Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Andrew C. Oliver]

I changed my vote to open it completely.  or just +1 on that too.  I 
favor medium access to closed completely for sure as I freaking hate the 
ezmlm archives (minimum readability)...

I believe we agreed to wait 72 hours...
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
i have just done my best to collate the votes as far as i have seen them
in this thread; the result is in the committers module (to which everyone
here theoretically has write access) under 'vote-community-access.txt'.
everyone please verify that i didn't screw up your votes and put your
names in the wrong places!
here are the results so far:

[as of $Date: 2002/10/27 23:22:57 $]
Three views exist presently on the appropriate level of "openness" for
the community@apache.org mailing list.  The purpose of this list is to
fascillitate community development among the various disconnected
groups in Apache.  Then to further discuss issues that affect the
community as a whole.
The list was created in direct response to this proposal by Stefano Mazzocchi:
 1) a mail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be created, it should be
open to committers only but it should be voluntary. Here is where
ASF-wide discussions should take place and committer and members
get to know each-other.
Here are the views as originally defined by Andy Oliver in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
View 1: Open the list completely, anyone can subscribe, post and read
   the archive.
 +1: Sam Ruby, Steven Noels, Jeff Turner, Rodney Waldhoff,
 Craig R McClanahan, Morgan Delagrange, Conor MacNeill,
 Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
 +0: Leo Simons
 -0: Michael A Smith
 -1: Ken Coar, Sander Striker, Greg Stein, Joe Schaefer, Justin Erenkrantz
View 2: Keep the list open only to committers, members and invitees
   (highly contributive developers and users) so far as posting
   goes, however allow anyone to read or view the archive (and
   include an archive such as MARC, etc.
 +1: Sam Ruby, Andy Oliver, Leo Simons, James Taylor, Aaron Bannert,
 Conor MacNeill, Erik Abele
 +0: Craig R McClanahan, Greg Stein, Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
 -0: Ken Coar, Morgan Delagrange, Joe Schaefer, Justin Erenkrantz
 -0.9: Sander Striker
 -1: Michael A Smith
View 3: Allow posting by committers, members, and invitees, and restrict
   access to the archives to the subscribers.
 +1: Ken Coar, Martin van den Bemt, B.W. Fitzpatrick, Michael A Smith,
 Sander Striker, Greg Stein, Thom May, Joe Schaefer,
 Peter Donald, James Cox, Vadim Gritsenko, Justin Erenkrantz
 +0: Erik Abele
 -0: Leo Simons, Conor MacNeill
 -1: Craig R McClanahan, Morgan Delagrange, Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
 

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

i have just done my best to collate the votes as far as i have seen them
in this thread; the result is in the committers module (to which everyone
here theoretically has write access) under 'vote-community-access.txt'.

everyone please verify that i didn't screw up your votes and put your
names in the wrong places!

here are the results so far:

[as of $Date: 2002/10/27 23:22:57 $]

Three views exist presently on the appropriate level of "openness" for
the community@apache.org mailing list.  The purpose of this list is to
fascillitate community development among the various disconnected
groups in Apache.  Then to further discuss issues that affect the
community as a whole.

The list was created in direct response to this proposal by Stefano Mazzocchi:

  1) a mail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be created, it should be
 open to committers only but it should be voluntary. Here is where
 ASF-wide discussions should take place and committer and members
 get to know each-other.

Here are the views as originally defined by Andy Oliver in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

View 1: Open the list completely, anyone can subscribe, post and read
the archive.
  +1: Sam Ruby, Steven Noels, Jeff Turner, Rodney Waldhoff,
  Craig R McClanahan, Morgan Delagrange, Conor MacNeill,
  Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
  +0: Leo Simons
  -0: Michael A Smith
  -1: Ken Coar, Sander Striker, Greg Stein, Joe Schaefer, Justin Erenkrantz

View 2: Keep the list open only to committers, members and invitees
(highly contributive developers and users) so far as posting
goes, however allow anyone to read or view the archive (and
include an archive such as MARC, etc.
  +1: Sam Ruby, Andy Oliver, Leo Simons, James Taylor, Aaron Bannert,
  Conor MacNeill, Erik Abele
  +0: Craig R McClanahan, Greg Stein, Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
  -0: Ken Coar, Morgan Delagrange, Joe Schaefer, Justin Erenkrantz
  -0.9: Sander Striker
  -1: Michael A Smith

View 3: Allow posting by committers, members, and invitees, and restrict
access to the archives to the subscribers.
  +1: Ken Coar, Martin van den Bemt, B.W. Fitzpatrick, Michael A Smith,
  Sander Striker, Greg Stein, Thom May, Joe Schaefer,
  Peter Donald, James Cox, Vadim Gritsenko, Justin Erenkrantz
  +0: Erik Abele
  -0: Leo Simons, Conor MacNeill
  -1: Craig R McClanahan, Morgan Delagrange, Ignacio J Ortega, Ted Husted
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: list intent and purpose via community-info cmd ezmlm

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

David Crossley wrote:
> 
> We really should use the community-infoapache.org
> response from ezmlm to show the intent of the "community"
> list. This should go out with the Welcome message and
> be thereafter available via the ezmlm commands.

well, as soon as we revise it according to consensus, since
apparently not everyone is happy with the cause for which
it was created :-(, i'll do that.

of course, we have all had experience with how often people
actually *read* those little auto-messages from the mlm. 
but covering it is an excellent idea.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

"Waldhoff, Rodney" wrote:
> 
> I agree that the axes of "for/against" and "can participate/can't participate"
> are orthogonal, but I strongly agree with combining the two axes for the 
> purpose
> of binding votes.  It's not enough to simply think a change/action item is a 
> good
> idea, you need to be willing to *actively* support it for the vote to be 
> binding.
> This idea isn't new or unique to Jakarta--all the ASF projects use those 
> semantics.

not entirely correct.  it depends on the project and the commit model in use.  
in the
httpd project, for instance, a +1 in review-then-commit mode meant 'i have
tested this patch and think it is goodness.'  in commit-then-review mode it
essentially doesn't come up except in controversial not-yet-committed proposals.
i have seen it used more often as 'i think this is a good idea' rather than
that plus '.. and i'll help', regardless of what the written guidelines are.

just to be realistic. :-)
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Justin Erenkrantz]

--On Saturday, October 26, 2002 9:38 AM -0400 "Andrew C. Oliver" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

View 1: Open the list completely, anyone can subscribe, post and
read the archive
-1.
View 2:  Keep the list open only to committers,
members and invitees (highly contributive developers and users) so
far as posting goes, however allow anyone to read or view the
archive (and include an archive such as MARC, etc.
-0.
View 3: Close the list to all except members and committers.
+1.  -- justin

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 03:12, Ted Husted wrote:
> IMHO, View 3 should be accomplished by allowing Committers on
> the Members list. A stepping stone to that might be to apply
> View 2 to the Members list and let a Member request that a
> Committer be given access. This could be a precursor to
> inviting someone to join the ASF.

Isn't this just moving things around. Will someone then have to create a 
members-private list? 

There needs to be areas where people can talk without fear of retribution or 
people will just take to not using the public lists or not talking about 
reservations they have for certain actions.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
--
 The fact that nobody understands you doesn't 
 mean you're an artist.
--

Re: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 05:49, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> The proposal document outlines an enhancement to semantics of the +1,
> +-0 and -1 voting model as described below:
>
>Each vote on an action item can be made in one of three four flavors:
>
>+1 The action should be performed, and I will help.
>+0 Abstain, I support the action but I can't help.
>-0 Abstain, I don't support the action but I can't help with an
> alternative.
>-1 The action should not be performed and I am offering an
> explanation or alternative.
>
> I think the addition of the qualification "and I will help" or "I can't
> help" is orthoginal to the expression of support for something. 

They are othogonal but linked. You can not try and block something that you 
don't have any intention of participating in. Or else we get twats who try 
and block their "competition" by just -1'ing any change or improvement.

> In the
> case of the addition of a new committer - its not about suplying help or
> not, 

yes it is. Everyone who votes +1 is responsible for helping that committer 
become accustomed to the new project and making sure that they follow the 
protocols etc.

> its aboout taking a position if a committer should be granted
> rights or not. 

Committers have no rights, just privlidges.

> If its about code change - its possible for someone to
> express an valid and informed opinion and contribute a binding vote (+1
> or -1) without implication of a willingness to "help".

yep and the vote is called invalid.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
**
| The student who is never required to do what   |
|  he cannot do never does what he can do.   |
|   - John Stuart Mill   |
**

RE: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Waldhoff, Rodney]

In reference to , Steve McConnell 
wrote: 

> The proposal document outlines an 
> enhancement to semantics of the +1, 
> +-0 and -1 voting model as 
> described below:
>
> Each vote on an action item can be made 
> in one of three four flavors:
>
> +1 The action should be performed, and I will help.
> +0 Abstain, I support the action but I can't help.
> -0 Abstain, I don't support the action but 
>I can't help with an alternative.
> -1 The action should not be performed and 
>I am offering an explanation or alternative.
>
> I think the addition of the qualification 
> "and I will help" or "I can't help" is 
> orthoginal to the expression of support 
> for something.  

I agree that the axes of "for/against" and "can participate/can't participate" 
are orthogonal, but I strongly agree with combining the two axes for the 
purpose of binding votes.  It's not enough to simply think a change/action item 
is a good idea, you need to be willing to *actively* support it for the vote to 
be binding.  This idea isn't new or unique to Jakarta--all the ASF projects use 
those semantics. 

The HTTPD Guidelines  contains a 
longer form of that "Voting carries obligations" paragraph, namely:

"The act of voting carries certain obligations -- voting members are not only 
stating their opinion, they are agreeing to help do the work of the Apache 
Project. Since we are all volunteers, members often become inactive for periods 
of time in order to take care of their "real jobs" or devote more time to other 
projects. It is therefore unlikely that the entire group membership will vote 
on every issue. To account for this, all voting decisions are based on a 
minimum quorum."

which I think helps explain why the "and I will help" part is important.

 - Rod

Re: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Stephen McConnell]

Ted Husted wrote:
It also occurs to me that something the incubator project can 
do is provide a template set of guidelines and procedures for 
the projects. In the way of guidelines, we have a draft set 
that includes several "clarifications" , in case anyone in the 
incubator project is interested in this idea.


 

The proposal document outlines an enhancement to semantics of the +1, 
+-0 and -1 voting model as described below:

  Each vote on an action item can be made in one of three four flavors:
  +1 The action should be performed, and I will help.
  +0 Abstain, I support the action but I can't help.
  -0 Abstain, I don't support the action but I can't help with an 
alternative.
  -1 The action should not be performed and I am offering an 
explanation or alternative.

I think the addition of the qualification "and I will help" or "I can't 
help" is orthoginal to the expression of support for something.  In the 
case of the addition of a new committer - its not about suplying help or 
not, its aboout taking a position if a committer should be granted 
rights or not.  If its about code change - its possible for someone to 
express an valid and informed opinion and contribute a binding vote (+1 
or -1) without implication of a willingness to "help".  

I would suggest re-phrasing the above as:
  Each vote on an action item can be made in one of three four flavors:
  +1 The action should be performed.
  +0 Abstain, positive abstention.
  -0 Abstain, negative abstention
  -1 The action should not be performed (explanation or alternative
 is required)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net

Re: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Stephen McConnell]

Ted Husted wrote:
On Jakarta, we have a sample letter that can be sent to 
Contributors when we are ready to nominate them as Committers. 
It occurred to me that we should also have a follow-up letter 
welcome them as a Committer. This would be a good place to 
insert some of points that have come up over Reorg and 
Community lately. 

Please see the updated page at 
 for a sample "Dear 
(new) Committer" letter. 

The letter refers to a "Newbie Committer FAQ". I did not link 
in the newbie FAQ, since I thought it warranted a second by a 
current member of the Jakarta PMC. 

The proposed Newbie FAQ can be viewed at 
.

It also occurs to me that something the incubator project can 
do is provide a template set of guidelines and procedures for 
the projects. In the way of guidelines, we have a draft set 
that includes several "clarifications" , in case anyone in the 
incubator project is interested in this idea.


 


> Release Plan
> A release plan is used to keep all volunteers aware of
> when a release is desired, who will be the Release Manager,
> when the repository will be frozen to create a release, and
> other assorted information to keep volunteers from tripping
> over each other. Lazy majority decides each issue in a
> release plan, or lazy consensus if the issue involves a
> product change.
Under the current wording there is no obligation of a sub-project to 
notify its PMC of a release.  Based on all of the reorg traffic it seems 
to me that a release is a sufficiently significant even that there 
should be something in the procedures that requires explicit 
notification of a release to the responsible PMC.

Cheers, Steve.
-Ted.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net

Re: open-community list

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Ted Husted wrote:
> 
> Why not just let open Members to anyone with an Apache account?

well, for one thing, it wouldn't be the members list anymore, would
it?  For another thing, there are things that concern the members of
the corporation that don't concern anyone else.  moving things that
need visibility to the right place is, imnsho, a better solution
than warping the existing structure so that it no longer aligns with its
original purposes.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: Welcome to Apache Letter

[Stephen McConnell]

Ted Husted wrote:
On Jakarta, we have a sample letter that can be sent to 
Contributors when we are ready to nominate them as Committers. 
It occurred to me that we should also have a follow-up letter 
welcome them as a Committer. This would be a good place to 
insert some of points that have come up over Reorg and 
Community lately. 

Please see the updated page at 
 for a sample "Dear 
(new) Committer" letter. 

The letter refers to a "Newbie Committer FAQ". I did not link 
in the newbie FAQ, since I thought it warranted a second by a 
current member of the Jakarta PMC. 

The proposed Newbie FAQ can be viewed at 
.

It also occurs to me that something the incubator project can 
do is provide a template set of guidelines and procedures for 
the projects. In the way of guidelines, we have a draft set 
that includes several "clarifications" , in case anyone in the 
incubator project is interested in this idea.


 

There is some good stuff here - a lot of clarification over and
above the current Jakarta procedures.
There are some questions detailed below:
 > If a Committer believes the explanation for a veto is
 > invalid, an affirmation of the veto can be requested.
 > If some other Committer does not affirm that the
 > explanation for the veto is valid, the veto shall be
 > void.
 What is the timeframe within which the affirmation is
 required?  To be consitent with the other caveats, perhaps
 a 5 day ceiling would be appropriate?
 > If a dispute over a veto becomes intractable, the PMC
 > may consent to arbitrate the matter, and, if appropriate,
 > rescind the veto with a 3/4 majority vote of the PMC
 > members.
 3/4 majority seems too high - typically a 3/4 majority is
 reserved for things like modification of the procedures
 whereas 1/2 is used for establishment of concensus of the
 PMC on a subject dealing with the property of the PMC.
Aside from the above - I like the document a lot (with just a
sneaking suspision thet the voting procedures read more like
a series of amendements and could possibly do with some sort
of refactoring of the current content).  I'm willing to
provide whatever help I can.
Cheer, Steve.
-Ted.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Steven Noels]

View 1: Open the list completely, anyone can subscribe, post and read 
the archive
I see people voting 2 instead of 1 because of the presumed noise that 
would be appear if non-committers/members/pmc'ers/board'ers would be 
allowed on that list (i.e. 'users', 'supporters', 'evangelists' ... ;-)

Please bear in mind that community@ is not about specific projects nor 
technology, that it (yet) doesn't carry the connotation general@ has, 
and that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been able to live through the infrequent 
'help-i-don't-know-how-to-start-tomcat' question. Maybe it would be 
showing off our community skills if we have a list where our users and 
ourselves (the ASF'ers, whatever that means) can meet without fearing a 
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/idiot.html link ;-)

Also, please remember that one _has_ to subscribe - an initial burden 
that filters out the utter clueless people, I believe.


--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: open-community list

[Ted Husted]

10/26/2002 8:12:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, I'd propose that community be pre-loaded with 
> members@ and comitters@ and be opt-in for anyone else 
> interested in the ASF community.


Why not just let open Members to anyone with an Apache account?

Or has this idea already been up for a vote recently?

An important aspect of the lists is procreation. The open DEV 
lists encourages contributors, some of which evolve into 
Committers. Without the open DEV lists, many projects would 
start to wither away.

If the Committers were permitted to join Members, it would 
encourage more Comitters to become Members (assuming that more 
Members is a goal). 

-Ted.

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Ted Husted]

View 1: +1
View 2: +0
View 3: -1

Totally opt-in, public archive on Nagoya, announced on 
Committers and Members.

