I am not doing much right now because our company has many other things on the go.
For about the first 6 months of 2016 CloudOps donated my time full time to act as the release manager of 4.9. That is not something we or I can sustain. Which is part of the problem. On Jun 30, 2017 1:28 PM, "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > How many companies are funding staff now to work on Cloudstack? How much > time? > How many FTEs does that come to if one adds it all up? > > It is harder to get people who are working on their own time to do > administrative tasks on a tight schedule. > > If someone is working for a company that is expecting the person to be > doing "cloudstack stuff", it may be possible to convince the company to > dedicate part of that person's time to release management. > > A RM doing it all may be harder to fund/organize than a Release Team. Not > all of the tasks have to be done in sequence or by one person. > > Ron > > On 30/06/2017 1:13 PM, Wido den Hollander 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > >
