-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Thoughts on the 2020-09-08 meeting #24
Comments
Hey Michael, thanks for the note. This is not intended to be a full response. But I do want to apologize for dropping off the call early. I didn't want to, but Peter and I both had an unfortunate scheduling conflict. That won't always be avoidable but I consider this team to be a high priority and I will treat its meeting schedule as such! We believe in this process and want our personal investment in it to reflect that. I do regret that we did not have an opportunity to talk about conda-pack and constructor before I had to leave, as (you may know) these are projects I have been investing in significantly lately. More community involvement would be absolutely welcome. |
Hi Michael S. thank you for the note. I unfortunately missed the conversations during this meeting, but am eager on how we can move forward. Specifically, I am interested in what some team members feel they are not getting with the current process (submitting PRs, being involved) that they would like to see moving forward. What are needed milestones within the community and why are those needed? This type information would be super helpful as we move forward. I welcome people's thoughts, so we can move forward and align on expectations. |
This part annoyed me a little too. I'm not AnacondaInc and I have zero stake on the matter, but it was said in the meeting that conda-forge demands "this" for years. "This" was also not clear to me, more control on the conda org? Be part of the road map discussion? I can say that every time we needed, our voice was heard. We influenced many changes in conda, conda-build, and the rest of the stack. I never felt we needed any more "control." All my PRs were merged quickly, Isuru sends some hairy ones and they are all worked out and merged/solved. Maybe, what is even harder to ask, we got features in just by request, without sending a single line of code to conda (multiple outputs in cb)! I do have a personal frustration with projects that fell through the cracks b/c of change in personnel but AnacondaInc is a company and people come and go. I'm also still working on reviving those projects and hope to continue work with them towards their goals. (Namely the improvements on the environment yaml file.) However, there is no need for any action on the AnacondaInc side for that to happen neither I expect anything until we have a solid proposal to work on those goals again. |
Thank you Filipe. I would like to put this as an agenda item for our next meeting to dive into what 'this' means. Eager to hear everyone's thoughts to continue to move the ball forward for our ecosystem. |
The meeting left me feeling frustrated, and I've heard similar sentiments from a few of you. I want to discuss my perceptions, reconcile them with yours, and work on ways to have better meetings in the future.
In my humble opinion, it was unfair to say at the beginning of the meeting “we won’t be talking about the transfer of conda/conda-build/constructor/conda-pack projects” and then expect Cheng or other Anaconda team to cover when Peter and Michael Grant already left after they thought their part wouldn’t come up. I don't remember the exact language, but I'm hoping we can collectively agree on what was said, and why Peter and Michael Grant decided that they didn't need to stay.
Furthermore, the meeting felt very aggressive and impatient towards Anaconda. I am perhaps a bit biased towards Anaconda, given my past role there. What I will point out as an outsider is that Anaconda is trying to help, as evidenced by efforts to change the CLA system. That CLA system work is 100% selfless time for Anaconda - it does them no benefit, and only helps this community effort. We all need to find ways to move this community forward, not just make demands on Anaconda.
I perceived lots of discontent from several people at the meeting, but I'm not at all clear what their goals are, nor what any milestones might be. We need to focus on some achievable targets. I see several possibilities. For each of these, please bear in mind that there may be additional prerequisites to making these happen. Those would need to be negotiated individually.
Perhaps we need some way of prioritizing these? Ranked choice voting? Whatever we do, we need to get to a place where we ask "what can I do (minimally involving Anaconda) to help move this along" and not "why is Anaconda blocking this?" Again, I no longer have direct insight into Anaconda's activities. My experience, though, and Anaconda's efforts on things like the CLA bot, indicate that Anaconda is acting in good faith, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: