settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Lets keep our community open, lets fight for it

0 votes

Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
protected, irc channels for core reviewers.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO
DISCUSS.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems
that encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that
person has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of
it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to
be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked.

Since, "All generalizations are false, including this one. - Mark
Twain", I'm pretty sure there are folks that disagree with the above.
If you do, I care about your thoughts. This is worth discussing and
fighting for.

All the above being said, I'd like to thank everyone who fights for
the openness of our community and encourage everyone to make that a
must have thing in each sub-community. You don't need to be
core-reviewer or PTL to do so. Speak up and help keeping the community
as open as possible.

Cheers,
Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

asked Feb 11, 2015 in openstack-dev by Flavio_Percoco (36,960 points)   3 7 11
retagged Jan 26, 2017 by admin

75 Responses

0 votes

Flavio Percoco wrote:
During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

+100

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

+1

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
protected, irc channels for core reviewers.

If those exist, I think they should die in a fire. I'm fine with the TC
passing a resolution so that such channels are opened. Private channels
where "real decisions" are made are pretty contrary to our ideal of open
development.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO
DISCUSS.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems
that encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that
person has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of
it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to
be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked.

+1000

Core reviewing has always be designed to be a duty, not a badge. There
has been a trends toward making it a badge, with some companies giving
bonuses to core reviewers, and HP making +2 pins and throwing +2
parties. I think that's a significant mistake and complained about it,
but then my influence only goes that far.

The problem with special rights (like +2) is that if you don't actively
resist it, they naturally turn into an aristocracy (especially when only
existing cores vote on new cores). That aristocracy then usually turns
into a clique which is excluding new blood and new opinions, and then
that project slowly dies.

Thanks Flavio for this timely reminder.

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Feb 11, 2015 by Thierry_Carrez (57,480 points)   3 8 13
0 votes

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55:18AM +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

With the timezones of our worldwide contributors it is pretty much
guaranteed that any realtime phone call will have excluded a part
of our community.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

I can see that if people have reached an impass in discussions via
email or irc, it is sometimes helpful to have a call to break a
roadblock. I absolutely agree though that the results of any such
calls should not be presented as a final decision. At the very least
it is neccessary to describe the rationale for the POV obtained as
a result of the call, and give the broader community the opportunity
to put forward counterpoints if required. We should certainly not
just say 'its good to go' and +A sommething based on a private call.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

Again, timezones. It is a physical impossibility for most people to
be on IRC for more than 8 hours a day, so that's only 1/3 of the day
that any signle person will likely be on IRC. And no, expecting
people to have a permanently connected IRC proxy and then read the
other 16 hours of logs each morning is not a solution.

Personally I've stopped joining IRC most the time regardless, because
I feel I am far more productive when I'm not being interrupted with
IRC pings every 20 minutes. There should be few things so urgent that
they can't be dealt with over email. Again because of our timezone
differences we should be wary of making important decisions in a
rush - anything remotely non-trivial should have at least a 24 hour
window to allow people on all timezones a chance to see the point
and join in discussion.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

There are alot of IRC meetings that take place in the project:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings

and alot of decisions get made in these meetings. Very rarely do
the decisions ever get disseminated to the mailing lists. We seem
to rely on the fact that we have IRC logs of the meetings as a way
to communicate what took place.

If you have ever tried to regularly read through IRC logs of
meetings that last an hour or more, it should be clear that this
is an awful way to communicate info with people who weren't there.

I think communication would be greatly improved if properly
summarized minutes were sent to the mailing lists after each
meeting. Of course this takes non-negligible time & effort
from someone to write the minutes. So I'm not surprised that
we don't do it as a regular thing, but I think it should be a
goal we aspire to attain, even if we don't always meet it.

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
protected, irc channels for core reviewers.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

Wow, seriously ??!?! That's is a major governance failing if that
is actually taking place IMHO. I'd expect projects to be publically
called out & shamed if they are using private password protected IRC
channels for their discussions / decisions.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO
DISCUSS.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems
that encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that
person has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of
it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to
be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked.

Since, "All generalizations are false, including this one. - Mark
Twain", I'm pretty sure there are folks that disagree with the above.
If you do, I care about your thoughts. This is worth discussing and
fighting for.

All the above being said, I'd like to thank everyone who fights for
the openness of our community and encourage everyone to make that a
must have thing in each sub-community. You don't need to be
core-reviewer or PTL to do so. Speak up and help keeping the community
as open as possible.

No matter what the project, there will always be things that can be
improved in the way members comunicate, and it is healthy to reflect
on what we are doing and whether we can improve things. This is
especially true of a project like OpenStack which has grown in size
far faster than most projects, and which has participation from a
lot of vendors who haven't traditionally engaged with open source
communities & so may have a greater learning curve wrt maintaining
a healthy community.

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Daniel_P._Berrange (27,920 points)   2 4 9
0 votes

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Flavio Percoco wrote:

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Thanks for writing this. I agree with pretty much everything you say,
especially the focus on the mailing list being only truly available
and persistent medium we have for engaging everyone. Yes it is noisy
and takes work, but it is an important part of the work.

I'm not certain, but I have an intuition that many of the suboptimal
and moving-in-the-direction-of-closed behaviors that you're describing
are the result of people trying to cope with having too much to do
with insufficient tools. Technology projects often sacrifice the
management of information in favor of what's believed to be the core
task (making stuff?) when there are insufficient resources.

This is unfortunate because the effective sharing and management of
information is the fuel that drives, optimizes and corrects the entire
process and thus leads to more effective making of stuff.

This thread and many of the threads going around lately speak a lot
about people not being able to participate in a way that lets them
generate the most quality -- either because there's insufficient time
and energy to move the mountain or because each move they make opens
up another rabbit hole.

As many have said this is not sustainable.

Many of the proposed strategies or short term tactics involve trying to
hack the system so that work that is perceived to be extraneous is
removed or made secondary. This won't fix it.

I think it is time we recognize and act on the fact that the corporate
landlords that pay many of us to farm on this land need to provide more
resources. This will help to ensure the health of semi-artifical
opensource ecology that is OpenStack. At the moment many things are
packed tight with very little room to breathe. We need some air.

--
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Chris_Dent (7,940 points)   1 4 7
0 votes

-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:flavio@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:55 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Lets keep our community open, lets fight
for it

Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the things I love
the most about this community are degrading and moving to a state that I
personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing these things improve, I'm
taking the time today to share one of my concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume such
when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make names
and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to point based on
the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll mention below know that
I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some discussions in
private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe there's anything wrong in
having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private discussions, if
you've discussed a spec privately and right after you went upstream and said:
"This has been discussed in a call and it's good to go", I beg you to stop for 2
seconds and reconsider that. I don't believe you were able to fit all the
community in that call and that you had enough consensus.

++

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at the
very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a community of
people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a private
discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details of such discussion
and bring that person up to date, which means the discussion will basically
start again... from scratch.

And when they do come and ask for clarification do not just state that this was discussed and agreed already.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is hard and time
consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I don't think there's
anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong to expect EVERYONE to
be in the IRC channel when those discussions happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of most of
your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the mailing list as
oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting with time zones.
Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something that should go to the
mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing list and don't be afraid of having
a bigger community chiming in in your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

This is tough call ... ~ real time communication is just so much more efficient. You can get things done in minutes that would take hours & days to deal with over e-mail. It also does not help that the -dev mailing list is really crowded, the tags are not consistent (sorry for finger pointing but oslo seems to be specially inconsistent with some tagging [oslo] some tagging [oslo.something] etc. Please keep that [oslo] there ;D ).

I would not discourage people to use irc or other communication means, just being prepared to answer those questions again.

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became a
thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know that some
projects even have private (flagged with +s), password protected, irc
channels for core reviewers.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS*****
TO DISCUSS.

Here I do disagree. There is stuff called private bugs for security etc. that should kept private. Again speeds up progress hugely when the discussion does not need to happen in Launchpad and it keeps the bug itself cleaner as well. I do agree that there should not be secret society making common decisions behind closed doors, but there is reasons to keep some details initially between closed group only. And most commonly that closed group seems to be cores.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems that
encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that person
has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of it. It's not a
prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to be volunteers and their
job is infinitely thanked.

