To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
>> canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
>> apache/cloudstack).
>> 
>> This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
>> issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>> 
>> I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
>> and going off in a different direction.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>> pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> 
>> Hi Sebastien,
>> 
>> 
>> [..]
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>> 
>>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>> 
>>> We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>> and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>> 
>> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>> I’ll get back to later in this message.
>> 
>>> 
>>> The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>>> github and we got the “control” of it.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>>> active GitHub issue,
>>> 
>>> As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>> [..snip..]
>>> To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>> [..snip..]
>>> Be able to use labels
>>> Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>> 
>> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>> 
>>> Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>> 
>> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>> you can take my response until then.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>> 
>>> 
>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>> 
>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>> 
>> I’m not trying to attack.
>> 
>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>> 
>> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>>> Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>> productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>> 
>>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>> hardware.
>>> 
>>> And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>> 
>> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
>> and based on
>> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
>> board
>> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
>> PMCs
>> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>> potential
>> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>> capability
>> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>> canonical
>>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
>>>> the
>>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>>> an
>>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>> 
>> Not at this time.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>> board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>>> our report ?
>>> I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>> the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>> 
>> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>> that
>> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
>> the
>> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>> long-time
>> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
>> seen
>> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>> that there
>> is something more than meets the eye here.
>> 
>> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>> community besides
>> the two of us.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>> pull
>>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>> threads.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
>>>>> you
>>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>> interim
>>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>> Ruby
>>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
>>>>> and
>>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>> feel
>>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

Chris,

I don't see how cloudstack/cloudstack can be a problem to the foudation
except for the PMC as they will be left with managing keeping it in sync.

I also don't see how a fork can be against apache policy as anyone is
allowed to fork the software at any time. We as PMC are no exception
(wisdom left out of the equation)

thirdly, As for the concern on whether these moves are done by 'part of the
PMC' or not: I think I can savely say I am one of the proponent of keeping
as much under the foundation umbrella as possible but I have hear no sounds
of anybody opposing the ongoing experiments.

I am happy to see board member mixing in our discussions from time to time.
Trying not to sound like I am complaining now, I wouldn't complain if it
happened a bit more often. BTW I have had problems adding an issue to
cloudstack/cloudstack as well, but I guess that's me not being a github
guru.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
wrote:

> I see your concern, Chris.
>
> Yes, the community will continue to discuss. Hopefully others will join in
> with their views.
> ________________________________________
> From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:16 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
>
> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> >As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
> >help with developer workflow and CI.
> >
> >To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
> >canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
> >apache/cloudstack).
> >
> >This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
> >issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
> >
> >I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
> >and going off in a different direction.
> >________________________________________
> >From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >
> >Hi Sebastien,
> >
> >
> >[..]
> >>>
> >>> Hi Sebastien,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> >>>
> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
> >>
> >>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
> >>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
> >
> >OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> >the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> >I’ll get back to later in this message.
> >
> >>
> >>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
> >>github and we got the “control” of it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> >>> active GitHub issue,
> >>
> >>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
> >>[..snip..]
> >>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> >[..snip..]
> >>Be able to use labels
> >>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
> >
> >David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> >cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
> >>
> >>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
> >
> >Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> >until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> >my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> >going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> >PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> >response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> >you can take my response until then.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >
> >>
> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >>
> >>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >
> >I’m not trying to attack.
> >
> >I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> >is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> >attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >
> >I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> >speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
> >>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
> >>
> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
> >>>hardware.
> >>
> >>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
> >
> >Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> >and based on
> >discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
> >board
> >meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
> other
> >PMCs
> >as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> >potential
> >other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> >capability
> >is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
> >
> >>
> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
> >>>canonical
> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
> >>>the
> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
> >>>an
> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
> >
> >Not at this time.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >>>
> >>
> >>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
> >>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
> >>our report ?
> >>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
> >>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
> >
> >I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> >that
> >I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> >the
> >meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> >long-time
> >ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
> >seen
> >by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> >that there
> >is something more than meets the eye here.
> >
> >Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> >community besides
> >the two of us.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >>>pull
> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
> >>>>threads.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
> >>>>you
> >>>> are a member of the ASF board.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
> >>>>interim
> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
> >>>>Ruby
> >>>> couple days ago only.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
> >>>>and
> >>>> that we will hear from the board then.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
> >>>>feel
> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> -Sebastien
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

["Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>]

I see your concern, Chris.

Yes, the community will continue to discuss. Hopefully others will join in with their views.
________________________________________
From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:16 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

Hi Mike,

Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the

repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.

Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

>As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
>help with developer workflow and CI.
>
>To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
>canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
>apache/cloudstack).
>
>This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
>issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>
>I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
>and going off in a different direction.
>________________________________________
>From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
>Hi Sebastien,
>
>
>[..]
>>>
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>
>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>
>>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>
>OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>I’ll get back to later in this message.
>
>>
>>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>>github and we got the “control” of it.
>>
>>>
>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>> active GitHub issue,
>>
>>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>[..snip..]
>>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>[..snip..]
>>Be able to use labels
>>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>
>David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>
>>
>>
>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>
>>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>
>Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>you can take my response until then.
>
>>[..snip..]
>
>>
>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>
>>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>
>I’m not trying to attack.
>
>I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>
>I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>
>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>hardware.
>>
>>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>
>Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
>and based on
>discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
>board
>meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
>PMCs
>as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>potential
>other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>capability
>is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>
>>
>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>canonical
>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
>>>the
>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>>an
>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>>
>>
>>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>
>Not at this time.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>>
>>
>>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>>our report ?
>>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>
>I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>that
>I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
>the
>meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>long-time
>ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
>seen
>by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>that there
>is something more than meets the eye here.
>
>Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>community besides
>the two of us.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>pull
>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>threads.
>>>>
>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
>>>>you
>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>
>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>interim
>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>Ruby
>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>
>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
>>>>and
>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>feel
>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

I think what most of us are trying to achieve is the ability for the code
to remain in sync, while getting access to the Github features we so
desperately need.

This is obviously a difficult problem for everyone involved and I respect
that.  A healthy debate on this is the only way we are going to be able to
align the ASF requirements with the community needs.  I appreciate the
ASF's need for transparency and control in these matters, but I hope the
ASF appreciates our need for CI and getting systems in place to be able to
consistently validate the quality of the code getting committed.  We, the
community, are the ones who are directly impacted by the lack of CI
integrations to ensure the quality is maintained.

Creating a fork where we have to change the branding, etc, is really the
worst of both worlds IMO.  First, we have already diverged the source
because the branding has changed.  It would create confusing in the
community, which you have rightfully pointed out, and makes it harder for
us to know where we should be 'contributing'.  I think we should try to
avoid this if at all possible because it is not in anyone's best interest.

That being said, I don't get the impression that the ASF is willing to come
to the table to actually work with us to overcome the very real challenges
we are facing.  We are actively working to find a solution which respects
the ASF requirements, but so far, this has not produced any suggestions for
how we can move forward with a solution that addresses our needs.

Keep in mind that these are my opinions and others may have different
ideas, but we are all working towards the success of this project.

