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 <run...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:43 AM To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@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) >><chris.a.mattm...@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" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> >> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM >> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@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 <mattm...@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 <run...@gmail.com> >>>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>>>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 3:15 AM >>>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <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 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 <mattm...@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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
