ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com>
Subject Re: Collaboration process at Ignite
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 22:29:34 GMT
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:20PM, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > That's a good idea. However, decisions made on the chat _have_ to be
> > > recorded in the email.
> >
> > Actually, I'd like to drill into that.
> >
> > It's not a matter of *recording* a decision taken in a chat, but
> recording
> > the *content* of the discussion, along with possible options to move
> > forward. Discussions can start spontaneously in a chat, regardless of
> who's
> > actually present. It would be unfair for decisions to be taken in absence
> > of others who simply weren't around at the time.
>
> I am not arguing with this. And I am not saying that a decisions from a
> chat
> should be followed by anyone if the consensus weren't reached. The point I
> am
> making is that off-line discussions have to be recorded (either as email or
> JIRA, depends on how the project operates) for future reference, if they
> have
> _any_ impact on the project.
>

You initially said that *decisions* have to be recorded in Apache media,
and that's what I was objecting to. You then changed your terminology and I
agree with this last stance of yours.

In my view, decisions of significance should *not* be taken in chat, and
then reported to the mailing lists. That's already too late. Decisions
should be taken *in the mailing lists* with exposure to the entire
community. In other words, a discussion in chat developing into a
significant change should be moved over to the mailing list *before* a
decision is taken.



> > The decision itself should be taken in the mailing list – thus giving the
> > entire community to voice out their opinion. If the changes are if the
> > changes are substantial, structural or of significant impact, a VOTE is
> > recommended by The Apache Way [1], and it's useful for the poster to
> > indicate if lazy consensus applies. For smaller things, it suffices to
> open
> > a JIRA task and explain what was done and why.
>
> While your reference is certainly correct, the Apache Way isn't based on
> voting. Apache Way is based on an explicit or an implicit consensus.
> Voting-based system is a democracy; fortunately Apache isn't one. But let's
> not go in this direction - it has been covered multiple times elsewhere.
>

I never said that the Apache Way was based on voting. How you arrived to
that conclusion, I don't understand. All I said is that changes that are
substantial, structural or of significant impact should be voted. That's
what the The Apache Way advocates. In practice, those will be only a
handful.


> Cos
>
> > Sorry to be a PITA; but I'm sharing what has worked in other projects I'm
> > involved in for the benefit and evolution of Ignite.
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > *Raúl Kripalani*
> > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> > Integration specialist
> > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message