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Will,
>
> Cloudstack is more than just the code and its mirroring. It’s the
> community and the ability for those to participate. The issues that
> occur at cloudstack/cloudstack will not be mirrored to the ASF; the
> convo won’t be mirrored, and least of all the people and their belief
> in the branding of cloudstack/cloudstack as the “canonical” repo for
> apache/cloudstack is what I’m talking about. If someone told me,
> oh you can do X, Y, Z GitHub stuff at cloudstack/cloustack, and that’s
> where all the automated testing, liveliness is, all the people working
> on it, that’s basically by definition a fork, and a moving/shifting
> of the community.
>
> There isn’t really any other way to describe it.
>
> As for your question about mirroring apache/cloudstack to
> cloudstack/cloudstack I don’t believe we support that currently.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
> <ws...@cloudops.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> >I am not sure I understand how people wanting to participate with Apache
> >Cloudstack would ever be at a disadvantage, it would still all be the same
> >code base.  The changes in cloudstack/cloudstack would get pushed to the
> >ASF repo and would then get mirrored to the apache/cloudstack repo, so
> >they
> >would all be in sync.
> >
> >Out of curiosity, is it possible to have ASF mirror to apache/cloudstack
> >(as it currently does) and then have apache/cloudstack mirror to
> >cloudstack/cloudstack?  This way to can guarantee that the ASF repo is the
> >canonical repo, while also being able to take advantage of an improved dev
> >workflow and the integration of distributed CI environments.
> >
> >
> >
> >*Will STEVENS*
> >Lead Developer
> >
> >*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> >420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
> >w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
> >
> >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> >chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
> >> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
> >>
> >> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
> >> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
> >> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
> >> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
> >> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.
> >>
> >> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> >> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
> >> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >>pull
> >> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >>
> >> >As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
> >> >help with developer workflow and CI.
> >> >
> >> >To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in
> >>the
> >> >canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
> >> >apache/cloudstack).
> >> >
> >> >This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
> >> >issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
> >> >
> >> >I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
> >> >and going off in a different direction.
> >> >________________________________________
> >> >From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> >> >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> >Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >> >pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >> >
> >> >Hi Sebastien,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[..]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Sebastien,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> >> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> >> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> >> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> >> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
> >> >>
> >> >>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
> >> >>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
> >> >
> >> >OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> >> >the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> >> >I’ll get back to later in this message.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us
> >>contacted
> >> >>github and we got the “control” of it.
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> >> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> >> >>> active GitHub issue,
> >> >>
> >> >>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
> >> >>[..snip..]
> >> >>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> >> >[..snip..]
> >> >>Be able to use labels
> >> >>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
> >> >
> >> >David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> >> >cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a
> >>request
> >> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> >> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
> >> >>
> >> >>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
> >> >
> >> >Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> >> >until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> >> >my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> >> >going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> >> >PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> >> >response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> >> >you can take my response until then.
> >> >
> >> >>[..snip..]
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >> >>
> >> >>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >> >
> >> >I’m not trying to attack.
> >> >
> >> >I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> >> >is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> >> >attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >> >
> >> >I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> >> >speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
> >> >
> >> >>[..snip..]
> >> >>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
> >> >>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy
> >>of
> >> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
> >> >>>hardware.
> >> >>
> >> >>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
> >> >
> >> >Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF
> >>Infra@
> >> >and based on
> >> >discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of
> >>the
> >> >board
> >> >meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
> >> other
> >> >PMCs
> >> >as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> >> >potential
> >> >other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> >> >capability
> >> >is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
> >> >>>canonical
> >> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment
> >>with
> >> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is
> >>still
> >> >>>an
> >> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
> >> >
> >> >Not at this time.
> >> >
> >> >>[..snip..]
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
> >> >>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after
> >>seeing
> >> >>our report ?
> >> >>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
> >> >>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
> >> >
> >> >I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> >> >that
> >> >I have support of other board members in asking these questions based
> >>on
> >> >the
> >> >meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> >> >long-time
> >> >ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I
> >>have
> >> >seen
> >> >by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> >> >that there
> >> >is something more than meets the eye here.
> >> >
> >> >Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> >> >community besides
> >> >the two of us.
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >Chris
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Chris
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> >> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub]
> >>cloudstack
> >> >>>pull
> >> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
> >> >>>>threads.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
> >> >>>>you
> >> >>>> are a member of the ASF board.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
> >> >>>>interim
> >> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by
> >>Sam
> >> >>>>Ruby
> >> >>>> couple days ago only.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
> >> >>>>and
> >> >>>> that we will hear from the board then.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly
> we
> >> >>>>feel
> >> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Best,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Sebastien
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> >> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> >> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> >> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> >> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Cheers,
> >> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi Will,

Cloudstack is more than just the code and its mirroring. It’s the
community and the ability for those to participate. The issues that
occur at cloudstack/cloudstack will not be mirrored to the ASF; the
convo won’t be mirrored, and least of all the people and their belief
in the branding of cloudstack/cloudstack as the “canonical” repo for
apache/cloudstack is what I’m talking about. If someone told me,
oh you can do X, Y, Z GitHub stuff at cloudstack/cloustack, and that’s
where all the automated testing, liveliness is, all the people working
on it, that’s basically by definition a fork, and a moving/shifting
of the community.

There isn’t really any other way to describe it.

As for your question about mirroring apache/cloudstack to
cloudstack/cloudstack I don’t believe we support that currently.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: <wi...@gmail.com> on behalf of Will Stevens
<ws...@cloudops.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

>I am not sure I understand how people wanting to participate with Apache
>Cloudstack would ever be at a disadvantage, it would still all be the same
>code base.  The changes in cloudstack/cloudstack would get pushed to the
>ASF repo and would then get mirrored to the apache/cloudstack repo, so
>they
>would all be in sync.
>
>Out of curiosity, is it possible to have ASF mirror to apache/cloudstack
>(as it currently does) and then have apache/cloudstack mirror to
>cloudstack/cloudstack?  This way to can guarantee that the ASF repo is the
>canonical repo, while also being able to take advantage of an improved dev
>workflow and the integration of distributed CI environments.
>
>
>
>*Will STEVENS*
>Lead Developer
>
>*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>
>On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
>> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
>>
>> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
>> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
>> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
>> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
>> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.
>>
>> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>pull
>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>
>> >As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
>> >help with developer workflow and CI.
>> >
>> >To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in
>>the
>> >canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
>> >apache/cloudstack).
>> >
>> >This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
>> >issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>> >
>> >I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
>> >and going off in a different direction.
>> >________________________________________
>> >From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>> >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>> >pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> >
>> >Hi Sebastien,
>> >
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Sebastien,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>> >>>
>> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>> >>
>> >>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>> >>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>> >
>> >OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>> >the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>> >I’ll get back to later in this message.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us
>>contacted
>> >>github and we got the “control” of it.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>> >>> active GitHub issue,
>> >>
>> >>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>> >>[..snip..]
>> >>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>> >[..snip..]
>> >>Be able to use labels
>> >>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>> >
>> >David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>> >cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a
>>request
>> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>> >>
>> >>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>> >
>> >Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>> >until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>> >my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>> >going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>> >PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>> >response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>> >you can take my response until then.
>> >
>> >>[..snip..]
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>> >>
>> >>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>> >
>> >I’m not trying to attack.
>> >
>> >I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>> >is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>> >attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>> >
>> >I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>> >speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>> >
>> >>[..snip..]
>> >>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>> >>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>> >>
>> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy
>>of
>> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>> >>>hardware.
>> >>
>> >>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>> >
>> >Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF
>>Infra@
>> >and based on
>> >discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of
>>the
>> >board
>> >meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
>> other
>> >PMCs
>> >as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>> >potential
>> >other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>> >capability
>> >is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>> >>>canonical
>> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
>> >>>the
>> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment
>>with
>> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is
>>still
>> >>>an
>> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>> >
>> >Not at this time.
>> >
>> >>[..snip..]
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>> >>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after
>>seeing
>> >>our report ?
>> >>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>> >>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>> >
>> >I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>> >that
>> >I have support of other board members in asking these questions based
>>on
>> >the
>> >meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>> >long-time
>> >ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I
>>have
>> >seen
>> >by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>> >that there
>> >is something more than meets the eye here.
>> >
>> >Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>> >community besides
>> >the two of us.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Chris
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Chris
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub]
>>cloudstack
>> >>>pull
>> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Chris,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>> >>>>threads.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
>> >>>>you
>> >>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>> >>>>interim
>> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by
>>Sam
>> >>>>Ruby
>> >>>> couple days ago only.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
>> >>>>and
>> >>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>> >>>>feel
>> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Sebastien
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

I am not sure I understand how people wanting to participate with Apache
Cloudstack would ever be at a disadvantage, it would still all be the same
code base.  The changes in cloudstack/cloudstack would get pushed to the
ASF repo and would then get mirrored to the apache/cloudstack repo, so they
would all be in sync.

Out of curiosity, is it possible to have ASF mirror to apache/cloudstack
(as it currently does) and then have apache/cloudstack mirror to
cloudstack/cloudstack?  This way to can guarantee that the ASF repo is the
canonical repo, while also being able to take advantage of an improved dev
workflow and the integration of distributed CI environments.



*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
> implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the
>
> repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
> conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
> will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
> leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
> project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.
>
> Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> >As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
> >help with developer workflow and CI.
> >
> >To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
> >canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
> >apache/cloudstack).
> >
> >This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
> >issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
> >
> >I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
> >and going off in a different direction.
> >________________________________________
> >From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >
> >Hi Sebastien,
> >
> >
> >[..]
> >>>
> >>> Hi Sebastien,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> >>>
> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
> >>
> >>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
> >>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
> >
> >OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> >the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> >I’ll get back to later in this message.
> >
> >>
> >>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
> >>github and we got the “control” of it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> >>> active GitHub issue,
> >>
> >>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
> >>[..snip..]
> >>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> >[..snip..]
> >>Be able to use labels
> >>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
> >
> >David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> >cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
> >>
> >>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
> >
> >Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> >until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> >my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> >going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> >PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> >response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> >you can take my response until then.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >
> >>
> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >>
> >>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >
> >I’m not trying to attack.
> >
> >I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> >is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> >attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >
> >I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> >speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
> >>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
> >>
> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
> >>>hardware.
> >>
> >>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
> >
> >Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> >and based on
> >discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
> >board
> >meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
> other
> >PMCs
> >as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> >potential
> >other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> >capability
> >is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
> >
> >>
> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
> >>>canonical
> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
> >>>the
> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
> >>>an
> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
> >
> >Not at this time.
> >
> >>[..snip..]
> >>>
> >>
> >>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
> >>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
> >>our report ?
> >>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
> >>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
> >
> >I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> >that
> >I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> >the
> >meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> >long-time
> >ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
> >seen
> >by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> >that there
> >is something more than meets the eye here.
> >
> >Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> >community besides
> >the two of us.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Chris
> >
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >>>pull
> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
> >>>>threads.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
> >>>>you
> >>>> are a member of the ASF board.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
> >>>>interim
> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
> >>>>Ruby
> >>>> couple days ago only.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
> >>>>and
> >>>> that we will hear from the board then.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
> >>>>feel
> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> -Sebastien
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

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

Hi Mike,

Thank you. What you describe effectively below is going to
implicitly switch the “canonical” repo in my opinion of the

repository to cloudstack/cloudstack. Merges that happen there,
conversation that happens there on PRs and issues, labels, etc.,
will be captured there and likely at increased pace and velocity,
leaving the folks wanting to participate in the Apache Cloudstack
project who aren’t part of cloudstack/cloudstack at a disadvantage.

Thanks for speaking up and looking forward to more discussion.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

>As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
>help with developer workflow and CI.
>
>To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
>canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
>apache/cloudstack).
>
>This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
>issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>
>I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
>and going off in a different direction.
>________________________________________
>From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
>Hi Sebastien,
>
>
>[..]
>>>
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>
>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>
>>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>
>OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>I’ll get back to later in this message.
>
>>
>>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>>github and we got the “control” of it.
>>
>>>
>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>> active GitHub issue,
>>
>>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>[..snip..]
>>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>[..snip..]
>>Be able to use labels
>>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>
>David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>
>>
>>
>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>
>>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>
>Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>you can take my response until then.
>
>>[..snip..]
>
>>
>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>
>>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>
>I’m not trying to attack.
>
>I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>
>I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>
>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>hardware.
>>
>>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>
>Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
>and based on
>discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
>board
>meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
>PMCs
>as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>potential
>other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>capability
>is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>
>>
>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>canonical
>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
>>>the
>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>>an
>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>>
>>
>>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>
>Not at this time.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>>
>>
>>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>>our report ?
>>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>
>I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>that
>I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
>the
>meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>long-time
>ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
>seen
>by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>that there
>is something more than meets the eye here.
>
>Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>community besides
>the two of us.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>pull
>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>threads.
>>>>
>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
>>>>you
>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>
>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>interim
>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>Ruby
>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>
>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
>>>>and
>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>feel
>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Ian Rae <ir...@cloudops.com>]

Agreed Mike, there may be confusion generated by the concurrent MCC
fork by SBP but that is not related to the Apache CloudStack developer
workflow improvements being discussed.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
<Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
> As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to help with developer workflow and CI.
>
> To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to apache/cloudstack).
>
> This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>
> I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack and going off in a different direction.
> ________________________________________
> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>
> Hi Sebastien,
>
>
> [..]
>>>
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>
>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>
>>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>
> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> I’ll get back to later in this message.
>
>>
>>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>>github and we got the “control” of it.
>>
>>>
>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>> active GitHub issue,
>>
>>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>[..snip..]
>>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> [..snip..]
>>Be able to use labels
>>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>
> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>
>>
>>
>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>
>>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>
> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> you can take my response until then.
>
>>[..snip..]
>
>>
>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>
>>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>
> I’m not trying to attack.
>
> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>
> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>
>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>hardware.
>>
>>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>
> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> and based on
> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
> board
> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
> PMCs
> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> potential
> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> capability
> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>
>>
>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>canonical
>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>>an
>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>>
>>
>>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>
> Not at this time.
>
>>[..snip..]
>>>
>>
>>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>>our report ?
>>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>
> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> that
> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> the
> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> long-time
> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
> seen
> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> that there
> is something more than meets the eye here.
>
> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> community besides
> the two of us.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>pull
>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>threads.
>>>>
>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>
>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>interim
>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>Ruby
>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>
>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>feel
>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Ian Rae
CEO | PDG
c: 514.944.4008

CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Ian Rae <ir...@cloudops.com>]

Good to know that we have the right people talking with the right people.
For the reasons I outlined, I'm confident we will sort this out because
everyone's interests should be aligned on this and I'm sure ASF understands
that in the age of infrastructure-as-code the ability to test myriad
permutations of infrastructure in an automated fashion, in a way that is
integrated efficiently into the developer workflow, is critical to the
viability of a project and not simply a "nice to have".

Thanks!

Ian

On Saturday, 19 March 2016, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ian Rae <irae@cloudops.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > Thanks for this context, I found it very helpful. We have an
> > interesting situation where no large companies are involved, and
> > really this is all about the needs of open source users. As you know
> > Apache CloudStack is highly user driven, and is perhaps thankfully off
> > the radar of the large industry players who have a tendency to subvert
> > community interests in the interest of short term gain (and good
> > governance comes in handy at such times, so we all understand the
> > value of CloudStack being part of the ASF in that sense). Apache
> > CloudStack also has some sophisticated reads related to CI/CD that are
> > perhaps not common, and therefore require special consideration.
> >
> > I don’t know the Apache Foundation well enough to understand whether
> > the large government style bureaucracy including poor communication is
> > a normal thing, or whether the fact that there aren’t big players with
> > sophisticated lobbying capabilities involved is the reason the
> > community’s needs aren’t being addressed (not that I would even know
> > if the ASF is susceptible to that).
> >
> > Trying to understand the cause behind the symptoms aside, the health
> > and success of the Apache CloudStack project should be in the
> > interests of both the ASF and CloudStack users and contributors. The
> > community values the governance of the ASF and the ASF should value an
> > engaged and motivated community, so why we are mired in such innuendo
> > is beyond me (conspiracy theories!). Unless some of us are actually
> > not here to build great open source software in the interest of users.
> >
> > So this appears to be the kind of time when leadership combined with
> > clarity of thought and communication are important to avoid
> > conversation devolving into simply “people being wrong on the
> > internet”. I think I understand that the PMC leads the community. Who
> > represents the ASF leadership on this topic? I think they should be
> > engaged on this issue.
>
> At the ASF, leadership is generally bottoms up.  To the extent that
> you need access to a 'top", no less than three current ASF board
> members have directly participated in this thread:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/
>
> Whether I remain a Director or not (there are elections coming up this
> week), feel free to reach out to me directly.  And I'm confident that
> each and every one of the current Directors would make exactly this
> same offer.
>
> > Ian
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> >>>> on.
> >>>
> >>> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning
> to
> >>> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?
> >>
> >> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
> >> working to clean that up.
> >>
> >> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
> >> when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
> >> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
> >> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
> >> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
> >> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
> >> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
> >> different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
> >> come to the ASF".
> >>
> >> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
> >> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
> >> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
> >> burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
> >> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
> >> (cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
> >> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
> >> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
> >> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
> >> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.
> >>
> >> I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
> >> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
> >> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
> >> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
> >> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.
> >>
> >> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
> >> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian Rae
> > CEO | PDG
> > c: 514.944.4008
> >
> > CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
> > www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6
>


