I am frankly not informed enough to vote up or down. I remain concerned at the rate we turn out projects that are monocultures but I will trust the people to whom this decision is delegated.
On Nov 8, 2016 18:51, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 11/08/2016 11:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/07/2016 10:05 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> I was looking at Snoot, and some figures jumped at me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is the Podling (and the IPMC) satisfied that there is no concern > with > >>>>>> people affiliated with a single company providing more than 90% of > all > >>>>>> commits over the past year and, as far as I can tell, the vast > majority > >>>>>> of tickets and email, as well as a 73% stake in the proposed PMC? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is the IPMC satisfied that, should this company opt to not further > spend > >>>>>> resources on this project, that the project would still be as > viable? > >>>>>> > >>>> Hi Daniel, > >>>> > >>>> I've observed this project since it joined the incubator and they've > worked > >>>> hard to create an open and welcoming community and to fix all the > issues > >>>> raised that could be barriers to their graduation. > >>>> > >>>> In terms of percentages, these things have been debated previously in > >>>> graduation of projects such as Ignite, Flume, Tez etc and I'm not > going to > >>>> repeat the arguments from those discussions. Geode would be better > with > >>>> served with a wider community, but I think what matters is 1) have > they > >>>> demonstrated the behaviors we expect and 2) are they moving in the > right > >>>> direction. Geode is a great community and a pleasure to be involved > with > >>>> and I would say yes to both of these. I believe they are going in the > right > >>>> direction to make this project less dependent on one company and > except to > >>>> change the percentages you've pointed out, theres no purpose left for > them > >>>> being in the incubator. They've shown that they can manage themselves > and > >>>> theres enough independent oversight to mitigate concerns which is why > I > >>>> think we should vote for them to graduate. > >>> > >>> Given the discussions around single-vendor projects that are raging on > >>> board@ I would have to agree with Daniel's concerns here. Projects > that > >>> are heavily dominated by a single vendor/company/organization > >>> historically cause problems over time. > >> > >> I think that other discussion addresses a very different set of > problems. > >> > >>> Is there a huge rush to get this project graduated? > >> > >> I'd rather flip your argument around and say: at this point sitting in > the > >> Incubator adds no value to the project nor does it teach anything > >> new or useful to its PPMC or a community at large. > > > > If it turns the project into a more diverse/dispersed community, I'd say > > that's added value. We can argue all night whether that's up to the > > IPMC, the project or the board to figure out, I'm not sure we'll agree > > there :) > > > >> > >>> Surely we serve the > >>> Foundation, and this project, better, by ensuring that this problem > >>> (and, yes, it's a problem) is addressed before we grant them TLP > status? > >> > >> I disagree. The Incubator is a place to make sure that the community > >> (regardless of its composition) truly understands and practices the > >> "Apache Way". As has been suggested on this thread by a number of > >> votes from project's mentors and IPMC members embedded in the > >> Geode community that mission has been accomplished. > >> > >> I see no reason to hold the project hostage over the diversity > requirement > >> simply because it is pointless for IPMC, project and the foundation. > > > > Except it's not pointless for the foundation, we've seen that. we're > > seeing that right now with several projects that either die completely > > or take a very wrong turn because someone higher up the food chain > > thinks otherwise about the project(s), and that also hurts the > > foundation - let's not pretend that never happens. I can't say whether > > this would be true for Geode (how would I know?), but a 96+% chunk of > > all contributions coming from people affiliated with a single company is > > worrisome to me. > > > >> > >>> I'm personally less concerned with the sustainability of the project > >>> should the company opt out of working on the project, and more > concerned > >>> with the kind of monoculture "we own it" problems that we're starting > to > >>> see crop up in other projects that were allowed to graduate without > >>> building the community first. > >> > >> Then you really should be voting "yes" on this thread. There's a good > number > >> of us on IPMC who believe that "we own it" is really not a problem with > this > >> community. > > > > I'd say Rich should vote what he feels is right, not what "a good number > > of us" think is right. That's not how consensus works. > > True. But it is *my* right to try and convince Rich to change his mind in a > certain direction. Whether he gets convinced or not -- is, as you pointed > out, > up to him. > > > You'll notice that I haven't just said "-1, I don't like it". But I also > > haven't heard any compelling arguments as to why this isn't a problem, > > save a "we're sure it's not a problem" reply. > > I don't think we can present any material evidence that project is going > to be free from "we own it" mentality for ANY given project. First of all, > there's no way to predict the future. Which means that the strongest > argument we can present is only this: "the behavior during 19 months > hasn't exhibited signs of 'we own it' mentality and all the signs point to > the fact that it is unlikely to be a problem". This is the argument that is > being presented here. > > Now, as with any argument that is not rooted is science, but rather comes > from observing social dynamics -- you never ever going to have an ironclad > opinion (short of, may be personally spending enough time yourself > observing > said social dynamics). That is why the opinion of mentors and IPMC members > embedded in the community and some of the data points presented in the > DISCUSS > thread (like the fact that the PMC chair is at this point a Pivotal > alumni, no > longer working for the company but still active in the project) could > help boost > your level of comfort in that we're making the right call here. > > Honestly, this is the best we can do. And just like with the other choice > that > a lot of people are facing today -- once you've heard all the sides (and > you > really should -- echochambers are awful!) you'll have to make your own > call. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
