I am speaking as a committer who has limited insight into the 'correct' way to do this via Apache (so be gentle). :)
I like the idea of a wiki page to help get everyone on the same page and to track the consensus as we move forward... I also agree that it is hard to come to a consensus on the list because it is really hard to have a constructive conversation on here in a timely manner where the different voices can be heard. I think it would be interesting to schedule sessions/meetings on the list so any interested party can join. These sessions/meetings would happen in a format like IRC where the transcript of the session can be later posted to the list as well as a summary of the transcript so it can be reviewed by any member who could not make the meeting. This way we keep all of the actual conversation in the list, but we also make it easier to actually have a 'conversation' at the same time. It is hard to beat real time when working through this sort of stuff. Does this make sense to others? Thoughts? Will *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > Wearing my PMC hat and with past experience on these discussions we have > not made much progress on mailing list despite agreeing on the goals and > have locked horns. One possibility after reading Chip's email and concerns > I see is that, we create a wiki outlining the problem space, possible > solution(s) and their specific pros and cons and have people collaborate. > Once a general consensus is there and wiki is stable we can bring it back > to the mailing list for final approval. This is open as well as requires > participant a higher degree of commitment to collaborate and will be more > structured. > > Thanks > Animesh > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Steve, > > > > > > (Speaking with my PMC hat on, but not as someone that has the time to > > > help with this process) > > > > > > I love the idea of moving forward with resolving some of the quality > > > process / tooling / etc... challenges that we face as a project and > > > community. I also love the idea that companies getting commercial > > > value from this project are talking (as companies) about how to best > > > support the project through either directing their employees to work > > > on this problem, allowing those interested the time to do so, and / or > > > offering (as Citrix did) required hardware/software resources to make > > > improvements for the common good. Importantly, I like that the > > > companies involved are mutually agreeing that this is for the common > > > good. > > > > > > That said, I have a concern about the outline below, specifically in > > > how the definition of approach and eventual execution are handled. > > > The proposal of taking this off-list until there is a "proposal to > ratify" > > > is what I'd like to see changed. I would fully expect that a fleshed > > > out proposal hitting the list would be met with more discussion than > > > you would like (and perhaps even met with frustration). > > > > > > What has worked well for us in the past, where there is a need to have > > > those interested in "doing work" to be able to focus on that work, has > > > been to start with a call for interested parties (as you did). Then, > > > using a combination of threads on this list and "live" meetings, make > > > progress on defining the requirements and approach incrementally. > > > Execution of any work should similarly be open and shared on this list. > > > Throughout that process, allowing comments and openings for > > > participants are critical. > > > > > > One of the things we learned about using "live" meetings to speed up > > > the consensus process in the past is to make sure that while they are > > > fantastic at allowing the participants to understand each other, it's > > > critical to remember that (1) there are no project decisions made > > > outside of the mailing lists and (2) that it's important to have > > > minutes or notes from those live meetings shared with the community as > a > > whole. > > > > > > Now a very real concern that some of us have is getting bogged down in > > > arguments based on opinion, especially the "drive by" opinions. This > > > issue (plus challenges with people violently agreeing with each other, > > > yet talking past each other), is what I believe has held up meaningful > > > progress. To deal with this, I suggest we all remember that projects > > > at the ASF are about supporting those that "DO", while giving > > > opportunity for participation and comment from those that might not > > > currently be "DOING". But those that are doing the work, and > > > collaborating to reach a shared goal, shouldn't let a lack of 100% > > > consensus on every aspect hold back progress. > > > > > > As someone who will not be "doing" anything for this effort, but has > > > an interest in maintaining this community's health and seeing it > > > continue to succeed, I hope my suggestions and comments are helpful. > > > > > > -chip > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:12:27PM +0000, Steve Wilson wrote: > > >> Hi Everyone, > > >> > > >> It was great to get to see a number of you at the recent CCC in > Budapest. > > While I was there, I got to meet face to face with individuals working > for several > > companies that have a real stake in the commercial success of the > CloudStack > > project. > > >> > > >> After joining Citrix (and becoming involved in CloudStack) about a > year ago, > > I’ve come to believe that we need to do more to mature our quality > practices > > around this codebase. We all like to say #cloudstackworks (and it’s > true), but > > this is a massive codebase that’s used in the most demanding > situations. We > > have large telecommunications companies and enterprises who are betting > their > > businesses on this software. It has to be great! > > >> > > >> There has been quite a bit of discussion on the mailing list in > recent months > > about how we improve in this area. There is plenty of passion, but we > haven’t > > made enough concrete progress as a community. In my discussions with key > > contributors as CCC, there was general agreement that the DEV list isn’t > a good > > forum for hashing out these kinds of things. Email is too low-bandwidth > and too > > impersonal. > > >> > > >> At CCC, I discussed with several people the idea that we commission a > small > > sub team to go hash out a proposal for how we handle the following topics > > within the ACS community (which can then be brought back to the larger > > community for ratification): > > >> > > >> * Continuous integration and test automation > > >> * Gating of commits > > >> * Overall commit workflow > > >> > > >> We are looking for volunteers to commit to being part of this team. > This > > would imply a serious commitment. We don’t want hangers on or observers. > > This will entail real work and late night meetings. We’re looking for > people who > > are serious contributors to the codebase. > > >> > > >> From Citrix, David Nalley and Animesh Chaturvedi have booth told me > they’re > > willing to commit to this project. They’ve both managed ACS releases > and have > > a really good view into the current process — and I know both are > passionate > > about improving our process. From my CCC discussions, I believe there > are > > individuals from Schuberg Philis, Shape Blue and Cloud Ops who are > willing to > > commit to this process. > > >> > > >> If you are willing to be part of this team to drive forward our > community, > > please reply here. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> -Steve > > >> > > >> Steve Wilson > > >> VP & Product Unit Manager > > >> Cloud Software > > >> Citrix > > >> @virtualsteve > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan >
