Hi Steve, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Replies inlined below.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Steve Loughran <steve.lough...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 May 2012 19:35, Josh Wills <jwi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Hey Jakob, >> >> This was a tough one-- you know that I've been talking about Crunch >> w/Joe Adler for a few weeks now, and I personally am really looking >> forward to working with you guys. That said, the team did feel >> strongly about keeping the initial committers to people who had >> already added major pieces of functionality to Crunch, and adding >> Vinod was about his expertise on the MR2 internals, which we think >> will be critical to Crunch's success. We are going to put the Crunch >> proposal up for a vote with the current team in place. >> >> We are, of course, very eager to grow the list of committers through >> the normal Apache process. >> > > I'd go for pulling Jakob in for tactical and strategic reasons > > 1. He's using it at work, so represents the end users. A super-majority of the initial committers are also end users. I use Crunch on my own projects (e.g., http://github.com/cloudera/seismichadoop and http://github.com/cloudera/matching ), Cloudera solutions architects use Crunch on client projects, Robert is building tools on top of Crunch at WibiData, and Gabriel and Chris use it for building pipelines at TomTom. I can't speak for Tom and Vinod, but of course, they have other positive qualities. :) > 2. His code is always of high quality I in no way meant to disparage Jakob or his coding. The objective of my reply was say "no" in the most apologetic, obsequious way possible while not going so far over the top as to sound insincere. Having LinkedIn on board would be a tremendous PR boost for the project. It was painful to say no. I am in no way savvy in the ways of Apache or the politics of the ASF. I understand that smart people who I respect a great deal think that this is the wrong decision. But I think that it takes something really great for someone to see a project like Crunch, play around with, and then take the time to make some contributions to it without any expectation of recognition, in the form of an Apache committership or anything else. That was what Gabriel and Chris and Robert did over the past few months. I really admire that, and I think that it deserves some special recognition, however small. I'm willing to have some people not like me or think I'm dumb if that's the price of giving that to them. > 3. Given the ongoing discussion on diversity w.r.t Flume, I think it would > be wise to not follow that projects example, and try to get broader > involvement from the outset. I agree that it is critical to have broad involvement at the outset. Both S4 and Flume started out with at least 50% of their initial committers from a single company, and no single company constitutes a majority of the initial committers to Crunch (Cloudera has three, TomTom has two, WibiData has one, and Hortonworks has one). That de jure diversity mirrors the de facto diversity in Crunch's commit logs over the past several months: https://github.com/cloudera/crunch/commits/master There is nothing more important than increasing that de facto diversity over time. I fully expect that my role during the incubator process is to be the best documenter, repository maintainer, and recruiter of new contributors that I can be. Best, Josh -- Director of Data Science Cloudera Twitter: @josh_wills --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
