+1 to most parts the only part that I'd prefer to keep simple is the Board vote vs Attic vote: this is exactly the type of vote we tried to get from Board when digging into XMLBeans details and got as answer "just do it" Which is sufficient to me: we don't create any new project (= a new community and a new PMC), but merge a disappeared community into a live community
IMHO, project = codebase + community + PMC a board vote is useful for a new project because it represents a new community then a new PMC When a community and its PMC create a new "internal" project, also called sub- project, the PMC does not ask any vote from board. notice: I won't fight against a Board vote: the next time, since Board will better know what it votes about, the vote will just be a formal approval "from the top of ASF" I like Bertrands's summary start: once consensus on the end is ok and process (board vote or not), this is exactly what we could keep in Attic site to document this scenario Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 20 juillet 2018, 13:50:38 CEST Mark Murphy a écrit : > Thanks Henk, this covers all of my concerns very well. > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:40 AM Henk P. Penning <penn...@uu.nl> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:43:05 +0200 > > > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > > > To: general@attic.apache.org > > > Subject: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the > > > > Attic > > > > Hi Bertrand, > > > > thanks for your help ; appreciated. > > > > > > I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's > > > Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to > > > clarify this and here looks like the best place. > > > > > > IIUC the first occurence that just happened is > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 > > > > > > I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might > > > have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion > > > between "project" and "codebase". > > > > > > IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the > > > project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible > > > helps simplify and clarify what's happening. > > > > > > So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting > > > codebases which are currently in the Attic. > > > > > > 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which > > > means that the Apache Project ceases to exist. > > > > > > 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in > > > the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to > > > provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic. > > > > > > 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by > > > recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for > > > top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it > > > feels easy to handle using existing processes. > > > > > > 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active > > > again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169 > > > > > > If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative) > > > rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project > > > FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it. > > > > > > a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's > > > not been adopted by a different PMC so far > > > > > > b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs > > > > > Re a) and b) ; splitting the codebase complicates matters a lot ; > > it is not "on the [attic] menu" ; it is not the current 'problem'. > > For now, let's not go there. > > Below I assume (regarding codebase) it is "all or nothing". > > > > [ Note that many other PMCs have split the codebase ; > > > > for example Hadoop is a split-of of Lucune ; > > > > ] > > > > [ Note that Attic is very reluctant to change the FROM website > > ; we've worked hard at not having to touch it > > ; The "this project is in the attic" notices on every html pages > > > > are generated /outside/ the FROM website (by a lua filter) > > > > ] > > > > > > c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient, > > > on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and > > > actions > > > > > I don't think a possitive Attic vote is sufficient or even required. > > > > As Jim pointed out, the board resolution that terminated FROM, > > also tasked Attic with "oversight over the software [of FROM]" ; > > that is, to freeze it. > > Only another board resolution can relieve Attic of that task, > > and responsibility. > > So, Attic does nothing until Board formally decides. > > If/when Board passes a resolution that moves oversight of the > > codebase from Attic to TO, Attic unatticks FROM. > > > > > > d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO > > > adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted > > > the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase > > > have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains > > > frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under > > > their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain > > > content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic. > > > > > Not applicable if TO "takes all". > > > > > > e) The Attic website is updated with that same information > > > > > > f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like > > > TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older > > > ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both > > > for release archives and things like Java jars, etc. > > > > > This is a key-point : > > > > This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ; > > XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change. > > The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be > > visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal > > thing. > > > > This is the 'Project' vs 'Product' discusion. The ASF presents > > its products divided by organisation-lines (PMCs) ; in general, > > that is bad idea. It is hard to fix, because of the way the ASF > > is managed (strongly independent PMC's). > > > > > > g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience > > > > > Not applicable if TO "takes all". > > > > > > How does this sound? > > > > > I think the "TO takes all" (as was done in the POI/XMLbeans case) > > works well ; I see no problems in the future, should it happen again. > > > > > > Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at > > > http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be > > > understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case > > > IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted. > > > > > > Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and > > > I think that's not good as per d) above. > > > > > > -Bertrand > > > > > Thanks ; regards, > > > > Henk Penning > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ _ > > Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_ > > Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \ > > Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/ > > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/
