Folks We had good initial session this morning and we have started a public wiki [1] to allow us to collaborate. It is a scratch pad for start and we all will refine it as we go along. The link to recording and the chat log from today's meeting are also referenced in the wiki.
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Quality+and+Process+Improvement+Initiative > -----Original Message----- > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:05 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: Steve Wilson > Subject: RE: CloudStack Quality Process > > The meeting is on ... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 8:56 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Cc: Steve Wilson > > Subject: RE: CloudStack Quality Process > > > > Yes I am planning to record the GTM > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:59 PM > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Cc: Steve Wilson > > > Subject: RE: CloudStack Quality Process > > > > > > Is it possible to record the meeting? Maybe we can post it so others > > > can view it if they are not able to attend (or only become > > > interested after the first couple meetings and wants to catch up)? > > > > > > Will > > > On Dec 9, 2014 9:52 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" > > > <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I can setup a GTM since it is free for Citrix. > > > > > > > > Here are the details. > > > > > > > > 1. Please join my meeting. > > > > https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/285394368 > > > > > > > > 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. > > > > Or, call in using your telephone. > > > > > > > > United States: +1 (213) 493-0008 > > > > Argentina (toll-free): 0 800 444 2385 Australia (toll-free): 1 800 > > > > 191 358 > > > > Australia: +61 2 9091 7603 > > > > Austria (toll-free): 0 800 080061 > > > > Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 0716 > > > > Bahrain (toll-free): 800 81 305 > > > > Belarus (toll-free): 8 820 0011 0331 Belgium (toll-free): 0 800 > > > > 81388 > > > > Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 4372 > > > > Brazil (toll-free): 0 800 047 4909 Bulgaria (toll-free): 00800 120 > > > > 4413 Canada (toll-free): 1 877 777 > > > > 3281 > > > > Canada: +1 (647) 497-9380 > > > > Chile (toll-free): 800 395 146 > > > > China (toll-free): 4008 866154 > > > > Colombia (toll-free): 01 800 012 9057 Czech Republic (toll-free): > > > > 800 500453 Denmark (toll-free): 8025 0919 > > > > Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 84 58 > > > > Finland (toll-free): 0 800 94473 > > > > Finland: +358 (0) 931 58 1773 > > > > France (toll-free): 0 805 541 052 > > > > France: +33 (0) 170 950 590 > > > > Germany (toll-free): 0 800 184 4230 > > > > Germany: +49 (0) 692 5736 7300 > > > > Greece (toll-free): 00 800 4414 4282 Hong Kong (toll-free): > > > > 30774812 Hungary (toll-free): (06) 80 986 259 Iceland (toll-free): > > > > 800 9993 India (toll-free): 000 800 100 8227 Indonesia > > > > (toll-free): 001 803 > > > > 020 2563 Ireland (toll-free): 1 800 818 > > > > 263 > > > > Ireland: +353 (0) 15 133 006 > > > > Israel (toll-free): 1 809 388 020 > > > > Italy (toll-free): 800 792289 > > > > Italy: +39 0 699 26 68 65 > > > > Japan (toll-free): 0 120 242 200 > > > > Korea, Republic of (toll-free): 0806180880 Luxembourg (toll-free): > > > > 800 > > > > 81016 Malaysia (toll-free): 1 800 81 6860 Mexico (toll-free): 01 > > > > 800 > > > > 123 8367 Netherlands (toll-free): 0 800 020 0178 > > > > Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 080 759 > > > > New Zealand (toll-free): 0 800 47 0051 New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 974 > > > > 9579 Norway (toll-free): 800 69 055 > > > > Norway: +47 21 04 30 59 > > > > Panama (toll-free): 001 800 507 2789 Peru (toll-free): 0 800 55253 > > > > Philippines (toll-free): 1 800 1110 1565 Poland (toll-free): 00 > > > > 800 > > > > 3211434 Portugal (toll-free): 800 180 139 Romania (toll-free): 0 > > > > 800 > > > > 410 025 Russian Federation (toll-free): 8 800 100 6914 Saudi > > > > Arabia > > > > (toll-free): 800 844 3636 Singapore (toll-free): 800 101 3000 > > > > South Africa (toll-free): 0 800 555 451 Spain (toll-free): 800 900 > > > > 593 > > > > Spain: +34 931 76 1534 > > > > Sweden (toll-free): 020 794 545 > > > > Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 691 > > > > Switzerland (toll-free): 0 800 000 452 > > > > Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0026 89 > > > > Taiwan (toll-free): 0 800 666 846 > > > > Thailand (toll-free): 001 800 852 2442 Turkey (toll-free): 00 800 > > > > 4488 > > > > 29001 Ukraine (toll-free): 0 800 50 4691 United Arab Emirates > > > > (toll-free): 800 044 40444 United Kingdom (toll-free): 0 808 168 > > > > 0209 United Kingdom: +44 (0) 20 7151 1817 United States (toll-free): > > > > 1 877 > > > > 309 2070 Uruguay (toll-free): 000 405 4459 Viet Nam (toll-free): > > > > 120 > > > > 32 148 > > > > > > > > Access Code: 285-394-368 > > > > Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting > > > > > > > > Meeting ID: 285-394-368 > > > > > > > > GoToMeeting® > > > > Online Meetings Made Easy® > > > > > > > > Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from > > > > your iPhone®, iPad® or Android® device via the GoToMeeting app. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Pierre-Luc Dion [mailto:pd...@cloudops.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:16 AM > > > > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > > > > Cc: Steve Wilson > > > > > Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process > > > > > > > > > > Based on Doodle. Meeting is schedule for Dec 10th, 17h00 UTC. > > > > freenode: > > > > > #cloudstack-meeting unless someone have a GTM. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland > > > > > <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When do we call the result of the doodle? wait for wednesday? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Chip Childers > > > > > > <chipchild...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for listening to my concerns folks... and I'll be > > > > > > > rooting for > > > > > > those > > > > > > > of you that are "doing" to come up with some better > > > > > > > practices for the community to adopt! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Daan > > > > > > > > > >