-- 
Ian Rae
CEO | PDG
c: 514.944.4008

CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ian Rae <ir...@cloudops.com> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Thanks for this context, I found it very helpful. We have an
> interesting situation where no large companies are involved, and
> really this is all about the needs of open source users. As you know
> Apache CloudStack is highly user driven, and is perhaps thankfully off
> the radar of the large industry players who have a tendency to subvert
> community interests in the interest of short term gain (and good
> governance comes in handy at such times, so we all understand the
> value of CloudStack being part of the ASF in that sense). Apache
> CloudStack also has some sophisticated reads related to CI/CD that are
> perhaps not common, and therefore require special consideration.
>
> I don’t know the Apache Foundation well enough to understand whether
> the large government style bureaucracy including poor communication is
> a normal thing, or whether the fact that there aren’t big players with
> sophisticated lobbying capabilities involved is the reason the
> community’s needs aren’t being addressed (not that I would even know
> if the ASF is susceptible to that).
>
> Trying to understand the cause behind the symptoms aside, the health
> and success of the Apache CloudStack project should be in the
> interests of both the ASF and CloudStack users and contributors. The
> community values the governance of the ASF and the ASF should value an
> engaged and motivated community, so why we are mired in such innuendo
> is beyond me (conspiracy theories!). Unless some of us are actually
> not here to build great open source software in the interest of users.
>
> So this appears to be the kind of time when leadership combined with
> clarity of thought and communication are important to avoid
> conversation devolving into simply “people being wrong on the
> internet”. I think I understand that the PMC leads the community. Who
> represents the ASF leadership on this topic? I think they should be
> engaged on this issue.

At the ASF, leadership is generally bottoms up.  To the extent that
you need access to a 'top", no less than three current ASF board
members have directly participated in this thread:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/

Whether I remain a Director or not (there are elections coming up this
week), feel free to reach out to me directly.  And I'm confident that
each and every one of the current Directors would make exactly this
same offer.

> Ian

- Sam Ruby

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
>>>> on.
>>>
>>> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to
>>> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?
>>
>> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
>> working to clean that up.
>>
>> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
>> when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
>> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
>> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
>> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
>> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
>> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
>> different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
>> come to the ASF".
>>
>> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
>> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
>> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
>> burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
>> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
>> (cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
>> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
>> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
>> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
>> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.
>>
>> I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
>> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
>> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
>> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
>> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.
>>
>> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
>> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
> --
> Ian Rae
> CEO | PDG
> c: 514.944.4008
>
> CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
> www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Ian Rae <ir...@cloudops.com>]

Sam,

Thanks for this context, I found it very helpful. We have an
interesting situation where no large companies are involved, and
really this is all about the needs of open source users. As you know
Apache CloudStack is highly user driven, and is perhaps thankfully off
the radar of the large industry players who have a tendency to subvert
community interests in the interest of short term gain (and good
governance comes in handy at such times, so we all understand the
value of CloudStack being part of the ASF in that sense). Apache
CloudStack also has some sophisticated reads related to CI/CD that are
perhaps not common, and therefore require special consideration.

I don’t know the Apache Foundation well enough to understand whether
the large government style bureaucracy including poor communication is
a normal thing, or whether the fact that there aren’t big players with
sophisticated lobbying capabilities involved is the reason the
community’s needs aren’t being addressed (not that I would even know
if the ASF is susceptible to that).

Trying to understand the cause behind the symptoms aside, the health
and success of the Apache CloudStack project should be in the
interests of both the ASF and CloudStack users and contributors. The
community values the governance of the ASF and the ASF should value an
engaged and motivated community, so why we are mired in such innuendo
is beyond me (conspiracy theories!). Unless some of us are actually
not here to build great open source software in the interest of users.

So this appears to be the kind of time when leadership combined with
clarity of thought and communication are important to avoid
conversation devolving into simply “people being wrong on the
internet”. I think I understand that the PMC leads the community. Who
represents the ASF leadership on this topic? I think they should be
engaged on this issue.

Ian

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
>>> on.
>>
>> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to
>> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?
>
> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
> working to clean that up.
>
> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
> when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
> different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
> come to the ASF".
>
> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
> burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
> (cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.
>
> I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.
>
> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>
> - Sam Ruby



-- 
Ian Rae
CEO | PDG
c: 514.944.4008

CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions
www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

Please board and everybody at dev, Until the vote thread initiated by Will
no action has been taken or sactioned by the PMC, only discussions were
started. It has never been the intention of the PMC to move away from any
repository but only to add a fork to facilitate work. The misunderstanding
described by Sam below is most likely due to some of my own words in the
thread 'github organisation cloudstack' [1]

mea culpa, in the thread I started with

<quote>
There is a github organisation called cloudstack, to which we have more
control then to the apache/cloudstack repo on github. We need to decide as
community what to do with it.

What are we going to do in this new organisation?
Will we let/ask Schuberg Philis to put cosmic in there?
Will be ask/let Will to run upr to it (so we don't depend on the
foundation)?
How will we sink it from/to apache or the apache github organisation?
​Any other ideas/questions?

​let's discuss or better,​
</quote>

Reading this back I can see how this can be interpreted in several ways,
I'm sorry.

[1] http://markmail.org/message/pca3j6vzojik2xyd

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> >> on.
> >
> > Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to
> > me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?
>
> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
> working to clean that up.
>
> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
> when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
> different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
> come to the ASF".
>
> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
> burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
> (cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.
>
> I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.
>
> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>



-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@cloudops.com>]

Hi,

Sorry to step in late on that thread. I have a question for Jim, David,
Sam.

As it seams, a lot of us in the "CloudStack community" would love to work
with github features to speedup the project development cycle, The fact
that some other ASF projects are interested too. Would it be  thinkable to
get a hosted github on the ASF infra? To me it's kind on 1 + 1
I know hosted github is not free and opensource, neither confluence or
jira.  There are alternatives to github such as gitlab or gogs that might
work too ??

