The point I'm making about project dysfunction is something I've learned to expect from projects that are using inappropriate means to control the project. Any time you challenge their means of control, the response you get will indicate whether or not you are barking up the wrong tree. The absence of inappropriate feedback is in fact a sign that we are not gauging things such as they actually are, but are projecting our own perceptions onto the project.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > The whole point of the ASF's archiving policy is to ensure these types of > concerns can > be examined objectively by others. With jira we have the ability to drill > down in considerably > more detail than we do trawling the email archives, but in either case any > objective attempts > to discover inappropriate conduct will fail to yield much fruit. The > committers do work fast > when it comes to repairing bugs they discover, but that doesn't mean they > are doing things > in the wrong order. I have yet to see a large patch prematurely applied > to the repo: the bulk > of the patches are minor changes that certainly can be worked out hours > after discovering the > problem and filing the ticket. > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Look at what we don't see- signs of dysfunction. Even with this thread, >> with serious consequences for the podling, >> nobody is behaving in a territorial or defensive way about the project. >> The feedback has been very reasonable, >> respectful of Joe's concerns, and direct. >> >> I have a strong suspicion that the core problem here is that the mentors >> aren't following the commit list, which is >> where the jira email trail gets sent. Looking there you will see a >> plethora of examples where tickets, many filed by >> non-project participants, are being discussed by several project members, >> far from the presentation that discussions >> are happening off-Apache-infra and tickets are being "shut down" without >> public review. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The only thing I might recommend of the podling is to try to leave >>> low-hanging fruit in jira unpatched for a longer period of time to allow >>> outside contributors the ability to participate. Coupled with identifying >>> these tickets on the mailing list, that might lead to more outside >>> contributions. >>> >>> I do share the concern that we have several elected committers that >>> haven't yet advanced to the ppmc level. >>> Perhaps there's not enough project-level mentoring (as opposed to IMPC >>> mentoring) going on to bring these newer people along. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Joe Schaefer <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I still consider that hearsay evidence. If you bother to actually look >>>> at their Jira you will see the vast majority of tickets opened in the past >>>> month remain open. I've spent an hour or so myself investigating this in >>>> some detail and turned up nothing- I invite you and others to do the same. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 3, 2015 11:34 AM, "Joe Schaefer" <joes...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > David, >>>>> > >>>>> > The problem with Rich's commentary is that we don't have any solid >>>>> evidence >>>>> > to that effect. Certainly not on a systematic level. >>>>> > All I see is a lot of responsiveness from the team about >>>>> repair-oriented >>>>> > tickets, or some mundane task like updating dependencies. >>>>> > I don't find credible evidence to support the claim that development >>>>> is >>>>> > happening prior to filing a ticket about it. >>>>> >>>>> Sure. I'm not involved in the community, but have had the above >>>>> scenario >>>>> described to me by two different people. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
