On 11/09/2016 12:58 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 11/09/2016 12:26 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:42 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> If I were to look purely at contributions to the codebase, there is no >>>> indication that this issue is at all being worked on, on the contrary, >>>> if you look at contributions over time, the percentage that is purely >>>> pivotal keeps going up and up, and now sits at >96% in the past 6 months. >>>> >>>> Voting in new committers is one thing, but if it doesn't lead to some >>>> sort of dispersion of who has a deciding role in the project, then I >>>> don't believe the current strategy is working. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, there is little to no recognition that this is even a >>>> potential issue. I'd love to see people at least *acknowledging* that >>>> this is something they have to work on, that'll give us something >>>> tangible to relate to when deciding on a vote. >>>> >>> >>> Perhaps you could re-read my first post, because I believe did acknowledge >>> it. >> >> I didn't read it as such, but this does help towards that :) Thanks. > > Btw, this point I wholeheartedly agree with: if Geode gets to graduate, it > will > be joining a number of projects that need to be ever vigilant about undue > corporate influence. > > From that standpoint, the community had a number of experiences around > brand management, etc. that I believe served as a set of useful lessons in > explaining how to go about this goal in an effective manner. The role of the > board, of course, is central to making sure this goal is always a priority, > but > I also believe that this community has learned (and taken to heart) the fact > that IPMC (regardless of a status of the project) and ComDev can be great > resources. > > But once again, thanks for stressing this Daniel -- this is one of those > things > that can't be stressed enough.
As an FWIW, I would have spoken up sooner in the discuss thread, but eh, work... so sorry about being late to the show. I don't mean to throw any sticks in the general voting, I just want assurances that these are issues projects are aware of and are, at the very least, attempting to handle. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
