[Twisted-Python] Questions about Project Leadership committee
Hi, I asked some questions about the Twisted project leadership committee here:
https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2020-December/065367.html
but it looks like my questions got lost in the thread, and no one aso I will ask again. Who are the current members of the committee? What are the titles/roles/responsibilities of the current committee members? Is there a mailing list, IRC channel, or some other venue which the current committee members belong to so that they can communicate amongst themselves, and also with the outside world, such as the Software Freedom Conservancy?
-- Craig
On January 23, 2021 at 1:36:40 PM, Craig Rodrigues (rodrigc@crodrigues.org(mailto:rodrigc@crodrigues.org)) wrote:
Hi, I asked some questions about the Twisted project leadership committee here:
https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2020-December/065367.html
but it looks like my questions got lost in the thread, and no one aso I will ask again. Who are the current members of the committee?
At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
What are the titles/roles/responsibilities of the current committee members?
There are no titles or roles.
Is there a mailing list, IRC channel, or some other venue which the current committee members belong to so that they can communicate amongst themselves, and also with the outside world, such as the Software Freedom Conservancy?
There’s theoretically a mailing list but it hasn’t seen a post in more than 4 years. I’m not even sure if it still works in our new mail service configuration. So functionally, “no”.
-- Craig _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
Thanks for the clarification. Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if they want to remain on the committee or not, and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)?
In this e-mail: https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2020-December/065364.html , I mentioned that I tried to look for documentation about this committee at https://twistedmatrix.com and could not find any.
So if you are not aware of any public documentation regarding this committee, then I think it is reasonable to assume that such documentation does not exist. -- Craig
On January 23, 2021 at 6:10:04 PM, Craig Rodrigues (rodrigc@crodrigues.org(mailto:rodrigc@crodrigues.org)) wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph <glyph@twistedmatrix.com(mailto:glyph@twistedmatrix.com)> wrote:
At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
Thanks for the clarification. Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if they want to remain on the committee or not, and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)?
Not recently although I’ve reached out several times in the past. I have no plans to reach out again until someone has worked out with the SFC what our options are and proposed a concrete plan.
In this e-mail: https://twistedmatrix.com/pipermail/twisted-python/2020-December/065364.html , I mentioned that I tried to look for documentation about this committee at https://twistedmatrix.com and could not find any.
So if you are not aware of any public documentation regarding this committee, then I think it is reasonable to assume that such documentation does not exist. -- Craig
Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
Hi,
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 04:29, Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On January 23, 2021 at 6:10:04 PM, Craig Rodrigues (rodrigc@crodrigues.org) wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
Thanks for the clarification. Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if they want to remain on the committee or not, and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)?
Not recently although I’ve reached out several times in the past. I have no plans to reach out again until someone has worked out with the SFC what our options are and proposed a concrete plan.
I was in contact with SFC over IRC.
The first thing that someone need to do is send a message to twisted@sfconservancy.org
Only after no response is received in time (I don't know how long that is...maybe 3 weeks) we can contact SFC and they will allocate extra resources to help solve this issue.
I have not sent a message to that list. For now, I don't plan to do it. I feel there is no consensus across the current active Twisted developers.
I encourage anyone else who wants to do it, to send the message to twisted@sfconservancy.org
Good luck
On Jan 24, 2021, at 1:24 AM, Adi Roiban adi@roiban.ro wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 04:29, Glyph <glyph@twistedmatrix.com mailto:glyph@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On January 23, 2021 at 6:10:04 PM, Craig Rodrigues (rodrigc@crodrigues.org mailto:rodrigc@crodrigues.org) wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph <glyph@twistedmatrix.com mailto:glyph@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
Thanks for the clarification. Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if they want to remain on the committee or not, and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)?
Not recently although I’ve reached out several times in the past. I have no plans to reach out again until someone has worked out with the SFC what our options are and proposed a concrete plan.
I was in contact with SFC over IRC.
The first thing that someone need to do is send a message to twisted@sfconservancy.org mailto:twisted@sfconservancy.org Only after no response is received in time (I don't know how long that is...maybe 3 weeks) we can contact SFC and they will allocate extra resources to help solve this issue.
I have not sent a message to that list. For now, I don't plan to do it. I feel there is no consensus across the current active Twisted developers.
I encourage anyone else who wants to do it, to send the message to twisted@sfconservancy.org mailto:twisted@sfconservancy.org
Good luck
Thanks for the update, Adi; I appreciate your taking the initiative on this.
If we want to have a private deliberation among committers about next steps, I believe https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions makes it possible to do that, so that might be a tool to use.
(To be clear, I think any conclusions from this discussions need to be made public and transparent, but for reasons previously mentioned in this conversation, we may want to be able to share ideas less publicly before we pick one to avoid muddling things like future bidding on work.)
-g
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 09:57, Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On Jan 24, 2021, at 1:24 AM, Adi Roiban adi@roiban.ro wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 04:29, Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On January 23, 2021 at 6:10:04 PM, Craig Rodrigues ( rodrigc@crodrigues.org) wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 4:54 PM Glyph glyph@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
At the time the committee was created, I don’t remember if this was public, so I don’t feel comfortable sharing identities publicly because it wasn’t part of the deal at the time. This is not the way I’d structure things now, but given that several members are unresponsive and don’t seem to want to be associated with the project any more, I can’t ask them if it’s OK with them. If you can find any old public documentation feel free to share though; the issue is that I’m not sure it *has* been public. If it has, it can by all means remain public.
I can at least share that as I recall there are 6 members and I’m one of them. But you’d want to confirm this with the conservancy, so please join Adi’s private thread with them for further discussion.
Thanks for the clarification. Have you recently contacted the 5 other committee members to confirm if they want to remain on the committee or not, and either received confirmation (or feedback timeout)?
Not recently although I’ve reached out several times in the past. I have no plans to reach out again until someone has worked out with the SFC what our options are and proposed a concrete plan.
I was in contact with SFC over IRC.
The first thing that someone need to do is send a message to twisted@sfconservancy.org
Only after no response is received in time (I don't know how long that is...maybe 3 weeks) we can contact SFC and they will allocate extra resources to help solve this issue.
I have not sent a message to that list. For now, I don't plan to do it. I feel there is no consensus across the current active Twisted developers.
I encourage anyone else who wants to do it, to send the message to twisted@sfconservancy.org
Good luck
Thanks for the update, Adi; I appreciate your taking the initiative on this.
OK. I am a liar :) I have just sent an email to twisted@sfconservancy.org with what I think can be done to activate the committee. I added Glypt and Craig to CC.
Let me know if you are also interested in that private discussion.
If we want to have a private deliberation among committers about next steps, I believe https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions makes it possible to do that, so that might be a tool to use.
I have created this team private thread on GitHub
https://github.com/orgs/twisted/teams/twisted-contributors/discussions/1
(To be clear, I think any conclusions from this discussions need to be made public and transparent, but for reasons previously mentioned in this conversation, we may want to be able to share ideas less publicly before we pick one to avoid muddling things like future bidding on work.)
I will try to follow up if I get something. I have also asked the committee to come back with a conclusion over the mailing list.
Glyphs, I understand you very well in regard to the conflict to interest. And you are right. Nothing personal.
It's just a personal frustration that we need to make extra effort, when we don't have much time and energy for code reviews.
On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:48 AM, Adi Roiban adi@roiban.ro wrote:
It's just a personal frustration that we need to make extra effort, when we don't have much time and energy for code reviews.
I feel this every single day :)
Thanks,
-g
participants (3)
-
Adi Roiban -
Craig Rodrigues -
Glyph