I've said my peace on this issue. If the committer(s) need mentors to help them learn the ropes, try working with the new d...@community.apache.org list to set up a formal arrangement.
OTOH I won't stand in the way if commons insists on incubating this effort. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:08:50 PM > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation > > Good points, which we discussed some on the d...@commns list before asking > the > Commons PMC to sponsor this as an Incubator project. > > My concerns, were around brining in a new codebase that previously had one > maintainer, but not offering them committership from the beginning, which > seemed > to follow the normal meritocracy guidelines that most PMCs follow. > > If everyone feels that creating a podling for this effort is an overkill, > then > I'd be fine going the IP clearance route, as long as the existing Apache > committers interested in the project are added from the start, as there > doesn't > seem to be a vibrant community around the existing Commons Validation project > today. > > > -Donald > > > Joe Schaefer wrote: > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > >> From: Niall Pemberton > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org > >> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 6:29:26 AM > >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ---- > >>> > >>>> From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org > >>>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM > >>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote: > >>>>>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended > >>>>>> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x > >>>>>> component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev > >>>>>> everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed > >>>>>> committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't > >>>>>> this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new > >>>>>> guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code? > >>>>> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on > >>>>> that discussion here: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt > >>>>> > >>>>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and > >>>>> some objections. > >>>>> > >>>>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes > >>>>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components > >>>>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons > >>>>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this > >>>>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will > >>>>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with > >>>>> voting in the new committers. > >>>>> > >>>>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part > >>>>> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs > >>>>> > >>>>> Niall > >>>>> > >>>> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind > >>>> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go > >>>> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole > >>>> incubation process just for one commit access. > >>>> > >>>> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be > >>>> worth pointing out this recent thread: > >>>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix > >>> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her > >>> own code in a fucking sandbox. Incubating this project because some > >>> weenies > > >> are > >>> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't > >>> the > >> solution: > >> > >> Small code bases with small communities are difficult (?almost > >> impossible?) to operate here at the ASF. Commons does OK by providing > >> enough community and oversight to allow 30+ such small components to > >> work here. But it relies on people taking time to keep and eye on > >> components they have no interest in and I didn't want to jeopardize > >> that co-operation by trying to force a decision on the sandbox. Really > >> though, I'm not sure why you're being so abusive over this - is it > >> really a big deal where the code sits in the subversion repository > >> (Commons Sandbox or Incubator)? > > > > Sorry it's a bit early here and I haven't had my coffee, but I did not enjoy > > reading the discussion about this issue in the October 2009 archives of > > priv...@commons. The Incubator is near or at its limits in terms of what > > sort of oversight it can provide to its projects, and adding to that burden > > simply to avoid a difficult decision doesn't make much sense to me. > > > >>> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision. If they > >>> vote > to > >>> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be > >>> it. > >> The end result is we want this to be a "proper" (i.e. not Sandbox) > >> Commons component - and that isn't going to happen with a completely > >> unknown (to Commons) code base & person. It needs an incubation period > >> - whether thats done through the Incubator or the Sandbox - so whats > >> the big deal? > > > > The big deal is in how you introduce a new person into this organization. > > Either you're treating them as a colleague with things to learn, but with an > > expectation that they will succeed, or you're treating them as an outsider > > with something to prove, and an expectation that they will fail. That is > > how > > I view the distinction between doing the work as an IP clearance issue that > > is managed entirely by commons, versus punting the project into the > > Incubator. > > > > > >> Niall > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
