GTM if voice required although, wouldn't make more sense to use #cloudstack-meeting as it keep record of discussions and is the regular channel? either way, I will be in on 10 Dec 16 UTC
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi < animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > Agreed > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On > > Behalf Of Will Stevens > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:41 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Cc: Steve Wilson > > Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process > > > > 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 > > > >