Regards,

Pierre-Luc


On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok Jim, it seems we are on one line here. Sorry to bother but I wanted to
> make sure. In my understanding the moving was only about the part already
> on github. I'll hold my peace for a while unless we are actually talking
> about the technical implementation of a convenient developer workflow again
> ;)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > As Sam indicated, there was a lot of hush-and-rush about all
> > this, with little communicated and much assumed. It appears that
> > now things are more well known and the matters are being
> > addressed. But for the record, yes, there was the impression
> > and (mis)understanding that "moving" to GH was indeed what
> > was desired and "demanded".
> >
> > My post was in direct response to Sebastien's query, as was hopefully
> > indicated by including that paragraph in my post.
> >
> > > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue
> and
> > >> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in
> particular)
> > >> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a
> GitHub
> > >> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a
> > Cloud
> > >> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if
> > >> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack?
> > >>
> > >> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were
> > >> going to jump off a roof, would you too?"  :) :)
> > >>
> > >> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than
> > >> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will
> > >> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it.
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as
> > >> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to
> > >> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators.
> > >> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing
> > >> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source,
> > >> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft"
> > >> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's
> > >> called "Github" well, that's OK then.
> > >>
> > >> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who
> > >> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties
> > >> for some (perceived) additional security.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy
> > >> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should
> > >> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook,
> > >> line and sinker.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't
> > want
> > > ​the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more.
> I
> > > wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would
> host
> > > mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an
> > > honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github.
> > Besides
> > > all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to
> > > bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial
> > governments,
> > > as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then
> > any
> > > other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from
> the
> > > board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ​​
> > >
> > > Daan
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Daan
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

Ok Jim, it seems we are on one line here. Sorry to bother but I wanted to
make sure. In my understanding the moving was only about the part already
on github. I'll hold my peace for a while unless we are actually talking
about the technical implementation of a convenient developer workflow again
;)



On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> As Sam indicated, there was a lot of hush-and-rush about all
> this, with little communicated and much assumed. It appears that
> now things are more well known and the matters are being
> addressed. But for the record, yes, there was the impression
> and (mis)understanding that "moving" to GH was indeed what
> was desired and "demanded".
>
> My post was in direct response to Sebastien's query, as was hopefully
> indicated by including that paragraph in my post.
>
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and
> >> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular)
> >> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub
> >> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a
> Cloud
> >> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if
> >> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack?
> >>
> >> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were
> >> going to jump off a roof, would you too?"  :) :)
> >>
> >> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than
> >> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will
> >> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as
> >> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to
> >> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators.
> >> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing
> >> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source,
> >> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft"
> >> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's
> >> called "Github" well, that's OK then.
> >>
> >> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who
> >> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties
> >> for some (perceived) additional security.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy
> >> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should
> >> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook,
> >> line and sinker.
> >
> >
> > ​Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't
> want
> > ​the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more. I
> > wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would host
> > mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an
> > honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github.
> Besides
> > all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to
> > bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial
> governments,
> > as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then
> any
> > other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from the
> > board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ​​
> >
> > Daan
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

As Sam indicated, there was a lot of hush-and-rush about all
this, with little communicated and much assumed. It appears that
now things are more well known and the matters are being
addressed. But for the record, yes, there was the impression
and (mis)understanding that "moving" to GH was indeed what
was desired and "demanded".

My post was in direct response to Sebastien's query, as was hopefully
indicated by including that paragraph in my post.

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and
>> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular)
>> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub
>> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud
>> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
>>> 
>> 
>> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if
>> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack?
>> 
>> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were
>> going to jump off a roof, would you too?"  :) :)
>> 
>> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than
>> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will
>> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as
>> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to
>> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators.
>> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing
>> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source,
>> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft"
>> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's
>> called "Github" well, that's OK then.
>> 
>> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who
>> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties
>> for some (perceived) additional security.
>> 
>> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy
>> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should
>> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook,
>> line and sinker.
> 
> 
> ​Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't want
> ​the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more. I
> wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would host
> mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an
> honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github. Besides
> all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to
> bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial governments,
> as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then any
> other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from the
> board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ​​
> 
> Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and
> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular)
> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub
> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud
> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
> >
>
> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if
> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack?
>
> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were
> going to jump off a roof, would you too?"  :) :)
>
> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than
> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will
> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it.
>
> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as
> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to
> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators.
> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing
> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source,
> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft"
> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's
> called "Github" well, that's OK then.
>
> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who
> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties
> for some (perceived) additional security.
>
> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy
> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should
> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook,
> line and sinker.


​Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't want
​the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more. I
wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would host
mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an
honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github. Besides
all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to
bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial governments,
as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then any
other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from the
board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand.


-- 
​​

Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular) should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
> 

I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if
any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack?

I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were
going to jump off a roof, would you too?"  :) :)

Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than
just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will
remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it.

Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as
(still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to
portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators.
People passionate about open source are seriously pushing
that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source,
proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft"
or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's
called "Github" well, that's OK then.

Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who
are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties
for some (perceived) additional security.

I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy
grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should
be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook,
line and sinker.

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

I'm away at the moment but I do believe that signed commits was
acknowledged.

board: r62882 -
/foundation/board/github-discussion/explorations/signed-commits.txt

Feel free to share anonimized content from that file.
On Mar 19, 2016 2:12 PM, "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC
> > as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being
> > taken.  Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many
> > parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR).  Under normal
> > circumstances, a vote would not be necessary.
> >
>
> To be transparent and avoid any hint at back door conversations (which are
> sadly too often alluded too). Let me highlight a few historical steps:
>
> - We switched to GitHub PR almost a year ago and stopped using RB.
> - Through fall Remi and co worked on a new commit workflow to speed
> releases, their productivity was “damaged” by lack of github access,
> namely: -no labels, no ability to close PR, no access to issues, no access
> to triggers/hooks.
> - Remi reached out to VP infra (David) couple times I believe and a
> discussion in Dublin (~Oct).
> -Through our PMC project report (written by me as VP and LGTM’d by the
> PMC), I made several mention of our intent to use Github (and docker Hub)
> more efficiently. I even said that if we where getting early access to the
> “Whimsy experiment” we would quickly VOTE in our community to decide on
> such a move.
> - I never got any replies or comments (even though I mentioned that lack
> of github access was putting our community at risk of fragmentation).
> - Wido reached out to Github back in december when he saw there was
> already a cloudstack org ( not sure who created it and controlled it
> actually.)
> - Schuberg forked and created cosmic in feb sometime.
> - Finally last week, I took unilateral decision to click ‘fork’ on
> apache/cloudstack and put a copy in cloudstack/cloudstack , thinking this
> would kick the tires and would give us a playground to start experimenting
> with CI taking advantage of full control of github settings.
>
> As a member of ASF I had witnessed several threads around the use of
> GitHub and there are clearly strong feelings on the issue. I tried to
> participate in those threads and even demoed with another member that we
> could clearly guarantee provenance by signing all commits with ASF issued
> GPG keys, but that was not even acknowledged.
>
> Moving to Github (in some fashion) is indeed problematic to the ASF and a
> fully independent open source project. We end up depending on a vendor for
> hosting our repo and this puts us at risk if Github were to go bonkers. We
> can argue about such a risk, and we can also raise examples of other
> vendor/proprietary software being used/depended on by ASF projects (JIRA,
> Slack…). It also “moves” the community. While we are on the dev@ and
> other ML, the issue that we may move the community to Github and give the
> impression that project is not at ASF project is real. But to be honest
> there is already such confusion in OSS with projects on ASF v2 license
> being perceived by most as ASF projects.
>
> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and
> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular)
> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub
> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud
> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.
>
> Hence yes, as my last action as VP I clicked on “fork”, and now I hope we
> will move forward, and get the board to proactively do something.
>
> -Sebastien
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>]

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 
> The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC
> as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being
> taken.  Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many
> parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR).  Under normal
> circumstances, a vote would not be necessary.
> 

To be transparent and avoid any hint at back door conversations (which are sadly too often alluded too). Let me highlight a few historical steps:

- We switched to GitHub PR almost a year ago and stopped using RB.
- Through fall Remi and co worked on a new commit workflow to speed releases, their productivity was “damaged” by lack of github access, namely: -no labels, no ability to close PR, no access to issues, no access to triggers/hooks.
- Remi reached out to VP infra (David) couple times I believe and a discussion in Dublin (~Oct).
-Through our PMC project report (written by me as VP and LGTM’d by the PMC), I made several mention of our intent to use Github (and docker Hub) more efficiently. I even said that if we where getting early access to the “Whimsy experiment” we would quickly VOTE in our community to decide on such a move.
- I never got any replies or comments (even though I mentioned that lack of github access was putting our community at risk of fragmentation).
- Wido reached out to Github back in december when he saw there was already a cloudstack org ( not sure who created it and controlled it actually.)
- Schuberg forked and created cosmic in feb sometime.
- Finally last week, I took unilateral decision to click ‘fork’ on apache/cloudstack and put a copy in cloudstack/cloudstack , thinking this would kick the tires and would give us a playground to start experimenting with CI taking advantage of full control of github settings.

As a member of ASF I had witnessed several threads around the use of GitHub and there are clearly strong feelings on the issue. I tried to participate in those threads and even demoed with another member that we could clearly guarantee provenance by signing all commits with ASF issued GPG keys, but that was not even acknowledged. 

Moving to Github (in some fashion) is indeed problematic to the ASF and a fully independent open source project. We end up depending on a vendor for hosting our repo and this puts us at risk if Github were to go bonkers. We can argue about such a risk, and we can also raise examples of other vendor/proprietary software being used/depended on by ASF projects (JIRA, Slack…). It also “moves” the community. While we are on the dev@ and other ML, the issue that we may move the community to Github and give the impression that project is not at ASF project is real. But to be honest there is already such confusion in OSS with projects on ASF v2 license being perceived by most as ASF projects.

Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular) should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board.

Hence yes, as my last action as VP I clicked on “fork”, and now I hope we will move forward, and get the board to proactively do something.

-Sebastien

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation Sam, I have to ask for your patience with me as
> there is one remark in there that leaves me confused; Don't feel obligated
> to answer in length but please confirm or negate my suspicion
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> ...
>
>
>> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
>> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>>
>> I don't see any action taken by the cloudstack team that couldn't have
> been initiated by a complete outsider. I am assuming you mean the fork to
> the cloudstack organisation. This organisation was created by Mark, I think
> and was taken control of by our VP as a precaution to keep others from
> making or using it, so I would think the board would applaud this instead
> of giving us a (kind of) reprimand. So again and in order for us to not
> make such a mistake again...
>
> Can you please explain?
>
> I am pushing this because there is clearly irritation on the side of the
> board with the PMCs behaviour and vice versa and I feel, probably like you,
> this is not largely but completely due to lack of communication and
> transparency. Of course I might be as dumb as I feel and this might not be
> the action you refer to at all.

I see you posted a later email identifying one of the points of
confusion while I was composing this reply.  Cool.  Meanwhile:

I'm on the board, I'm not irritated.  At least not at CloudStack.  :-)

The initial action (creating the fork) was not clearly done by the PMC
as a whole, that is now being rectified by a retroactive vote being
taken.  Even that I wouldn't suggest be done any differently: many
parts of the ASF prefer a Commit then Review (CTR).  Under normal
circumstances, a vote would not be necessary.

> --
> Daan

- Sam Ruby

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the explanation Sam, I have to ask for your patience with me as
there is one remark in there that leaves me confused; Don't feel obligated
to answer in length but please confirm or negate my suspicion

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
​...​


> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.
>
> ​I don't see any action taken by the cloudstack team that couldn't have
been initiated by a complete outsider. I am assuming you mean the fork to
the cloudstack organisation. This organisation was created by Mark, I think
and was taken control of by our VP as a precaution to keep others from
making or using it, so I would think the board would applaud this instead
of giving us a (kind of) reprimand.​ So again and in order for us to not
make such a mistake again...

Can you please explain?

​I am pushing this because there is clearly irritation on the side of the
board with the PMCs behaviour and vice versa and I feel, probably like you,
this is not largely​ but completely due to lack of communication and
transparency. Of course I might be as dumb as I feel and this might not be
the action you refer to at all.

-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
>> on.
>
> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to
> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean?

I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm
working to clean that up.

The history involved is not unique to CloudStack.  It often comes up
when large projects or large companies are involved.  I work for a
large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a
project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me.  The most
extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he
wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to
be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on
different hardware.  My response was simply: "then you don't want to
come to the ASF".

Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF
infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were
not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back
burner.  I'm not proud of that response.  A technical solution to the
problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed
(cool!).  Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated,
and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act.  And to be
very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA
that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were
unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository.

I don't think that there are any easy answers.  In particular, I don't
think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer.
And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue
listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt
to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help.

Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the
CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again.

- Sam Ruby

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> on.
>

​Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning to
me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean? ​



-- 
Daan

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

["Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>]

I'm not sure what you think is "really going on."

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 1:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> 
> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> on.
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to help with developer workflow and CI.
>> 
>> To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to apache/cloudstack).
>> 
>> This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
>> 
>> I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack and going off in a different direction.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> 
>> Hi Sebastien,
>> 
>> 
>> [..]
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>>> 
>>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>>> 
>>> We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>>> and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>> 
>> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
>> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
>> I’ll get back to later in this message.
>> 
>>> 
>>> The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>>> github and we got the “control” of it.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>>> active GitHub issue,
>>> 
>>> As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>>> [..snip..]
>>> To close PRs you need to make a commit.
>> [..snip..]
>>> Be able to use labels
>>> Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>> 
>> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
>> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>>> 
>>> Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>> 
>> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
>> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
>> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
>> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
>> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
>> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
>> you can take my response until then.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>> 
>>> 
>>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>>> 
>>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>> 
>> I’m not trying to attack.
>> 
>> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
>> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
>> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>> 
>> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
>> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>>> Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>>> productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>>> 
>>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>>> hardware.
>>> 
>>> And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>> 
>> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
>> and based on
>> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
>> board
>> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
>> PMCs
>> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
>> potential
>> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
>> capability
>> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>>> canonical
>>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
>>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>>> an
>>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>> 
>>> Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>> 
>> Not at this time.
>> 
>>> [..snip..]
>>> 
>>> And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>>> board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>>> our report ?
>>> I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>>> the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>> 
>> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
>> that
>> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
>> the
>> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
>> long-time
>> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
>> seen
>> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
>> that there
>> is something more than meets the eye here.
>> 
>> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
>> community besides
>> the two of us.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>>> pull
>>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>>> threads.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>>> interim
>>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>>> Ruby
>>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>>> feel
>>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Sebastien
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

If this gives us the github permissions we need, then we need to work with
them to figure out the details...

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
> on.
>
> > On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to
> help with developer workflow and CI.
> >
> > To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the
> canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to
> apache/cloudstack).
> >
> > This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI
> issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
> >
> > I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack
> and going off in a different direction.
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >
> > Hi Sebastien,
> >
> >
> > [..]
> >>>
> >>> Hi Sebastien,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> >>>
> >>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> >>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> >>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> >>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> >>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
> >>
> >> We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
> >> and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
> >
> > OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> > the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> > I’ll get back to later in this message.
> >
> >>
> >> The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
> >> github and we got the “control” of it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> >>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> >>> active GitHub issue,
> >>
> >> As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
> >> [..snip..]
> >> To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> > [..snip..]
> >> Be able to use labels
> >> Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
> >
> > David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> > cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
> >>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> >>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
> >>
> >> Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
> >
> > Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> > until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> > my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> > going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> > PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> > response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> > you can take my response until then.
> >
> >> [..snip..]
> >
> >>
> >>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >>
> >> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> >
> > I’m not trying to attack.
> >
> > I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> > is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> > attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> >
> > I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> > speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
> >
> >> [..snip..]
> >> Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
> >> productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
> >>
> >>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
> >>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
> >>> hardware.
> >>
> >> And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
> >
> > Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> > and based on
> > discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of
> the
> > board
> > meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to
> other
> > PMCs
> > as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> > potential
> > other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> > capability
> > is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
> >
> >>
> >>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
> >>> canonical
> >>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by
> the
> >>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
> >>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
> >>> an
> >>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
> >
> > Not at this time.
> >
> >> [..snip..]
> >>>
> >>
> >> And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
> >> board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
> >> our report ?
> >> I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
> >> the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
> >
> > I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> > that
> > I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> > the
> > meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> > long-time
> > ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I
> have
> > seen
> > by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> > that there
> > is something more than meets the eye here.
> >
> > Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> > community besides
> > the two of us.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> >>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> >>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >>> pull
> >>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
> >>>> threads.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that
> you
> >>>> are a member of the ASF board.
> >>>>
> >>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
> >>>> interim
> >>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
> >>>> Ruby
> >>>> couple days ago only.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting
> and
> >>>> that we will hear from the board then.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
> >>>> feel
> >>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> -Sebastien
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> >>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> >>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> >>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> >>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going
on.

