Hi, folks,
In yesterday's board meeting, the board asked me to report on the status of all of our SIGs. I have put together this report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e6Bw1x7ReDOuk4rrPz-Wl4EBaEicLG35rJb8P7_S... - which covers all of the SIGs which are listed on https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup
If you are involved in any SIG, please review what I have written there, and make any comments/corrections that you feel are warranted, so that I am passing the most accurate information possible to the board.
Thanks!
Hi Rich,
I participate sporadically in the CentOS Storage SIG and I have some questions.
"They are also requested to hold regular (at least monthly) public meetings" - would you please write the name of the person who is requesting this?
Would you please say what outcomes you expect for a monthly meeting?
- Ken
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:46 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks,
In yesterday's board meeting, the board asked me to report on the status of all of our SIGs. I have put together this report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e6Bw1x7ReDOuk4rrPz-Wl4EBaEicLG35rJb8P7_S...
- which covers all of the SIGs which are listed on
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup
If you are involved in any SIG, please review what I have written there, and make any comments/corrections that you feel are warranted, so that I am passing the most accurate information possible to the board.
Thanks!
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 1/14/21 7:10 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
Hi Rich,
I participate sporadically in the CentOS Storage SIG and I have some questions.
"They are also requested to hold regular (at least monthly) public meetings" - would you please write the name of the person who is requesting this?
Me, on behalf of the Board of Directors.
Would you please say what outcomes you expect for a monthly meeting?
Meetings should cover status - what's been happening, what's planned, and where people can participate. And it's an opportunity for users to complain about what's broken, and ask for help. It is one way to engage with the community, and forces a periodic retrospective and refocusing of the work. It also ensures that this isn't just a couple of engineers doing work inside their company.
Note that some projects choose to have these weekly, others monthly - whatever works for the particular SIG. The important thing is not the cadence so much as that there's a clearly defined point in time where you know you can get the attention of a SIG's leadership.
Note also that if your SIG prefers to have "meetings" via email, for the benefit of multi-timezone, multi-language participants, I certainly think that's fine too. We have evolved a process where IRC meetings are the norm, but they are certainly not the only way to do things.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:46 AM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, folks,
In yesterday's board meeting, the board asked me to report on the status of all of our SIGs. I have put together this report - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e6Bw1x7ReDOuk4rrPz-Wl4EBaEicLG35rJb8P7_S...
- which covers all of the SIGs which are listed on
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup
If you are involved in any SIG, please review what I have written there, and make any comments/corrections that you feel are warranted, so that I am passing the most accurate information possible to the board.
Thanks!
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Meetings should cover status - what's been happening, what's planned, and where people can participate. And it's an opportunity for users to complain about what's broken, and ask for help. It is one way to engage with the community, and forces a periodic retrospective and refocusing of the work. It also ensures that this isn't just a couple of engineers doing work inside their company.
I would really want to see the outcome of more frequent Storage SIG meetings. I saw that multiple components in Storage SIG fail when we add SELINUX to the equasion.
Note also that if your SIG prefers to have "meetings" via email, for the benefit of multi-timezone, multi-language participants, I certainly think that's fine too. We have evolved a process where IRC meetings are the norm, but they are certainly not the only way to do things.
So far I was left with the impression that only 3 members are active (Kaleb, Niels and AnoopCS) , but I might be wrong.
Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:54 PM Strahil Nikolov via CentOS-devel < centos-devel@centos.org> wrote:
Meetings should cover status - what's been happening, what's planned, and where people can participate. And it's an opportunity for users to complain about what's broken, and ask for help. It is one way to engage with the community, and forces a periodic retrospective and refocusing of the work. It also ensures that this isn't just a couple of engineers doing work inside their company.
I would really want to see the outcome of more frequent Storage SIG meetings.
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
I saw that multiple components in Storage SIG fail when we add SELINUX to the equasion.
Where are the bug reports or github issues?
Although honestly, if you find a bug (e.g. a crash, an AVC denial, etc.) please report it directly to the upstream project. Unless it's a bug that's directly related to the actual packaging... I've frankly got better things to do than be a proxy for bugzillas and github issues.
The packages I'm involved with use an rpm .spec file that is 99% identical to the upstream project's .spec file, so even if there's a bug in the packaging, odds are it should get reported upstream (first) anyway.
--
Kaleb
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
As it was mentioned , it could be an e-mail based and that could solve the problem people not able to attend. After all people have jobs to do ... and not everybody is on the software development end.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
I never ment "more", but more productive. Even if it's just "no issues are observed".
I saw that multiple components in Storage SIG fail when we
add SELINUX to the equasion.
Where are the bug reports or github issues?
First of all it's so hard to identify which product should be addressed first. I was trying with Gluster devel , yet it's not optimal - nothing goes on, no followup , nothing. If I had a clue which component is the "guilty one"... it would be far easier. One example (should be solved in EL 8.3): CentOS 8.2, Gluster v8.3 + Highly Available NFS Ganesha ontop of a Gluster Cluster. When the system was fenced - it never came back. Which is guilty -> Gluster, NFS Ganesha, or EL ?
That's just a simple case where you and the rest of the SIG helped, but it was so hard to get that resolved. Such SIG meetings would help.
Although honestly, if you find a bug (e.g. a crash, an AVC denial, etc.) please report it directly to the upstream project. Unless it's a bug that's directly related to the actual packaging... I've frankly got better things to do than be a proxy for bugzillas and github issues. The packages I'm involved with use an rpm .spec file that is 99% identical to the upstream project's .spec file, so even if there's a bug in the packaging, odds are it should get reported upstream (first) anyway.
About the proxying stuff... that's not intended or wished - but sadly sometimes it happens. After all , the goal is to make the components in this SIG better.
Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 5:49 PM Kaleb Keithley kkeithle@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:54 PM Strahil Nikolov via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
Meetings should cover status - what's been happening, what's planned, and where people can participate. And it's an opportunity for users to complain about what's broken, and ask for help. It is one way to engage with the community, and forces a periodic retrospective and refocusing of the work. It also ensures that this isn't just a couple of engineers doing work inside their company.
I would really want to see the outcome of more frequent Storage SIG meetings.
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
FWIW, I didn't even *know* there *were* SIG meetings for Storage SIG... The only ones I knew of were the RDO ones...
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
FWIW, I didn't even *know* there *were* SIG meetings for Storage SIG... The only ones I knew of were the RDO ones...
Me neither . A simple proposal - let's provide an update to the wiki and mention the time slots for the next meetings (or how the invite at least).
Best Regards, Strahil NIkolov
On 1/16/21 12:56 PM, Strahil Nikolov via CentOS-devel wrote:
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
FWIW, I didn't even *know* there *were* SIG meetings for Storage SIG... The only ones I knew of were the RDO ones...
Me neither . A simple proposal - let's provide an update to the wiki and mention the time slots for the next meetings (or how the invite at least).
That's here:
https://www.centos.org/community/calendar/
complete with ics file that you can add to your favorite calendar app.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 07:56:37PM +0200, Strahil Nikolov via CentOS-devel wrote:
srsly? You want more meetings? For three months in a row last year Niels and I sat around on #centos-meeting at the scheduled time waiting to see if anyone else was going to show up. Each time, after about 15 minutes we called it quits.
When people actually start attending then I'd be willing to consider having more.
FWIW, I didn't even *know* there *were* SIG meetings for Storage SIG... The only ones I knew of were the RDO ones...
Me neither . A simple proposal - let's provide an update to the wiki and mention the time slots for the next meetings (or how the invite at least).
All SIG meetings are listed in the calendar at https://centos.org/community/calendar/ . There seems to be a link to that page on the Storage SIG wiki page already, although it mentions no regular meetings are taking place (I'll update that after sending this mail).
I have prepared the agenda (no topics yet) for the next meeting, scheduled on 2 February at 10:00 UTC. Feel free to add your IRC nickname and topic that you would like to discuss.
Thanks, Niels
-
Kaleb Keithley -
Ken Dreyer -
Neal Gompa -
Niels de Vos -
Rich Bowen -
Strahil Nikolov