> Op 30 juni 2017 om 18:09 schreef Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com>: > > > We could probably split this topic down also.... > > I think I may have mentioned previously 😊 my view on how we have somewhat > shot ourselves in the foot with the release process this time around. I > think that for the most part, people have been well intentioned, and have > been trying to 'make this release as good as possible' which is > counter-productive, as it's been introducing new blockers. >
True. But still, somebody who dedicated 5 days a week on releases and keeping track of the project is still very welcome I think. > I'm not sure we have a problem in our 'loosely-agreed' process, it's just > that repeatedly people have ignored it. > I wouldn't say ignore it, but maybe forgotten about the process with all the best intentions. > WRT a full-time release manager, I suspect that they would find that "you can > lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". They would not be able > to compel anyone to 'hurry up and fix that bug you created', although I guess > maybe they could pull a feature if the author(s) didn't sort it out. > > Because ultimately a release manager, paid or otherwise should only be doing > what the 'community' decides the release manager's role is. So we need to be > clear about how we want releases to work before worrying about who manages > that. > Somebody who reverts a PR or commit to get to a proper release is probably a good thing. RM is a busy task and done in spare time. That's not always easy. Other projects like Ceph have a dedicated RM who is busy the whole week with just the new release. We could use such a person, but we would need the funding. How much would that cost? Well, you need to keep the overhead down. A few companies donating 10k per year should probably allow you to hire a person. Wido > Kind regards, > > Paul Angus > > paul.an...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com] > Sent: 30 June 2017 15:05 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof > > I am in complete agreement with you. Also on your other reply regards to a FT > release manager. > > If 'we' don't go down this line, more and more people will follow the > Cosmic/Schuberg Philis path or even use Cosmic instead. > > I'm encouraged by your response. Sounds like a few others hold the same > concerns. > > > Alexander Hitchins > ------------------------ > E: a...@alexhitchins.com > W: alexhitchins.com > M: 07788 423 969 > T: 01892 523 587 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 June 2017 14:54 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof > > Yes, Schuberg Philis, a very active community member forked Cosmic off of > CloudStack and has been developing their fork for their needs. > > I do think we need to have a more consistent front on this matter. I think it > would make a big difference on the quality, release cadence and perception of > the project. > > > > > On Jun 30, 2017 9:48 AM, "Alex Hitchins" <a...@alexhitchins.com> wrote: > > Thanks Will, > > I understand it's something that comes with a big bag of troublesome worries. > > If this topic comes up again in any discussions, I'd be interested to hear > their thoughts on what I see as the alternative; without a dedicated > RM/PM/Captain, people will fork off CS so they can achieve the same thing, > and CS ultimately looses out long term. I can't remember the name of the > fork, but I think I'm right that a previous large CS contributor/user forked > off as they wanted greater management in the areas we are discussing here. > > > Alexander Hitchins > ------------------------ > E: a...@alexhitchins.com > W: alexhitchins.com > M: 07788 423 969 > T: 01892 523 587 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > Sent: 30 June 2017 14:31 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Releases, Project Management & Funding Thereof > > Apache has been historically against the idea of a cloudstack foundation and > there is a bit of a pandoras box there which we will want to be careful about > opening. > > Apache added direct contribution, but it was unusable for us historically > because it required a minimum contribution of 50k, which none of us can > afford. However, there have been some changes to the board recently which are > in our favour if we want to put pressure to lower that to say 5-10k. > > Even if we do solve for smaller direct contributions, we will have to jump > through hoops to be able to use those funds for a dedicated release manager. > I do think this is a possibility if we manage our needs and communications > very well. I had some preliminary discussions with some apache foundation > folks to express these specific concerns. I played off the fact that i know > they dont want to entertain a cloudstack foundation and tried to see if i > could get them to move on the direct contribution mechanism to make it usable > for us, specifically with the goal of hiring a full time release manager. I > definitely had their ear and they acknowledged the problems we are facing > (and currently discussing). They expressed concerns about being able to hire > someone with the direct contributions, but brainstormed a bit to potentially > hire an agency who actually does the hire and they pay the persons salary > through the agency with the direct contribution funds. > > All to say, there are potential options here, but there be dragons, so we > have to handle this topic with care. > > On Jun 30, 2017 9:12 AM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > wrote: > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html says: > > "If you have a specific target or project that you wish to directly > > support, pleasecontact us <https://www.apache.org/founda > > tion/contributing.html#Fundraising>and we will do our best to satisfy > > your wishes." > > > > 1) Is Apache willing to allow projects to set up their own > > foundations? I doubt but someone would need to check this out. > > Does the PMC have the project charter or the agreement that was signed > > when Cloudstack moved. > > > > 2) Has anyone tried to contact Apache about