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <Mi...@netapp.com> wrote:
> 
> As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to help with developer workflow and CI.
> 
> To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to apache/cloudstack).
> 
> This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.
> 
> I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack and going off in a different direction.
> ________________________________________
> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> 
> Hi Sebastien,
> 
> 
> [..]
>>> 
>>> Hi Sebastien,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>> 
>>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>> 
>> We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>> and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
> 
> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> I’ll get back to later in this message.
> 
>> 
>> The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>> github and we got the “control” of it.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>>> active GitHub issue,
>> 
>> As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>> [..snip..]
>> To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> [..snip..]
>> Be able to use labels
>> Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
> 
> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>> 
>> Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
> 
> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> you can take my response until then.
> 
>> [..snip..]
> 
>> 
>>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>> 
>> I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
> 
> I’m not trying to attack.
> 
> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
> 
> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
> 
>> [..snip..]
>> Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>> productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>> 
>>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>> hardware.
>> 
>> And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
> 
> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> and based on
> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
> board
> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
> PMCs
> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> potential
> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> capability
> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
> 
>> 
>>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>> canonical
>>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
>>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>> an
>>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>> 
>> 
>> Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
> 
> Not at this time.
> 
>> [..snip..]
>>> 
>> 
>> And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>> board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>> our report ?
>> I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>> the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
> 
> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> that
> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> the
> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> long-time
> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
> seen
> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> that there
> is something more than meets the eye here.
> 
> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> community besides
> the two of us.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>> pull
>>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>> 
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>> threads.
>>>> 
>>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>> 
>>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>> interim
>>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>> Ruby
>>>> couple days ago only.
>>>> 
>>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>> 
>>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>> feel
>>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> -Sebastien
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

["Tutkowski, Mike" <Mi...@netapp.com>]

As far as I understand, cloudstack/cloudstack is only being proposed to help with developer workflow and CI.

To my understanding, all code that goes in there will end up back in the canonical ASF CloudStack repo (and, as such, be mirrored to apache/cloudstack).

This is simply a workaround to help solve developer workflow and CI issues that we couldn't due to lack of privileges on the current repo.

I do not believe anyone on the PMC is talking about forking CloudStack and going off in a different direction.
________________________________________
From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:52 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

Hi Sebastien,


[..]
>>
>> Hi Sebastien,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>>
>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>
>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.

OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
I’ll get back to later in this message.

>
>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>github and we got the “control” of it.
>
>>
>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>> active GitHub issue,
>
>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>[..snip..]
>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
[..snip..]
>Be able to use labels
>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks

David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.

>
>
>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>
>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.

Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
you can take my response until then.

>[..snip..]

>
>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>
>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.

I’m not trying to attack.

I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.

I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.

>[..snip..]
>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>
>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>hardware.
>
>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.

Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
and based on
discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
board
meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
PMCs
as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
potential
other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
capability
is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.

>
>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>canonical
>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>an
>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>>
>
>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?

Not at this time.

>[..snip..]
>>
>
>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>our report ?
>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).

I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
that
I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
the
meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
long-time
ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
seen
by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
that there
is something more than meets the eye here.

Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
community besides
the two of us.

Cheers,
Chris

>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>pull
>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>threads.
>>>
>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>>
>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>interim
>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>Ruby
>>> couple days ago only.
>>>
>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>>
>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>feel
>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> -Sebastien
>>>
>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>>
>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Will Stevens <ws...@cloudops.com>]

We have two other threads going on this.  One is in the private@ mailing
list, which we then moved into the dev@ list to get general community input
on this.

We are actively discussing the role the cloudstack org will play and
nothing has been decided.

My understanding is that we have no intention of creating a fork of
apache/cloudstack in the sense that it is a divergence in codebase.  We are
evaluating the idea of using the cloudstack/cloudstack as a staging area to
validate the PRs that are opened against apache/cloudstack and run
different CI and validation tools against the code.  The goal is to be able
to improve the quality of the code committed back to apache/cloudstack by
being able to better integrate automated testing and validation of the
code.  The code would still be pushed back to the canonical ASF Cloudstack
repo.

*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer

*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Sebastien,
>
>
> [..]
> >>
> >> Hi Sebastien,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> >>
> >> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> >> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> >> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> >> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> >> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
> >
> >We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
> >and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.
>
> OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
> the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
> I’ll get back to later in this message.
>
> >
> >The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
> >github and we got the “control” of it.
> >
> >>
> >> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> >> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> >> active GitHub issue,
> >
> >As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
> >[..snip..]
> >To close PRs you need to make a commit.
> [..snip..]
> >Be able to use labels
> >Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks
>
> David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
> cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.
>
> >
> >
> >> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
> >> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> >> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
> >
> >Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.
>
> Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
> until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
> my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
> going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
> PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
> response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
> you can take my response until then.
>
> >[..snip..]
>
> >
> >> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> >> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
> >
> >I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.
>
> I’m not trying to attack.
>
> I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
> is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
> attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.
>
> I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
> speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.
>
> >[..snip..]
> >Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
> >productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
> >
> >> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
> >> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
> >>hardware.
> >
> >And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.
>
> Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
> and based on
> discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
> board
> meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
> PMCs
> as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
> potential
> other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
> capability
> is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.
>
> >
> >> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
> >>canonical
> >> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
> >> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
> >> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
> >>an
> >> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> >>
> >
> >Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?
>
> Not at this time.
>
> >[..snip..]
> >>
> >
> >And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
> >board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
> >our report ?
> >I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
> >the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).
>
> I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
> that
> I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
> the
> meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
> long-time
> ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
> seen
> by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
> that there
> is something more than meets the eye here.
>
> Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
> community besides
> the two of us.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> >> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> >> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
> >>pull
> >> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> >>
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
> >>>threads.
> >>>
> >>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
> >>> are a member of the ASF board.
> >>>
> >>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
> >>>interim
> >>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
> >>>Ruby
> >>> couple days ago only.
> >>>
> >>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
> >>> that we will hear from the board then.
> >>>
> >>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
> >>>feel
> >>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> -Sebastien
> >>>
> >>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> >>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> >>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> >>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> >>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi Sebastien,


[..]
>> 
>> Hi Sebastien,
>> 
>> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
>> 
>> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
>> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
>> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
>> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
>> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.
>
>We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF
>and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.

OK, good though based on the rest of your replies, I actually see
the opposite being said. Also “we” is the relative word here, which
I’ll get back to later in this message.

>
>The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted
>github and we got the “control” of it.
>
>> 
>> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
>> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
>> active GitHub issue,
>
>As far as I know we cannot use github issues.
>[..snip..]
>To close PRs you need to make a commit.
[..snip..]
>Be able to use labels
>Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks

David Nalley can speak to this as I’m not sure if you can or
cannot or if infra@ is providing this. Thanks for stating this.

> 
>
>> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
>> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
>> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -
>
>Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.

Right - that’s probably b/c it wasn’t discussed with the board
until our last meeting which just happened yesterday. It’s
my reading of the tea leaves that the experiment, while considered
going in the right direction with Whimsy, is not open to other
PMCs. It’s possible that we may as a board decide that further
response is needed, but until that happens or if that doesn’t happen
you can take my response until then.

>[..snip..]

>
>> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
>> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -
>
>I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.

I’m not trying to attack.

I asked a simple question - how many/who in the Apache CloudStack PMC
is intent on using this new Cloudstack GitHub organization? Not an
attack, a question that I still don’t have an answer to.

I also wanted to gauge whether there are others on the PMC that will
speak up. I’ll continue waiting to hear more about that.

>[..snip..]
>Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing
>productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.
>
>> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
>> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF
>>hardware.
>
>And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.

Put bluntly, the decision is no, and it is in the hands of the ASF Infra@
and based on
discussions I’ve seen on public lists there and on board@ and part of the
board
meeting yesterday, Infra@ is not opening up the Whimsy experiment to other
PMCs
as of yet. They aren’t ready to declare an SLA; they aren’t ready for
potential
other PMCs to ask to use it too and for others to start thinking that
capability
is anything near operational. David Nalley can fill in more.

>
>> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the
>>canonical
>> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
>> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
>> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still
>>an
>> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
>> 
>
>Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?

Not at this time.

>[..snip..]
>> 
>
>And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the
>board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing
>our report ?
>I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from
>the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).

I am one of 9 Directors, but I believe if you’d like to test the waters
that
I have support of other board members in asking these questions based on
the
meetings yesterday. And as one of the Directors of the board and a
long-time
ASF’er, I’m here also as a concerned member since some actions that I have
seen
by Cloudstack related to this GitHub external organization imply to me
that there
is something more than meets the eye here.

Let’s keep discussing, hopefully with more participation from the
community besides
the two of us.

Cheers,
Chris

>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack
>>pull
>> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
>> 
>>> Hi Chris, 
>>> 
>>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF
>>>threads.
>>> 
>>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>>> are a member of the ASF board.
>>> 
>>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an
>>>interim
>>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam
>>>Ruby
>>> couple days ago only.
>>> 
>>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>>> that we will hear from the board then.
>>> 
>>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we
>>>feel
>>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> -Sebastien
>>> 
>>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>>> 
>>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>]

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sebastien,
> 
> Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.
> 
> The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
> ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
> there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
> at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
> GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.

We are not forking. In the sense that the canonical repo is at the ASF and mirrored on apache/cloudstack.

The cloudstack org on github existed and was empty, one of us contacted github and we got the “control” of it.

> 
> I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
> facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
> active GitHub issue,

As far as I know we cannot use github issues.

> comment, etc, sync, the ability to close PRs,

To close PRs you need to make a commit.

> etc. Is there something specific not in that list that the CloudStack

Be able to use labels
Be able to setup our own triggers/hooks 

> PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
> that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
> the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC -

Indeed, and I (we) never heard back.

> is that what you are
> talking about?
> 

In part yes.

Github has become a tool that a large number of committers are now using on a day to day.

I (and I will let others say what they think), loose time not being able to use Github for CloudStack.
And as a volunteer I have little free time to do this, so I would like to use tools that increase my productivity.

> The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
> result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this -

I am not sure why you say subset. Let’s try to avoid polemics.

> or was this
> actually discussed by the PMC somewhere - apologies if I missed the
> thread. I am now subscribed to dev@cloudstack.a.o and I can also go
> back and search the archives.
> 
> The ASF builds communities. There is an Apache Cloudstack
> community that has been approved by the board and that has been growing
> here at the ASF. Also the ASF cares about names and trademarks and
> branding, etc. If some set of the PMC don’t want to work on Apache
> Cloudstack and then go off and start a fork etc., then the ASF Cloudstack
> PMC and project still exist and go on, so that is something to think
> about and also something for the board and trademarks@, etc., to think
> about since the name will be in conflict and that can’t happen, etc.
> 

Again, this is not about leaving the ASF. This is about accessing productive tools and making use of them to their fullest.

> Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
> the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF hardware.

And we would like the ASF to reconsider this.

> There are not any approved policies for external forks being the canonical
> repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
> ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
> GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still an
> experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.
> 

Are other projects than Whimsy being allowed to experiment ?

This is exactly what we would like to do at this stage.

> Given the above I’d like discussion from the Cloudstack PMC and more than
> just one or two of you. Let’s figure this out.
> 

And just to clarify, you are acting here as “the board” ? Meaning the board asked you to get on dev@ and talk with our community after seeing our report ?
I am asking because the PMC has not received an official response from the board based on our report (and annexed interim report).

> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
> request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)
> 
>> Hi Chris, 
>> 
>> We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF threads.
>> 
>> For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>> are a member of the ASF board.
>> 
>> The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an interim
>> report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam Ruby
>> couple days ago only.
>> 
>> I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>> that we will hear from the board then.
>> 
>> Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we feel
>> that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> -Sebastien
>> 
>>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>>> 
>>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>]

Hi Sebastien,

Thanks for your reply and yes, I am a member of the ASF board.

The thing is, there was already some discussion of this at the
ASF board meeting that happened yesterday. I can tell you that
there were more than a few board members that were a bit concerned
at the prospect of Apache Cloudstack forking and starting a new
GitHub organization, so I’m here now to discuss.

I’m sorry that you are unhappy with the lack of access to GitHub
facilities, however I’m confused, the ASF does provide mirroring,
active GitHub issue, comment, etc, sync, the ability to close PRs,
etc. Is there something specific not in that list that the CloudStack
PMC desires and if so can you state that? I remember seeing a request
that you wanted the ability to close pull requests and to be part of
the experiment going on with the Whimsy PMC - is that what you are
talking about?

The other thing is - is the new Cloudstack GitHub organization the
result of a subset of the PMC going off and doing this - or was this
actually discussed by the PMC somewhere - apologies if I missed the
thread. I am now subscribed to dev@cloudstack.a.o and I can also go
back and search the archives.

The ASF builds communities. There is an Apache Cloudstack
community that has been approved by the board and that has been growing
here at the ASF. Also the ASF cares about names and trademarks and
branding, etc. If some set of the PMC don’t want to work on Apache
Cloudstack and then go off and start a fork etc., then the ASF Cloudstack
PMC and project still exist and go on, so that is something to think
about and also something for the board and trademarks@, etc., to think
about since the name will be in conflict and that can’t happen, etc.

Finally, as for the Apache Cloudstack PMC - for the PMC the policy of
the ASF is that the canonical repository at the moment is on ASF hardware.
There are not any approved policies for external forks being the canonical
repo, especially those in another GitHub organization not managed by the
ASF. There is an experiment in the Apache Whimsy PMC to experiment with
GitHub as the canonical repo for an apache/* org project. That is still an
experiment and not widely offered by ASF infra to all PMCs.

Given the above I’d like discussion from the Cloudstack PMC and more than
just one or two of you. Let’s figure this out.

Thanks,
Chris




-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull
request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

>Hi Chris, 
>
>We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF threads.
>
>For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you
>are a member of the ASF board.
>
>The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an interim
>report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam Ruby
>couple days ago only.
>
>I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and
>that we will hear from the board then.
>
>Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we feel
>that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.
>
>Best,
>
>-Sebastien
>
>> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
>> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
>> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
>> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
>> 
>> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
>> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: External fork of Cloudstack (was Re: [GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Is the project attempting a fork on Githu...)

[Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>]

Hi Chris, 

We have never met but i recognize your name from members only ASF threads.

For the benefit of others on this list it is useful to mention that you are a member of the ASF board.

The PMC has filed its quarterly report  for march, as well as an interim report about a month ago. The interim report was acknowledged by Sam Ruby couple days ago only.

I am assuming that the board will discuss it at its monthly meeting and that we will hear from the board then.

Other than that the discussions are active on dev@ , but roughly we feel that we are being hurt by lack of access to github facilities.

Best,

-Sebastien

> On 17 Mar 2016, at 00:04, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry about my crude way of filing a PR for this, but I heard
> information about the Apache Cloudstack PMC actively
> discussing managing the project with GitHub as the primary source
> in a different organization than the github.com/apache/ org.
> 
> Can someone clarify this for me? Clearly wearing my board hat,
> this is not something we allow for any of our ASF projects.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris “board hat on” Mattmann
> 
> 
>