You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4cxx-dev@logging.apache.org by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> on 2016/03/01 18:19:25 UTC
Re: March 2016 Report
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Thorsten Schöning
<ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
> Guten Tag Marvin Humphrey,
> am Donnerstag, 25. Februar 2016 um 20:14 schrieben Sie:
>
>> This is a reminder that your report is due next Wednesday, March
>> 2nd.
>
> I've added the same like last month, I don't see that things have
> changed.
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2016
To be clear, this month's report is an exact copy-and-paste of last
month's report. Last month's report was a good report! However...
Having attended many Board meetings, I can tell you that the Board
does not like to receive copy-pasted reports. The Board reads reports
carefully and is truly trying to monitor the health of its project
communities. It relies on the people who write reports (generally the
PMC Chairs) to provide accurate insight into community state so that
it does not get blindsided when a project goes critical.
A report that states "no change since last month" is not a great
report, but it is better than copying-and-pasting. But in fact there
are interesting things to say about log4cxx's development the last
month: it would help the IMPC to better understand the podling's state
to know that while there remains a willing volunteer, there was no
visible progress made towards a release. Also, the state of Bill Rowe
as Mentor is worth reporting on, even if to say it is unresolved.
I should also mention that I updated the report to remove Scott
Deboy's signoff box and add one for new Mentor Ralph Goers. Ralph
will be expected to sign off on this month's report.
Finally, log4cxx is no longer in monthly reporting because the Mentor
crisis is over, so you're back on a quarterly report cycle. It just
so happens that this is the month is your month, but your next report
won't come due for another three months.
Marvin Humphrey
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Bill,
This project was originally a subproject of logging. The PMC was made aware that there were people who were actively interested in “rebooting” the project. We were not comfortable adding those people to the logging PMC and suggested that it would be better to move the project to the incubator. Logging PMC members were supposed to offer to help mentor the project. Christian did but it doesn’t look anyone else did. With Christian unable to participate I volunteered to help. Ideally one or two other PMC members should also help out.
The main goal was to get the people who were interested in rebooting the project to the point where they could be re-integrated back into the logging project. To me that means they need at least 3 people who are contributing and who would be able to vote on releases. Graduation would most likely mean those individuals would become part of the Logging PMC.
If there are no longer 3 people interested in working on the project then we may have a problem. In the PMC thread that kicked this off there were 6 people mentioned. But that was over 2 years ago.
Ralph
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com <ma...@rectangular.com>> wrote:
>
> A report that states "no change since last month" is not a great
> report, but it is better than copying-and-pasting. But in fact there
> are interesting things to say about log4cxx's development the last
> month: it would help the IMPC to better understand the podling's state
> to know that while there remains a willing volunteer, there was no
> visible progress made towards a release. Also, the state of Bill Rowe
> as Mentor is worth reporting on, even if to say it is unresolved.
>
> Indeed, and it begs a reply.
>
> 1. We have an offer to prepare a release candidate, that's positive.
>
> 2. We have several working on the grand question of build schemas
> (which is not a must-fix for the very next release, but will be good
> to finally resolve and then release in the coming months).
>
> 3. We did not have an answer to whether 3+ project members are
> willing to review and vote for a candidate when I last raised the Q.
>
> If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and
> cast up/down votes on release candidates, then I am committed
> to mentoring this community and see it graduate. If there is still
> not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at
> labs.apache.org <http://labs.apache.org/>, or folded into another TLP who will assume the
> responsibility of reviewing and casting release votes.
>
>
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I should follow this up. My understanding is that the goal of this project in the incubator is to have at least 3 active committers who can demonstrate their ability to perform releases. Once that is accomplished those committers should be able to become Logging PMC members and the project can move back.
I don’t really see anything in the report that gives an indication of how close or far away we are and looking at the dev mailing list I am not sure either.
Ralph
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 5:46 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2016 6:36 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The fact that the logging PMC had no interest in including its contributors was a shame, let's work to avoid such mistakes in the future, and build an effective ppmc.
> >
> >
> > I don’t understand this statement. What contributors are you speaking of? There were no PMC members working on log4cxx at the time and no active committers as I recall. The PMC would have been willing to make the interested parties committers but no one on the PMC had any familiarity with the code base and so weren’t prepared to vote on a release.
>
> I may have misunderstood, thanks for clarifying.
>
> Bill
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Mar 1, 2016 6:36 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
>>
>> The fact that the logging PMC had no interest in including its
contributors was a shame, let's work to avoid such mistakes in the future,
and build an effective ppmc.
>
>
> I don’t understand this statement. What contributors are you speaking
of? There were no PMC members working on log4cxx at the time and no active
committers as I recall. The PMC would have been willing to make the
interested parties committers but no one on the PMC had any familiarity
with the code base and so weren’t prepared to vote on a release.
I may have misunderstood, thanks for clarifying.