directing support to > > Cloudstack. > > > > I am not convinced that lack of paid staff is the issue. > > This discussion reminded me of this. > > Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb ? > > A: Only one, but the lightbulb must want to change > > > > http://www.lightbulbjokes.com/directory/p.html > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > On 30/06/2017 6:48 AM, Alex Hitchins wrote: > > > >> As per Giles's comment to the previous thread, I thought I would > >> start a discussion on the subject to canvas peoples thoughts, > >> opinions > and fears. > >> > >> My question for discussion, is there is any mileage in someone > >> creating a "CloudStack Foundation" as a non-profit entity, funded > >> largely by key CloudStack players with the sole function of employing > >> dedicated resource (part or full time) to handle all releases and > >> other essential 'back office' functions. The idea being it's in > >> everyone's interest to chip in a little each to fund core project and > release management. > >> > >> The idea might be utterly irrelevant, pointless and/or straight up daft. > >> I urge you all to let me know. > >> > >> Something for you all to think over this weekend. > >> > >> > >> Alexander Hitchins > >> ------------------------ > >> E: a...@alexhitchins.com > >> W: alexhitchins.com > >> M: 07788 423 969 > >> T: 01892 523 587 > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com] > >> Sent: 30 June 2017 09:51 > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ > >> > >> All > >> This thread seems to have turned into 2 quite different discussions: > >> > >> 1. The use (or not) of Jira - which was the original discussion > >> > >> 2. Ways/means of encouraging (and paying for more structured > >> contributors) > >> > >> I know that it could be argued that these are related. Could I > >> suggest opening up a thread on "release and project management and > >> funding it" and keeping this thread to the original discussion > >> > >> (I will weigh in on both of these at some stage) > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Giles > >> > >> giles.sir...@shapeblue.com > >> www.shapeblue.com > >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com] > >> Sent: 29 June 2017 18:49 > >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ > >> > >> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to > >> market it as enterprise ready. > >> > >> I know we all know this. > >> > >> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same > >> issue, what is the best way to gather experience of these projects? > >> See how they handle these growing pains. > >> > >> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from > >> cloudstack seems a good way forward. > >> > >> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler > >> <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I understand that it is a volunteer organization. > >>> I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members > >>> are funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on > >>> Cloudstack during company time) which is often the way that Apache > >>> projects get staffed. > >>> > >>> Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company > >>> to fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not > >>> do something. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, the PMC has to build a community culture that is > >>> good for the project. > >>> That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, > >>> and maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort. > >>> > >>> There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on > >>> Cloudstack and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base. > >>> > >>> To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' > >>> ability to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market > >>> share and acceptance. > >>> > >>> Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be > >>> treated like a product? > >>> - sufficient functionality to compete > >>> - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market > >>> - production reliability and stability > >>> - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued > >>> support > >>> > >>> This may not require more effort but requires different policies and > >>> different activities. > >>> > >>> There has to be someone or a PMC that can say "No". > >>> - This change can not be included in this release because it will > >>> delay the release. > >>> - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity > >>> - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is > >>> too late to test it and fix the docs. > >>> - This fix breaks the docs > >>> - The release can not be made until this doc is updated. > >>> > >>> Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it > >>> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form? > >>> > >>> Ron > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > >>>> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming > >>>> it does, fine... > >>>> > >>>> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has > >>>> zero funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release > >>>> manager or someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I > >>>> have been trying to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full > >>>> time release manager who can focus 100% on the project. As the > >>>> release manager for 4.9, I know it is a full time job. I did my > >>>> best, but it is a ton of work and is hard to stay on top of. > >>>> > >>>> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They > >>>> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their > >>>> best with the little time they can take away from their day job or > >>>> their family life. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but > >>>> without a solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved > >>>> testing and automation, we will always struggles with release > >>>> schedules and such. > >>>> > >>>> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all > >>>> the problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved. > >>>> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take > >>>> small steps towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic > >>>> with our expectations because we are counting on people's > >>>> generosity to move them forward. > >>>> > >>>> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to > >>>> more contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one > >>>> reason why I struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. > >>>> I personally don't understand what value it is giving us that the > >>>> github PRs and Issues don't solve. > >>>> > >>>> I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people > >>>> think is best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are > >>>> trying to solve for and simplify our approach in solving it so we > >>>> can get better systems in place. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" > >>>> <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right. > >>>>> > >>>>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a > >>>>> project or a production quality product. > >>>>> > >>>>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the > >>>>> release schedule? > >>>>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which > >>>>> there seem to be many) of releases? > >>>>> > >>>>> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to > >>>>> plan for upgrade windows? > >>>>> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be > available? > >>>>> > >>>>> How does the PMC manage function creep in a release, maintain > >>>>> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall > >>>>> vision or add too much complexity? > >>>>> > >>>>> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how > >>>>> would they stop undocumented features or features that contradict > >>>>> the documentation from being incorporated? > >>>>> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of > >>>>> the release? > >>>>> Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or > >>>>> evaluating Cloudstack. > >>>>> > >>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a > >>>>> problem know that it has been fixed already in the next release? > >>>>> > >>>>> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed > >>>>> change before it gets coded? > >>>>> > >>>>> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a > >>>>> definition of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA? > >>>>> - does not change functionality? > >>>>> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is > >>>>> not properly handled? > >>>>> - only improves code readability or future extensibility? > >>>>> - does not affect documentation? > >>>>> > >>>>> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have > >>>>> strong management. > >>>>> > >>>>> There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to > >>>>> get recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the > >>>>> product management side of things. > >>>>> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong > >>>>> technical team supporting it. > >>>>> It has very little following because the documentation and > >>>>> marketing collateral is very poor. > >>>>> It gets by because the audience for it is largely software > >>>>> developers who can read code and can test features to work out the > >>>>> functionality. > >>>>> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the > >>>>> product management side of the project. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this > >>>>> takes effort and some discipline. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Ron > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that > >>>>>> communication? Can we not use issues in github now instead of > >>>>>> jira if someone needs to open an issue but does not yet have code > >>>>>> to contribute. If not, jira could still be used for that. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of > >>>>>> pointless. I feel like the github PRs and the cide going in > >>>>>> should be the source of truth, not a random third party tool. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release > >>>>>> notes from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier > >>>>>> and more accurate than depending on jira since it does not track > >>>>>> the actual code tree. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thats my 0.02$. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back. > >>>>>> It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding > >>>>>> what CloudStack does and how it does it. > >>>>>> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone. > >>>>>> Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Paul Angus > >>>>>> > >>>>>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >>>>>> www.shapeblue.com > >>>>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > >>>>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14 > >>>>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus > >>>>>> <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper > >>>>>> + Jira > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> history. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code > >>>>>>> anyway, > >>>>>> hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it > >>>>>> is not required for good coding practices and as we are not and > >>>>>> will not function as a corporation, jira is an extra for those > >>>>>> that grave for it. not a requirement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Daan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>> Ron Wheeler > >>>>> President > >>>>> Artifact Software Inc > >>>>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > >>>>> skype: ronaldmwheeler > >>>>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>> Ron Wheeler > >>> President > >>> Artifact Software Inc > >>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler > >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > -- > > Ron Wheeler > > President > > Artifact Software Inc > > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > > skype: ronaldmwheeler > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > > > >
