All, If I have understood correctly the legal process which we've followed to join the Apache project, then I am 'legally independent' as are several of the other Qpid committers under discussion, as I have signed an ICLA and am personally responsible/liable for all of my contributions to Qpid.
If this is not the spirit of the rule then I think it'd be better stated in different terms to make it clearer and this debate less subjective perhaps. For what its worth, Qpid has attracted several other independent committers since project inception. Somewhat unfortunately, after making significant contribution, they're all tied up with their 'day job' commitments at the moment (from the pre-graduation karma discussions on our list). Speaking of the Apache way, I don't much enjoy being singled out for personal discussion. The position of some of the committers on this project is, by necessity, what it is. It's not some Machiavellian attempt to subvert the process, truly. We're all trying to work together on a worthwhile project which we know people are able to get benefit from. Regards, Marnie Qpid Team On 3/23/08, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday 21 March 2008, Paul Fremantle wrote: > > Yoav > > > > I have to say I think you have given a very good analysis. I think > > that QPid has come a huge way towards Apacheness. Diversity is not as > > great as it could be but meets the Incubator criteria. > > Huh? The graduation guide says "there are at least 3 legally independent > committers" and I don't see that with Qpid. EVERY committer (except > for the 2 mentors) on the qpid status page [1] can easily be traced to > be associated with either RedHat or JP Morgan Chase. For example, if > you check the credits page of the AMQP 0-10 spec [2] and look at the > credits page (page xi), it associates EVERYONE on the list to either > RedHat or JPMC except for: > Jim Meyering > Marnie McCormack > Nuno Santos > And you can trace those three from: > Marnie McCormack - original qpid proposal [3] > Nuno Santos - Linked in profile [4] > Jim Meyering - Other redhad stuff [5] > > Thus, with 100% of the committers directly associated with just 2 > companies, I DON'T feel that it meets the Incubator criteria of 3. Yes, > they've done a good job trying to hide their affiliations. But the fact > remains that the affiliations are there and can be found with very > little work. I tried to get the community to clarify the above duing > the discussions, but they didn't address it at all, or at least to my > satisfaction. > > IMO, if there is even a question of diversity at all, that warrants a -1. > From my experience, there isn't a compelling reason to speed them out of > the incubator if there is a question like this. Lets make sure that > they CAN address the diversity issue first. It looks like they are > working on it, which is great, but lets make sure they will follow up on > that and get it done. That's an important part of the incubators job. > > Anyway, I'd vote -1, but my vote wouldn't be binding. > > Dan > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/qpid.html > [2] > > https://jira.amqp.org/confluence/download/attachments/720900/amqp.0-10.pdf?version=1 > [3] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/QpidProposal > [4] http://www.linkedin.com/in/nunofsantos > [5] http://hany.sk/~hany/RPM/f-8-x86_64/qpidc-devel-0.2-5.fc7.i386.html > > > > > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Carl Trieloff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > At this point the Apache Qpid community with support from its > > > > > mentors feels that > > > > > > > > > > it is ready to graduate to an official top level project at > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > but another voice asks: are they really ready today? has the IPMC > > > > > > > > fully equipped them for the chanlleges ahead? do they really > > > > understand how to mentor new independent developers into > > > > committers and PMCers? is the diversity sufficient to have learnt > > > > how to have disagreements on technical matters whilst retaining > > > > community spirit? > > > > > > It's a hard call for me as well. The technical bits are all there, > > > processes followed, paperwork filed, etc. More importantly, the > > > qpid community has been open, receptive to feedback from everyone > > > inside and outside their group, welcoming to new opinions from new > > > people, and respectful of ASF spirit, not just its letter. There > > > are disagreements and debates on various technical matters without > > > hurting the community. That's why I support their graduation. > > > > > > It would have been really nice if one or two more committers from > > > new organizations had been added during the previous few months, but > > > that didn't happen. But I don't think the fact the committers come > > > from a small set of organizations necessarily means there's no > > > diversity. And I don't want to introduce artificial requirements. > > > The "are they really ready" question is subjective by definition, > > > and it's a good one, but I still vote +1 ;) > > > > > > Yoav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > J. Daniel Kulp > Principal Engineer, IONA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