Bill
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> The fact that the logging PMC had no interest in including its contributors was a shame, let's work to avoid such mistakes in the future, and build an effective ppmc.
>
I don’t understand this statement. What contributors are you speaking of? There were no PMC members working on log4cxx at the time and no active committers as I recall. The PMC would have been willing to make the interested parties committers but no one on the PMC had any familiarity with the code base and so weren’t prepared to vote on a release.
Ralph
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Mar 1, 2016 12:43, "Thorsten Schöning" <ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
>
> Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr,
> am Dienstag, 1. März 2016 um 18:28 schrieben Sie:
>
> > If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and
> > cast up/down votes on release candidates[...]
>
> I'm willing to vote, but reviewing is a more interesting part, because
> I mainly use a custom Windows environment and therefore would first
> need a Linux build env for the actual release candidate. Maybe I find
> some hours to have a look at such at the weekend...
>
> Or isn't it necessary that a voter is able to build on the platform of
> others voters/reviewers? Because I already use the trunk in production
> software, it's just build using a custom procedure.
Consider that each project member evaluates the candidate from their own
lens. Some might build using all the build schemas, others test on one
platform alone. Some are more focused on docs, perhaps one will pay extra
attention to the package gpg signatures.
We trust the committee and all project members ensure the IP provenance,
that commits were offered by their author or correctly attributed and
properly licensed or sublicensed under the Apache License. A release vote
tells the board that at least three committers are aware of no IP
infringement, watching the daily activity of the project.
The release vote tells the world that this is the product of the ASF, not
simply one or more committers, and tells the world this is, in the
project's opinion, the best available version of that software at the time
of the release. Not that it necessarily free of any and all defect.
How individuals make that determination can and should be unique from their
perspective. I think of it as 'do I find a reason -not- to release this
package?' When I don't see such an issue, my vote is +1.
> > If there is still
> > not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at
> > labs.apache.org[...]
>
> I find it interesting that you have something like labs with sentences
> like the following:
>
> > [...]without the burden of community building.
>
> But seem to lack something more focused on general maintenance? Attic
> is read only, incubator is to prove active development including
> community building and after graduation you need to stay "active",
> else you go back to incubator because of a new community or to the
> attic. This doesn't sound that there's any room for people just
> providing some kind of support for current user base.
>
> Or am I missing something?
Exactly... It is a place to continue development while attempting to
attract a community to that work. I don't see this as the ideal, only as a
last resort to continue the effort without releases.
The fact that the logging PMC had no interest in including its contributors
was a shame, let's work to avoid such mistakes in the future, and build an
effective ppmc.
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr,
am Dienstag, 1. März 2016 um 18:28 schrieben Sie:
> If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and
> cast up/down votes on release candidates[...]
I'm willing to vote, but reviewing is a more interesting part, because
I mainly use a custom Windows environment and therefore would first
need a Linux build env for the actual release candidate. Maybe I find
some hours to have a look at such at the weekend...
Or isn't it necessary that a voter is able to build on the platform of
others voters/reviewers? Because I already use the trunk in production
software, it's just build using a custom procedure.
> If there is still
> not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at
> labs.apache.org[...]
I find it interesting that you have something like labs with sentences
like the following:
> [...]without the burden of community building.
But seem to lack something more focused on general maintenance? Attic
is read only, incubator is to prove active development including
community building and after graduation you need to stay "active",
else you go back to incubator because of a new community or to the
attic. This doesn't sound that there's any room for people just
providing some kind of support for current user base.
Or am I missing something?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
>
> A report that states "no change since last month" is not a great
> report, but it is better than copying-and-pasting. But in fact there
> are interesting things to say about log4cxx's development the last
> month: it would help the IMPC to better understand the podling's state
> to know that while there remains a willing volunteer, there was no
> visible progress made towards a release. Also, the state of Bill Rowe
> as Mentor is worth reporting on, even if to say it is unresolved.
>
Indeed, and it begs a reply.
1. We have an offer to prepare a release candidate, that's positive.
2. We have several working on the grand question of build schemas
(which is not a must-fix for the very next release, but will be good
to finally resolve and then release in the coming months).
3. We did not have an answer to whether 3+ project members are
willing to review and vote for a candidate when I last raised the Q.
If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and
cast up/down votes on release candidates, then I am committed
to mentoring this community and see it graduate. If there is still
not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at
labs.apache.org, or folded into another TLP who will assume the
responsibility of reviewing and casting release votes.
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Marvin Humphrey,
am Dienstag, 1. März 2016 um 18:19 schrieben Sie:
> A report that states "no change since last month" is not a great
> report, but it is better than copying-and-pasting.[...]
Thanks for the hints, I always thought it's exactly the other way
around because that way people don't need to look at the last
reports. This was not the first C&P report because of that
misunderstanding... :-/
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow