> I just believe that we should not look at the organizations behind the
> persons
You collaborate as an organisation, produce work for the project as an
organisation, and the organisation tells its members - each to some greater or
lesser extent - how to spend their labour. Even if we only treat you as a
coherent social group engaging with the project, your organisation still
exists. If you want we can jump through whatever semantic exercise you like to
define your organisation's manifestation in the project in a manner that is
acceptable to you, but let's not pretend that it does not exist, and that its
priorities do not exert significant control over the project.
> It is natural that some people push a bit more towards new
> features\improvements and others towards stability
Features do not come cost-free to other contributors. Those who focus on
features at the expense of quality end up being subsidised by the labour of the
latter group. This is unacceptable, and unworkable in the long run. If an
organisation controlling overwhelming labour resources does not prioritise
quality, there will be a crisis of governance that will need to be addressed.
On 29/06/2020, 15:33, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> wrote:
Sorry, Benedict. My answer was probably not phrased in the correct way.
I just believe that we should not look at the organizations behind the
persons participating in the project. I am not my organization and it does
not push me in a direction or another.
Of course, our opinions are somehow tainted by our organizations but that
does not mean that individuals can be reduced to their organization.>
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:33 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I believe that we should try to assume that everybody has positive
> intentions. :-)
>
> What did I say that suggests I have assumed any negative intentions?
> Sometimes this phrase reads as a thought-terminating cliché.
>
>
>
> On 29/06/2020, 13:28, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If this is in response to my email, you misunderstand me.
> >
>
> Sorry, that was not a response.
> Increasing stability was mentioned a lot in that thread. I am all for
> it. I
> just wanted to raise the issue that the plan for that is not clear at
> least
> for me.
>
> That is not to say there should not be agreed minimum deliverables,
but
> > they should be readily achievable in that time-frame.
> >
>
> I am totally in favor of determining what the deliverables should be.
>
> I am pointing to the implied signals about an organisation's
> priorities and
> > values that are communicated by its actions.
> >
>
> I believe that we should try to assume that everybody has positive
> intentions. :-)
> I have been against the freeze from day one. In my opinion it had a
> negative impact on the project. Now it is just a personal feeling and
> it
> does not mean that I am not all in favor of delivering a product of
> better
> quality.
> I have spent most of my first 2 years working on C* writing test for
> the
> CQL code and that paid off in the long term as it seems that we do not
> have
> too many bugs in that area.
> For Cassandra to grow we need both new features/improvements and
> stability.
> It is natural that some people push a bit more towards new
> features\improvements and others towards stability.
> I would be worried if everybody wanted to go in the same direction.
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:22 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > If this is in response to my email, you misunderstand me. There are
> > distinct issues at play. To respond directly to the issue you
> raise: I am
> > personally inclined to pursue a release of 4.0 within some time-box
> - say
> > 3-6 months. We have already done a huge amount to improve the
> quality of
> > the project since 3.x. That is not to say there should not be
agreed
> > minimum deliverables, but they should be readily achievable in that
> > time-frame. We can soon be confident of the highest quality .0
> release to
> > date in the project, even if we have not delivered all that we
> originally
> > hoped on the quality assurance front.
> >
> > However, I am looking forward to the way the project delivers 5.0,
> and
> > whether we will continue to improve. I am pointing to the implied
> signals
> > about an organisation's priorities and values that are communicated
> by its
> > actions. These signals are read by actors both internal and
> external to
> > the organisation, and shape their actions in turn. If there is a
> > disconnect between the implied and expressed priorities, this leads
> to
> > tensions; usually to the detriment of the expressed priorities,
since
> > actions speak louder than words.
> >
> >
> > On 29/06/2020, 10:10, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > I believe that we all need to see 4.0.0 being released. We have
> been
> > frozen
> > for too long in my opinions and some people simply believe that
> the
> > project
> > is dead. That is hurting us.
> >
> > That does not mean that I am not in favor of making that release
> as
> > stable
> > as possible.
> > What we miss in my opinion is a clear target and some metrics.
> When
> > will we
> > know that we can release 4.0? How are we measuring its quality?
> > If we cannot provide some answers to those questions we can end
> up
> > spending
> > our life searching for bugs and 4.0 will never be released.
> >
> > Maybe there is a clear plan in the mind of some of you guys. It
> is
> > just not
> > the case for me. So chances are that I am not the only one in
> this
> > case.
> >
> > The 4.0 Beta is nearly there, more than ever we need a clear
> testing
> > plan
> > that will lead us to releasing 4.0.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:07 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> > bened...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Just a heads up - this comes across as passive aggressive
> sniping.
> > I'm
> > > sure you didn't mean it as such
> > >
> > > I think indirect criticism is a normal part of discourse,
> > particularly in
> > > public fora where it can be more polite and less disruptive
> than
> > direct
> > > criticism. Ironically, this snippet of yours seem (to me) to
> be more
> > > readily ascribed your epithet; which is fine, of course, and
> > pleasingly
> > > meta.
> > >
> > > > very little has publically materialized on the project to
> this
> > point
> > > that I know of
> > >
> > > I think you are wrong, here. Firstly, you overlook recent
> work such
> > as
> > > (but not limited to): FQL, cassandra-diff, in-jvm dtests; also
> the
> > steady
> > > drip of dozens of critical bugs found, and the work to fix
> those
> > bugs. It
> > > is perhaps unfair to label "very little" work that has spanned
> > several
> > > years and uncovered perhaps the majority of serious
> correctness bugs.
> > >
> > > Secondly, there is an important distinction to draw, between
QA
> > projects
> > > that are in progress but not yet published, and an absence of
> such
> > > projects. We might also note feature development endeavours
> that
> > have been
> > > initiated, and whether work aims to improve quality or expand
> > > functionality. I look forward to seeing the balance of
> investments
> > shift
> > > to match stated priorities in the near future.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27/06/2020, 03:10, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've seen a lot of talk from some quarters of a new
> approach to
> > > quality,
> > > > but so far there have been few contributions from the
> same
> > quarters
> > > >
> > > Just a heads up - this comes across as passive aggressive
> > sniping. I'm
> > > sure
> > > you didn't mean it as such but it does read that way (at
> least
> > to me).
> > >
> > > When it comes to quality, much like you said in another
> thread
> > > Benedict I
> > > think we all need to be honest with ourselves. There's
> been a
> > lot of
> > > talk
> > > from *all* quarters but outside a lot of expression of
> intent
> > across
> > > many
> > > fronts (verbal, ML, JIRA, slack), very little has
> publically
> > > materialized
> > > on the project to this point that I know of.
> > >
> > > I cleared out assignees on 40_quality_testing tickets
> earlier
> > this week
> > > (overloading shepherds in this field was a mistake IMO -
> that's
> > on me)
> > > which has clarified for some contributors that they can
> take
> > that work
> > > on.
> > > There's still considerable uncertainty as to what the
> scope is
> > for
> > > those
> > > tickets and nobody really replied to Jordan pinging
> shepherds for
> > > clarification a long while ago.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:44 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> djo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Jun 26, 2020, at 3:45 PM, David Capwell <
> > dcapw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > the ability to test their impact. Even simple things
> become
> > hard
> > > given
> > > > the
> > > > > fact only committers can run Jenkins tests, or you pay
> money
> > to be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > run the tests... If the intent is to make it easier
> for new
> > > people to
> > > > > contribute to the project, shouldn't the focus be on
> fixing
> > their
> > > pain
> > > > > points such as testing?
> > > >
> > > > +1 on not branching and keeping focus on testing and
> fixing
> > 4.0.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry about the situation for non-committers. I
> tried
> > reaching
> > > out to
> > > > legal and infra in the past without a great response. If
> > someone in
> > > the
> > > > community has a way to reach out and get clarity on
> problems
> > > affecting our
> > > > contributors, it would be great. Otherwise, I will try
> to bug
> > them
> > > again.
> > > >
> > > > Dinesh
> > > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
