Thanks for listening to my concerns folks... and I'll be rooting for those
of you that are "doing" to come up with some better practices for the
community to adopt!
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Agreed
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of Will Stevens
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:41 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Cc: Steve Wilson
> > Subject: Re: CloudStack Quality Process
> >
> > I am speaking as a committer who has limited insight into the 'correct'
> way to do
> > this via Apache (so be gentle). :)
> >
> > I like the idea of a wiki page to help get everyone on the same page and
> to track
> > the consensus as we move forward...
> >
> > I also agree that it is hard to come to a consensus on the list because
> it is really
> > hard to have a constructive conversation on here in a timely manner
> where the
> > different voices can be heard.
> >
> > I think it would be interesting to schedule sessions/meetings on the
> list so any
> > interested party can join. These sessions/meetings would happen in a
> format
> > like IRC where the transcript of the session can be later posted to the
> list as well
> > as a summary of the transcript so it can be reviewed by any member who
> could
> > not make the meeting. This way we keep all of the actual conversation
> in the
> > list, but we also make it easier to actually have a 'conversation' at
> the same time.
> > It is hard to beat real time when working through this sort of stuff.
> >
> > Does this make sense to others? Thoughts?
> >
> > Will
> >
> >
> > *Will STEVENS*
> > Lead Developer
> >
> > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
> > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw
> > @CloudOps_
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wearing my PMC hat and with past experience on these discussions we
> > > have not made much progress on mailing list despite agreeing on the
> > > goals and have locked horns. One possibility after reading Chip's
> > > email and concerns I see is that, we create a wiki outlining the
> > > problem space, possible
> > > solution(s) and their specific pros and cons and have people
> collaborate.
> > > Once a general consensus is there and wiki is stable we can bring it
> > > back to the mailing list for final approval. This is open as well as
> > > requires participant a higher degree of commitment to collaborate and
> > > will be more structured.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Animesh
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Chip Childers
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Steve,
> > > > >
> > > > > (Speaking with my PMC hat on, but not as someone that has the time
> > > > > to help with this process)
> > > > >
> > > > > I love the idea of moving forward with resolving some of the
> > > > > quality process / tooling / etc... challenges that we face as a
> > > > > project and community. I also love the idea that companies getting
> > > > > commercial value from this project are talking (as companies)
> > > > > about how to best support the project through either directing
> > > > > their employees to work on this problem, allowing those interested
> > > > > the time to do so, and / or offering (as Citrix did) required
> > > > > hardware/software resources to make improvements for the common
> > > > > good. Importantly, I like that the companies involved are
> > > > > mutually agreeing that this is for the common good.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I have a concern about the outline below, specifically
> > > > > in how the definition of approach and eventual execution are
> handled.
> > > > > The proposal of taking this off-list until there is a "proposal to
> > > ratify"
> > > > > is what I'd like to see changed. I would fully expect that a
> > > > > fleshed out proposal hitting the list would be met with more
> > > > > discussion than you would like (and perhaps even met with
> frustration).
> > > > >
> > > > > What has worked well for us in the past, where there is a need to
> > > > > have those interested in "doing work" to be able to focus on that
> > > > > work, has been to start with a call for interested parties (as you
> > > > > did). Then, using a combination of threads on this list and "live"
> > > > > meetings, make progress on defining the requirements and approach
> > incrementally.
> > > > > Execution of any work should similarly be open and shared on this
> list.
> > > > > Throughout that process, allowing comments and openings for
> > > > > participants are critical.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the things we learned about using "live" meetings to speed
> > > > > up the consensus process in the past is to make sure that while
> > > > > they are fantastic at allowing the participants to understand each
> > > > > other, it's critical to remember that (1) the
