Good to know that we have the right people talking with the right people. For the reasons I outlined, I'm confident we will sort this out because everyone's interests should be aligned on this and I'm sure ASF understands that in the age of infrastructure-as-code the ability to test myriad permutations of infrastructure in an automated fashion, in a way that is integrated efficiently into the developer workflow, is critical to the viability of a project and not simply a "nice to have".
Thanks! Ian On Saturday, 19 March 2016, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Ian Rae <i...@cloudops.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sam, > > > > Thanks for this context, I found it very helpful. We have an > > interesting situation where no large companies are involved, and > > really this is all about the needs of open source users. As you know > > Apache CloudStack is highly user driven, and is perhaps thankfully off > > the radar of the large industry players who have a tendency to subvert > > community interests in the interest of short term gain (and good > > governance comes in handy at such times, so we all understand the > > value of CloudStack being part of the ASF in that sense). Apache > > CloudStack also has some sophisticated reads related to CI/CD that are > > perhaps not common, and therefore require special consideration. > > > > I don’t know the Apache Foundation well enough to understand whether > > the large government style bureaucracy including poor communication is > > a normal thing, or whether the fact that there aren’t big players with > > sophisticated lobbying capabilities involved is the reason the > > community’s needs aren’t being addressed (not that I would even know > > if the ASF is susceptible to that). > > > > Trying to understand the cause behind the symptoms aside, the health > > and success of the Apache CloudStack project should be in the > > interests of both the ASF and CloudStack users and contributors. The > > community values the governance of the ASF and the ASF should value an > > engaged and motivated community, so why we are mired in such innuendo > > is beyond me (conspiracy theories!). Unless some of us are actually > > not here to build great open source software in the interest of users. > > > > So this appears to be the kind of time when leadership combined with > > clarity of thought and communication are important to avoid > > conversation devolving into simply “people being wrong on the > > internet”. I think I understand that the PMC leads the community. Who > > represents the ASF leadership on this topic? I think they should be > > engaged on this issue. > > At the ASF, leadership is generally bottoms up. To the extent that > you need access to a 'top", no less than three current ASF board > members have directly participated in this thread: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/ > > Whether I remain a Director or not (there are elections coming up this > week), feel free to reach out to me directly. And I'm confident that > each and every one of the current Directors would make exactly this > same offer. > > > Ian > > - Sam Ruby > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> That sounds like a cop-out to me related to what's really going > >>>> on. > >>> > >>> Jim, I am not a native english speaker and this remark has no meaning > to > >>> me. It sounds somewhat hostile, can you explain what you mean? > >> > >> I think there was a misunderstanding and history involved, and I'm > >> working to clean that up. > >> > >> The history involved is not unique to CloudStack. It often comes up > >> when large projects or large companies are involved. I work for a > >> large company (IBM), and often when IBM contemplates donating a > >> project to the ASF, the people involved are referred to me. The most > >> extreme example I recall was when a high level executive told me he > >> wanted to take a project to Apache, but wanted a different license, to > >> be able to control who got commit access, and to run the project on > >> different hardware. My response was simply: "then you don't want to > >> come to the ASF". > >> > >> Here we had the CloudStack PMC make a reasonable request to ASF > >> infrastructure team (i.e., for more granular permissions), and were > >> not only told no, but that their request was placed on the back > >> burner. I'm not proud of that response. A technical solution to the > >> problem was developed (kudos!) and a proof of concept was deployed > >> (cool!). Unfortunately, the proof of concept was poorly communicated, > >> and many (not just Jim!) saw this as an unfriendly act. And to be > >> very clear, the optics were very bad: within 5 days of opening a JIRA > >> that was rejected, the CloudStack team looked like they were > >> unilaterally moving off of the ASF provided GitHub repository. > >> > >> I don't think that there are any easy answers. In particular, I don't > >> think that projects should ever have to simply take no for an answer. > >> And the fact that the board didn't provide a response to the top issue > >> listed in the December board report, and didn't reply to the attempt > >> to provide an out-of-cycle report last month didn't help. > >> > >> Despite this clear failure of the board, I would suggest that the > >> CloudStack team alert the board before taking such an action again. > >> > >> - Sam Ruby > > > > > > > > -- > > Ian Rae > > CEO | PDG > > c: 514.944.4008 > > > > CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions > > www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6 > -- Ian Rae CEO | PDG c: 514.944.4008 CloudOps | Cloud Infrastructure and Networking Solutions www.cloudops.com | 420 rue Guy | Montreal | Canada | H3J 1S6
