Tod, Everyone has been taken off the OHM group, including me and Jeff, pending cleanup. 5+ years of everyone doing what they wanted means a pile of forgotten integrations, phantom auth keys and runaway branching. Deployment was no longer possible and it wasn't going to get better.
re: sysops loads, I'm leaning on a few people people (Richard and Bert), who also have to prioritize their own workload. -rhw > First off, I'd like to thank each and every person who has dedicated any > time and effort to the the cause of Open Historical Map. It's a huge > undertaking that requires all of us. However, let's allow cool heads to > prevail here. I don't think Jeff and his cohort are ill-willed and I'm very > excited by the recent developments they've been working on for the OHM. > > I do agree that the GitHub org has become very cluttered, but I think we > can work through this without pointing fingers of blame unnecessarily. > > Rob, is there any particular reason why you're uncomfortable with sharing > the devops/sysops load with others? I think we should prioritize getting > the new codebase/website up ASAP. > > Let's focus on collaboration and good will rather than gatekeeping. > > > Cheers! > > > –Tod > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 7:38 AM Rob H Warren <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Storm in a teacup. Stop it. >> >> No data, commit, repo, branch or OHM contribution has been lost. The >> github re-org is in line with vanilla best practices in industrial, >> academic and open source projects. >> >> Your linkedin page lists job titles such as director of engineering, CTO >> and product manager at Microsoft. Given the projects you've managed, you >> should have been calling for this to be fixed a long time ago. The >> "community" had been wrestling for some weeks about how to deal with the >> hairball that the repos had become. >> >> Yes, it's a pain. I have to go through Albin since I have no admin access >> myself but it is necessary. >> >> Now please let him do his job so we can all do ours. >> >> -R >> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 19:22:41 -0700 >>> From: Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> >>> To: Albin Larsson <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Rob H Warren <[email protected]>, >>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [OHM] Administrative changes to the OHM Github organization >>> >>> >>> Hi all - >>> >>> Here is some background & questions with some details below: >>> >>> I’ve been paying developers to work on OHM features for the last couple >> of >>> years - timeslider, working search, refreshing site to current OSM, etc., >>> with some new features coming soon, including: new inspector, new styles. >>> The goal of this has been to deliver cool time-based mapping features to >>> the community. They were also in line with documented OHM wish/need >> items. >>> >>> We have not been able to deploy any of this software deployed, which I >>> believe is driving the friction identified by Rob & Albin below. >>> >>> I agree with some of the goals outlined by Rob & Albin: >>> - Having code reviewed by community members before deployment >>> - Having a repo branch that represents deployed production code >>> - Need for a code of conduct >>> - We should align our github repos with best practices >>> >>> While I disagree with some of Rob & Albin's other actions/decisions, I’m >>> also not sure the community fully understands their concerns. For >> example, >>> I don’t believe there was discussion of these concerns in any public, >> group >>> forum over the past year. Regardless of that, I want to see if we find a >>> model that works so that everyone feels respected and valued. Right now, >>> that’s clearly not the case. I’m also very sorry that it reached this >>> breaking point. >>> >>> Rob & Albin - >>> >>> I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the recent pronouncements, >>> restore the community access to github, and open a more interactive >>> discussion about how to resolve your concerns. I’d suggest at least 2 >> group >>> meetings and a deadline to have a new model within a month, but would >>> gladly engage in alternative community approaches. >>> >>> Key question: I know you have the community’s best interests at heart, >> but >>> do these decisions have the support of the community? How do you know? >> What >>> if they don’t? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> >>> P.S. I recently came across a relevant quote: >>> >>> “Open source projects hinge entirely on contributors. Without regular >>> patches, the project dies. Or, as someone put it, rather ironically, in >> the >>> email that drove me out of the project: >>> ‘A protocol spec only dies when people refuse to work together on it.’ “ >>> - https://sealedabstract.com/rants/nanomsg-postmortem-and-other-stories/ >>> >>> DETAILS >>> >>> A quick bit of background on my involvement with OHM: >>> >>> - >>> >>> I’ve been intrigued with the concept of an any geo, any time based map >>> since 2004 >>> < >> https://www.slideshare.net/gwhathistory/global-world-history-atlas-introduction-2004 >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> >>> Around 2012, I came across the OSM community and the OSM stack and >>> talked with a bunch of people (Steve Coast, Ian Dees, Mikel Maron) >> about >>> using it for historical mapping. Turns out, it had been discussed by a >>> bunch of other people prior to that (Frankie Roberto, Schuyler Erle, >> Tim >>> Waters, Sanjay & others) >>> - >>> >>> In late 2012 and early 2013, I helped set up the original OHM website >>> along with Rob, Tim Waters, Sanjay, & others & hosted the first >> Hangouts >>> - >>> >>> From 2015-2017, I had to check out of the community for a few years due >>> to work, getting married, etc. I regret that absence deeply. >>> - >>> >>> In early 2018, came back to my passion, OHM, and found that little had >>> changed in terms of features to the core website. The OHM Tasking >> Manager >>> <http://tasks.openhistoricalmap.org/> was up (Thanks, Bert) & that was >>> and is awesome. The site itself was still up in spite of a scary >> outage and >>> hosting transfer (Thanks to Rob!). But, it was lacking new features >> and the >>> site were out of sync with mainline OSM. Unsatisfied with the pace of >> OHM >>> feature dev over the past 5 years and not seeing any motion for that to >>> change, out of my own pocket, I hired a nonprofit dev firm >>> <https://www.greeninfo.org/> with ties to Stamen <https://stamen.com/> >>> and OSM board members. I asked them to start working on desired >> features >>> already identified within the community. Later, we added members of >>> Development >>> Seed <https://www.developmentseed.org/>, another firm with very close >>> ties to the OSM community and also the original OHM sysadmin, Sanjay. I >>> viewed all of these people as legitimate 1st-class members of the OHM >>> community and with OHM’s goals and best interests at heart. All of the >> work >>> performed has been designated open source and as close to license free >> as >>> possible. No one involved in this effort has any commercial interest >> in the >>> work being done. We all just want to get features added to OHM and to >> see >>> it thrive. I have not wanted to identify myself as the source of the >>> funding of these efforts on this list, as I have thought it wasn’t >>> important, don’t want any credit, and don’t want this to be viewed as 1 >>> person’s project. It’s not. It’s a community effort. >>> - >>> >>> They have built the time slider you’ve seen on our prototype site, made >>> search work, and are working on a new inspector and map style. We are >>> currently trying to get this software deployed, which is driving some >> of >>> the friction identified in Albin & Rob’s mail. >>> - >>> >>> I’ve also worked to make the OHM community more active and have been >>> hosting frequent meetings, postings to the aliases, attendance at >>> conferences, and outreach to other groups, which I’ve tried to share >> with >>> the community. >>> - >>> >>> My ultimate goals have been to: >>> - >>> >>> Get the OHM feature-rich enough to be a more appealing platform a >>> wider user base >>> - >>> >>> Make OHM a more appealing part of grant proposals >>> - >>> >>> Essentially to make OHM a little closer to its stated vision of a >>> rich environment for historical mapping >>> >>> >>> I would suggest we use HOT OSM as a good comparable and example of how to >>> encourage participation across a community and to create a rich >> environment >>> for application development. https://github.com/hotosm >>> >>> I’d also suggest we look at some basic best practices for github >>> organization management, >>> >> https://github.com/todogroup/guides/blob/master/participating-in-open-source.md >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM Albin Larsson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jeff and thank you for sharing your concerns and questions. >>>> >>>>> Can you share some of the details about the "concerns about the >>>> sustainability of the project" or of how the gatekeeper approach will >> work? >>>> >>>> I do not intend to turn this into a gatekeeper approach long term. To >>>> begin I think we need to make sure the code on Github represent the >> code on >>>> the server. Baby steps. Regarding pull request those will be managed by >>>> whoever maintains a repository. The only repository which today >> represents >>>> code running on the server is the task manager one. Bert who maintains >> it >>>> have already full access to it and can merge pull requests. >>>> >>>> Before this change anyone of the many owners could delete any code, >> invite >>>> anyone, commit whatever code, and edit git history. We can't have it >> that >>>> way and we can certainly not deploy code we do not trust. >>>> >>>>> If I made a pull request to completely rebase the whole project, as the >>>> code base is 7 years old, how would that be reviewed? >>>> >>>> No matter the organisation that would require both meetings and >>>> coordination. I assume in the end when it comes to Github the repository >>>> would be replaced with a new one. >>>> >>>>> what are the metrics of success for this model? >>>> >>>> The first aim is to to actually clean up Github and make sure it >>>> represents the code on the server. To allow incremental change in the >> first >>>> place. >>>> >>>>> Contrary to Albin's assertion, I for one, am very confident about the >>>> future of the project, but I do have concerns about our current lack of >>>> governance and individual control over any parts of our operations. >>>> >>>> I read such concerns as sustainability concerns. I'm deeply sorry if I >>>> have misrepresented someones concerns. >>>> >>>>> This project was started as a community effort, with community >>>> consultation, and community input to how things should be done. I am >> hoping >>>> that will continue. >>>> >>>> It's my belief that this change and the clean up will allow community >>>> contributions to be merged and deployed to begin with. Without that >>>> possibility community meetings and input doesn't do much. While general >>>> concerns regarding governance are related to this I consider such >> concerns >>>> out of scope for this particular effort. Solutions to those concerns >> would >>>> also require wider community consultation. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> // >>>> Albin Larsson >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019, 15:53 Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Albin, Rob - >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for bringing these issues to light & thank you both for your >>>>> leadership & hard work. >>>>> >>>>> I don't speak for the community, but there may be many questions out >>>>> there about these points, I certainly have many questions, I don't >> agree >>>>> with many of the points above, and I'd love to see if we can organize >> some >>>>> community solutions. >>>>> >>>>> Can you share some of the details about the "concerns about the >>>>> sustainability of the project" or of how the gatekeeper approach will >> work? >>>>> E.g. how will pull requests be approved? If I made a pull request to >>>>> completely rebase the whole project, as the code base is 7 years old, >> how >>>>> would that be reviewed? Also, what are the metrics of success for this >>>>> model? >>>>> >>>>> Contrary to Albin's assertion, I for one, am very confident about the >>>>> future of the project, but I do have concerns about our current lack of >>>>> governance and individual control over any parts of our operations. >>>>> >>>>> I'll send more thoughts in the next couple of days, but I find these >>>>> steps to be quite strong reactions to some vaguely-referenced & not >> openly >>>>> discussed concerns. >>>>> >>>>> This project was started as a community effort, with community >>>>> consultation, and community input to how things should be done. I am >> hoping >>>>> that will continue. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:48 AM Rob H Warren < >> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I want to thank Albin for taking care of the github organization, >> which >>>>>> is a thankless job. Projects on github were no longer manageable and >> not >>>>>> being able to track what was deployable and who-owned-what was >> hindering >>>>>> operations. OHM is going through the same issues that OSM and other >> open >>>>>> source projects have to deal with and this was necessary. Going >> forward, >>>>>> pull requests are going to be required to specific repos for any >>>>>> operational deploy. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are many critics of this gatekeeper approach[1]; balanced out by >>>>>> the chaos that results when too many cooks spoil the broth. Vectored >> tiles >>>>>> and the timeslider *will* be integrated into the main site and a >> clustered >>>>>> tile service is on its way. Please realize that the devil is in the >>>>>> details, there is technical debt and there are moving parts that are >> not >>>>>> obvious. >>>>>> >>>>>> OHM is based on the OSM stack with all of its glitter and warts. Yes, >> it >>>>>> has acknowledged problems. It was also designed by people with the >>>>>> foresight to support third party applications and authentication. If >> you >>>>>> think some great application is missing, go ahead and build it; no >> one will >>>>>> stop you. But before you do, take the time to read through the >> relevant >>>>>> standards and ask around: all of these standards have more than one >> gotcha! >>>>>> It's your time that's wasted if it doesn't work and half-baked >> solutions >>>>>> will not get deployed. >>>>>> >>>>>> It may be time for a code of conduct[2,3], through I'm not sure how to >>>>>> formalize "We're not your employees" and "Be a decent human being". >> I've >>>>>> hesitated to discuss this publicly so far, but my watershed moment was >>>>>> earlier this year when OHM "followed me to work". Someone (who could >> be a >>>>>> stand-in for "Pig-Pen" in the Peanuts comic) managed to get into a >>>>>> corporate event to share their strong enthusiasm about OHM. It's still >>>>>> unclear how a badge was issued but it did not reflect positively on >> anyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Besides the routine administrivia, I've received demands/requests for >>>>>> root access, password files and raw database dumps. DNS requests for >>>>>> services that were meant to die. Sometimes the request is politely >> written, >>>>>> sometimes not. The behaviour is best described by the quote: "The >> reason >>>>>> it's so vicious is because it doesn't matter". Also, we may have >> never >>>>>> written this down because it should be earthquake obvious but: OHM >> has a >>>>>> responsibility to its users and will not release its user data. >> Period. I >>>>>> can't make it any clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lastly, OHM is a community project with a decentralized structure that >>>>>> caters to a wide audience. This includes the survivalist in his log >> cabin >>>>>> on a 27th floor NYC condo, the teenager in his parent's basement >> with an >>>>>> unhealthy interest in the Sumer trade routes and other documenting >>>>>> ...forgotten payphone locations? We don't judge, you are all welcome. >> Do >>>>>> what you are passionate about, go your own way and do good work. >>>>>> >>>>>> All my best, >>>>>> R >>>>>> [1] https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/ >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> >> https://nolanlawson.com/2017/03/05/what-it-feels-like-to-be-an-open-source-maintainer/ >>>>>> [3] https://lwn.net/Articles/759654/ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Historic mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jeff Meyer >>>>> 206-676-2347 >>>>> osm: Open Historical Map (OHM) >>>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map> / my OSM user >>>>> page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> >>>>> t: @OpenHistMap >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Historic mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Meyer >>> 206-676-2347 >>> osm: Open Historical Map (OHM) >>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map> / my OSM user >> page >>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> >>> t: @OpenHistMap >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: < >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20191102/ec368387/attachment.html >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Historic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of Historic Digest, Vol 76, Issue 3 >>> *************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Historic mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> > > > -- > Tod Robbins, MLIS > todrobbins.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20191106/06bdf5fe/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Historic mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Historic Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
