Thanks Wido. Sounds like a warm reception from yourself. I will do more work on costs etc. Be a fun exercise even if likely proves academic.
> On 30 Jun 2017, at 18:13, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > >> 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 >>> >>> >>