Since, "All generalizations are false, including this one. - Mark Twain", I'm
pretty sure there are folks that disagree with the above.
If you do, I care about your thoughts. This is worth discussing and fighting for.

All the above being said, I'd like to thank everyone who fights for the
openness of our community and encourage everyone to make that a must
have thing in each sub-community. You don't need to be core-reviewer or
PTL to do so. Speak up and help keeping the community as open as possible.

Cheers,
Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

Thanks Flavio!

I'd like to add couple general extra thoughts here:
1) Summit sessions seems to be "the ultimate decision making" ... I see constantly references to summit sessions as "decided" or "not open to discussion anymore". So much for openness! The sessions are not even recorded. If you don't belong to the group of privileged living in the area and receiving free ticket somehow or company paying your participation you're not included. $600 + travel + accommodation is quite hefty premium to be included, not really FOSS. I would heavily encourage all teams bringing the design session transcripts/memos/etc. to the mailing list for open discussion after the summit.

2) Open discussion != publicly recorded. My biggest concern here is currently our IRC channels. Most of them logged but not all, participants not notified about that logging and the logs publicly available. Even gerrit does not show names before one has logged in.

3) Not pointing any fingers here but gentle reminder for everyone. If we want to be open we need to be open for discussion as well. Please folks listen more and yell less (unless you are trying to get attention and participants to the discussion itself). I know I tend to get really pushy when I have strong opinions about something and I'm working on it. Don't take it personally, never intended so. But I know that there is other folks as well who need to look into mirror. If we really want to be as open as we claim to we need to stop having pseudo conversations with preset results.

4) Make noise to those whose life/work you're going to affect. Don't expect that the cross project spec repo is monitored by everybody or that single announcement on mailing list tagged with [nova][neutron] catches everybody's attention just because those project happened to be prototyping the proposal. Get that message out, promote the discussion on the IRC meetings and try to get that discussion started instead of proposing a spec into a repo and merging agreed two weeks later because no-one noticed it in the middle of the holiday season ;)

responded Feb 11, 2015 by Kuvaja,_Erno (2,980 points)   2 4
0 votes
  • Inf for writing this Flavio!

Only some observations below.

On 02/11/2015 10:55 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

I think the above 2 are somewhat intertwined with another trend in the
community I've personally noticed towards the end of the Juno cycle,
that I also strongly believe needs to DIAFF.

An idea that it is possible to "manage" and open source community using
similar methods that are commonly used for managing subordinates in a
corporate hierarchy.

There are other (somewhat less) horrible examples around, and they all
came about as a (IMHO knee jerk) response to explosive growth, and they
all need to stop.

I urge people who are seen as leaders in their respective projects to
stop and think the next time they want to propose a "policy change" or a
"process" - ask yourself "Is there an OSS project that does something
similar successfully, or have I seen this from our old PM?" and then not
propose it if the answer is clearly that this will help the distributed
workflow of an OSS community.

On 02/11/2015 11:29 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO
DISCUSS.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems
that encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that
person has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of
it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to
be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked.

+1000

Core reviewing has always be designed to be a duty, not a badge. There
has been a trends toward making it a badge, with some companies giving
bonuses to core reviewers, and HP making +2 pins and throwing +2
parties. I think that's a significant mistake and complained about it,
but then my influence only goes that far.

The problem with special rights (like +2) is that if you don't actively
resist it, they naturally turn into an aristocracy (especially when only
existing cores vote on new cores). That aristocracy then usually turns
into a clique which is excluding new blood and new opinions, and then
that project slowly dies.

We cannot prevent people from attempting to use an economic leverage to
try to exert influence. We can and should stop incentivizing it
aggressively if it threatens to jeopardize the well being of the
community. That's what governance is for.

There are a number of ways to do this, some of which may have to strike
at the foundation of the way we have been organizing ourselves. I look
forward to this discussion happening and hope for the right response!

N.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Nikola_Đipanov (5,400 points)   2 3 5
0 votes

On 11/02/15 11:31 +0000, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is hard and time
consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I don't think there's
anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong to expect EVERYONE to
be in the IRC channel when those discussions happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of most of
your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the mailing list as
oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting with time zones.
Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something that should go to the
mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing list and don't be afraid of having
a bigger community chiming in in your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

This is tough call ... ~ real time communication is just so much more efficient. You can get things done in minutes that would take hours & days to deal with over e-mail.

As I mentioned, I don't think there's anything wrong with a quick chat
fo sort small issues out that don't have a huge impact on the project.
However, those communications shouldn't be considered the ultimate
decision for things that will happen in the project.

A good example is the #openstack-glance channe, which you decided to
leave since we enabled logging. If we need to discuss something
outside the meeting - or start a discussion that simple won't fit in a
meeting - I'd need to choose between IRC discussions or mailing list.
I'll obviously choose the mailing list because I would hate it to
reach a consensus without listenting to your thoughts.

If m-l is not used, you'll likely share your opinion and that WILL
slow down the process anyway - a discussion that should've followed a
different path.

It also does not help that the -dev mailing list is really crowded, the tags are not consistent (sorry for finger pointing but oslo seems to be specially inconsistent with some tagging [oslo] some tagging [oslo.something] etc. Please keep that [oslo] there ;D ).

In the case of oslo.messaging, we do this because we actually have
different groups depending on the project. We have a oslo-core team
and a oslo.messaging-core team. This encourages contributions on
topics that folks care about.

I don't think there's anything bad about that, just use filters.

I would not discourage people to use irc or other communication means, just being prepared to answer those questions again.

I'm discouraging the usage of IRC as the main communication channel.
I really hope no one, across the gazillion of projects I'm part of, is
expecting me to be present at every time on every channel (although I
am thanks to ZNC). That's phisically impossible, hence emails.

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became a
thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know that some
projects even have private (flagged with +s), password protected, irc
channels for core reviewers.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS*****
TO DISCUSS.

Here I do disagree. There is stuff called private bugs for security etc. that should kept private. Again speeds up progress hugely when the discussion does not need to happen in Launchpad and it keeps the bug itself cleaner as well. I do agree that there should not be secret society making common decisions behind closed doors, but there is reasons to keep some details initially between closed group only. And most commonly that closed group seems to be cores.

Note that my complain is about private core channels used for general
discussion. However, since you've brought the CVE thing up, lemme
disagree with you. CVE discussions should be kept in the LP bug as
well.

Do you want to have a quick chat with someone about a bug? Sure, go
ahead. Afterwards, you MUST get back to the LP bug and provide the
feedback there. Otherwise, you just broke the process and other folks
that weren't part of that conversation will be out.

Also, must core-sec teams have some core members in them but not all
of them, which means the super secure core channel is just bullshit.
Random channels with obscured names created in a per-bug basis would
be even more secure than the super secure channel with +s and password
protected (yes, I just made this up).

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems that
encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that person
has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of it. It's not a
prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to be volunteers and their
job is infinitely thanked.

Since, "All generalizations are false, including this one. - Mark Twain", I'm
pretty sure there are folks that disagree with the above.
If you do, I care about your thoughts. This is worth discussing and fighting for.

All the above being said, I'd like to thank everyone who fights for the
openness of our community and encourage everyone to make that a must
have thing in each sub-community. You don't need to be core-reviewer or
PTL to do so. Speak up and help keeping the community as open as possible.

Cheers,
Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

Thanks Flavio!

I'd like to add couple general extra thoughts here:
1) Summit sessions seems to be "the ultimate decision making" ... I see constantly references to summit sessions as "decided" or "not open to discussion anymore". So much for openness! The sessions are not even recorded. If you don't belong to the group of privileged living in the area and receiving free ticket somehow or company paying your participation you're not included. $600 + travel + accommodation is quite hefty premium to be included, not really FOSS. I would heavily encourage all teams bringing the design session transcripts/memos/etc. to the mailing list for open discussion after the summit.

++

2) Open discussion != publicly recorded. My biggest concern here is currently our IRC channels. Most of them logged but not all, participants not notified about that logging and the logs publicly available. Even gerrit does not show names before one has logged in.

Agreed. Logging has other purposes that go beyond just being open.
Although, I agree with having logging enabled and I'd like ALL
channels to be logged.

3) Not pointing any fingers here but gentle reminder for everyone. If we want to be open we need to be open for discussion as well. Please folks listen more and yell less (unless you are trying to get attention and participants to the discussion itself). I know I tend to get really pushy when I have strong opinions about something and I'm working on it. Don't take it personally, never intended so. But I know that there is other folks as well who need to look into mirror. If we really want to be as open as we claim to we need to stop having pseudo conversations with preset results.

4) Make noise to those whose life/work you're going to affect. Don't expect that the cross project spec repo is monitored by everybody or that single announcement on mailing list tagged with [nova][neutron] catches everybody's attention just because those project happened to be prototyping the proposal. Get that message out, promote the discussion on the IRC meetings and try to get that discussion started instead of proposing a spec into a repo and merging agreed two weeks later because no-one noticed it in the middle of the holiday season ;)

This last point is probable worth discussing in a separate thread
since it's an impact on the process and not necessarily the community
or the openness of it.

Cheers,
Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Feb 11, 2015 by Flavio_Percoco (36,960 points)   3 7 11
0 votes

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:53:24PM +0100, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
+ Inf for writing this Flavio!

Absolutely! I never even knew such things existed in this community.

Only some observations below.

[. . .]

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

I think the above 2 are somewhat intertwined with another trend in the
community I've personally noticed towards the end of the Juno cycle,
that I also strongly believe needs to DIAFF.

An idea that it is possible to "manage" and open source community using
similar methods that are commonly used for managing subordinates in a
corporate hierarchy.

That intention/notion to "let's manage the community like a team just as
we do at good old $company" should be absolutely demolished! People who
advocate such behavior are using ridiculously outdated brain models and
should drop what they're doing immediately and do some introspection.

--
/kashyap


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Kashyap_Chamarthy (4,520 points)   1 2 3
0 votes

On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Chris Dent wrote:

I think it is time we recognize and act on the fact that the corporate
landlords that pay many of us to farm on this land need to provide more
resources.

In case it wasn't clear, by this I don't mean project managers and
other styles of enterprisey hoopaa joop. I mean more testing rigs
and more supported community members.

--
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Chris_Dent (7,940 points)   1 4 7
0 votes

On 02/11/2015 04:55 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

If you are discussing something on IRC that requires the attention of
most of your project's community, I highly recommend you to use the
mailing list as oppose to pinging everyone independently and fighting
with time zones. Using IRC bouncers as a replacement for something
that should go to the mailing list is absurd. Please, use the mailing
list and don't be afraid of having a bigger community chiming in in
your discussion. THAT'S A GOOD THING

Changes, specs, APIs, etc. Everything is good for the mailing list.
We've fought hard to make this community grow, why shouldn't we take
advantage of it?

Cores are NOT special

At some point, for some reason that is unknown to me, this message
changed and the feeling of core's being some kind of superheros became
a thing. It's gotten far enough to the point that I've came to know
that some projects even have private (flagged with +s), password
protected, irc channels for core reviewers.

This is the point where my good faith assumption skill falls short.
Seriously, don't get me wrong but: WHAT IN THE ACTUAL F**K?

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PRIVATE FOR CORE ****REVIEWERS***** TO
DISCUSS.

I'm kind of floored to find out that password protected irc channels
exist. That actually violates our base tenants of being an OpenStack
project, so is grounds for removing the project from OpenStack.

If anything core reviewers should be the ones FORCING - it seems
that encouraging doesn't have the same effect anymore - OPENNESS in
order to include other non-core members in those discussions.

Remember that the "core" flag is granted because of the reviews that
person has provided and because that individual WANTS to be part of
it. It's not a prize for people. In fact, I consider core reviewers to
be volunteers and their job is infinitely thanked.

Since, "All generalizations are false, including this one. - Mark
Twain", I'm pretty sure there are folks that disagree with the above.
If you do, I care about your thoughts. This is worth discussing and
fighting for.

All the above being said, I'd like to thank everyone who fights for
the openness of our community and encourage everyone to make that a
must have thing in each sub-community. You don't need to be
core-reviewer or PTL to do so. Speak up and help keeping the community
as open as possible.

Cheers,
Flavio


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

responded Feb 11, 2015 by Sean_Dague (66,200 points)   4 8 14
0 votes

On 02/11/2015 05:52 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55:18AM +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote:

Greetings all,

During the last two cycles, I've had the feeling that some of the
things I love the most about this community are degrading and moving
to a state that I personally disagree with. With the hope of seeing
these things improve, I'm taking the time today to share one of my
concerns.

Since I believe we all work with good faith and we all should assume
such when it comes to things happening in our community, I won't make
names and I won't point fingers - yes, I don't have enough fingers to
point based on the info I have. People that fall into the groups I'll
mention below know that I'm talking to them.

This email is dedicated to the openness of our community/project.

Keep discussions open

I don't believe there's anything wrong about kicking off some
discussions in private channels about specs/bugs. I don't believe
there's anything wrong in having calls to speed up some discussions.
HOWEVER, I believe it's completely wrong to consider those private
discussions sufficient. If you have had that kind of private
discussions, if you've discussed a spec privately and right after you
went upstream and said: "This has been discussed in a call and it's
good to go", I beg you to stop for 2 seconds and reconsider that. I
don't believe you were able to fit all the community in that call and
that you had enough consensus.

With the timezones of our worldwide contributors it is pretty much
guaranteed that any realtime phone call will have excluded a part
of our community.

Furthermore, you should consider that having private conversations, at
the very end, doesn't help with speeding up discussions. We've a
community of people who care about the project they're working on.
This means that whenever they see something that doesn't make much
sense, they'll chime in and ask for clarification. If there was a
private discussion on that topic, you'll have to provide the details
of such discussion and bring that person up to date, which means the
discussion will basically start again... from scratch.

I can see that if people have reached an impass in discussions via
email or irc, it is sometimes helpful to have a call to break a
roadblock. I absolutely agree though that the results of any such
calls should not be presented as a final decision. At the very least
it is neccessary to describe the rationale for the POV obtained as
a result of the call, and give the broader community the opportunity
to put forward counterpoints if required. We should certainly not
just say 'its good to go' and +A sommething based on a private call.

Mailing List vs IRC Channel

I get it, our mailing list is freaking busy, keeping up with it is
hard and time consuming and that leads to lots of IRC discussions. I
don't think there's anything wrong with that but I believe it's wrong
to expect EVERYONE to be in the IRC channel when those discussions
happen.

Again, timezones. It is a physical impossibility for most people to
be on IRC for more than 8 hours a day, so that's only 1/3 of the day
that any signle person will likely be on IRC. And no, expecting
people to have a permanently connected IRC proxy and then read the
other 16 hours of logs each morning is not a solution.

Personally I've stopped joining IRC most the time regardless, because
I feel I am far more productive when I'm not being interrupted with
IRC pings every 20 minutes. There should be few things so urgent that
they can't be dealt with over email. Again because of our timezone
differences we should be wary of making important decisions in a
rush - anything remotely non-trivial should have at least a 24 hour
window to allow people on all timezones a chance to see the point
and join in discussion.

IRC is mostly not about discussions, it's about discussion, context,
team building, and trust. And it's a cross organization open forum for that.

If core team members start dropping off external IRC where they are
communicating across corporate boundaries, then the local tribal effects
start taking over. You get people start talking about the upstream as
"them". The moment we get into us vs. them, we've got a problem.
Especially when the upstream project is "them".

So while I agree, I'd personally get a ton more done if I didn't make
myself available to answer questions or help sort out misunderstandings
people were having with things I'm an expert in, doing so would
definitely detrimentally impact the project as a whole. So I find it an
unfortunate decision for a core team member.

-Sean

--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Feb 11, 2015 by Sean_Dague (66,200 points)   4 8 14
...