IMHO, View 3 should be accomplished by allowing Committers on 
the Members list. A stepping stone to that might be to apply 
View 2 to the Members list and let a Member request that a 
Committer be given access. This could be a precursor to 
inviting someone to join the ASF.

-Ted.

Welcome to Apache Letter

[Ted Husted]

On Jakarta, we have a sample letter that can be sent to 
Contributors when we are ready to nominate them as Committers. 
It occurred to me that we should also have a follow-up letter 
welcome them as a Committer. This would be a good place to 
insert some of points that have come up over Reorg and 
Community lately. 

Please see the updated page at 
 for a sample "Dear 
(new) Committer" letter. 

The letter refers to a "Newbie Committer FAQ". I did not link 
in the newbie FAQ, since I thought it warranted a second by a 
current member of the Jakarta PMC. 

The proposed Newbie FAQ can be viewed at 
.

It also occurs to me that something the incubator project can 
do is provide a template set of guidelines and procedures for 
the projects. In the way of guidelines, we have a draft set 
that includes several "clarifications" , in case anyone in the 
incubator project is interested in this idea.



-Ted.

Apache Community (was Re: [VOTE] Open this list)

[Sam Ruby]

James Cox wrote:
>
> Whilst i agree with Sam -- we do have to be open -- we're still a
> closed foundation, one that benefits from it's meritocracy of
> interested experts.
I sincerely compliment you on your courage, honesty and ability to
clearly state this.  Many people would avoid actually making that
statement.  Kudos.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> Interestingly, this vote also helps crystalize who we think the
> "Apache community" really is.
Now, take a look at the description of users on
http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html
For that matter, take a look at the last five words of the first
paragraph of http://www.apache.org/
Sam Ruby wrote:
> There are going to be culture [clashes] as we try to move towards
> becoming one big happy family.  Most of it is due to ingrained
> assumptions that we have all built up over long periods of time.  My
> aim is to actively seek them out and surface them for all of us to
> inspect, discuss, and learn from.
As applied here, I would like us to come to a common understanding of 
what the term "Apache community" means, and make the name of this 
mailing list, the access policies thereof, and the usage of these terms 
on our public website (in particular prominent ones, like the ones I 
cited above) consistent with this common understanding.

- Sam Ruby

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Vadim Gritsenko]

James Cox wrote:
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* On 2002-10-26 at 10:05,
 Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
   

View 3: Close the list to all except members and committers.
 

i think that's a bit more negatively stated than necessary.  try:
'allow posting by committers, members, and invitees, and restrict
access to the archives to the subscribers.'
something that just occurred to me: this ends up being less
approaching my intent than i thought, since even committers and
members won't be able to see the archives unless they're
subscribed.  *that's* certainly not what i want to see happen.
   

+1.
+1.
Vadim

This isn't a general user list, so being open just increases the noise. This
is a list for people who are actively involved with ASF projects (as defined
by their ability to commit), and who have an interest in the development of
the foundation. We should have public record; but an open archive doesn't
necessarily help, so I would propose that summaries of pertinent discussion
be made public, periodically.
Whilst i agree with Sam -- we do have to be open -- we're still a closed
foundation, one that benefits from it's meritocracy of interested experts.
(I wonder what i'm doing here then :)). That means to me that it is OUR
foundation we have to look after -- and to look after each other -- and not
a place for end users to jump into straight away.
I guess in these early stages I consider community@apache.org kinda like a
"staff-line" news bulletin. News to the troops, discussion, general
information. apache information. Not really a vehical that we use to
communicate to users. That's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- james
 

RE: [VOTE] Open this list

[James Cox]

> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * On 2002-10-26 at 10:05,
>   Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> >
> > View 3: Close the list to all except members and committers.
>
> i think that's a bit more negatively stated than necessary.  try:
>
> 'allow posting by committers, members, and invitees, and restrict
> access to the archives to the subscribers.'
>
> something that just occurred to me: this ends up being less
> approaching my intent than i thought, since even committers and
> members won't be able to see the archives unless they're
> subscribed.  *that's* certainly not what i want to see happen.
>
+1.

This isn't a general user list, so being open just increases the noise. This
is a list for people who are actively involved with ASF projects (as defined
by their ability to commit), and who have an interest in the development of
the foundation. We should have public record; but an open archive doesn't
necessarily help, so I would propose that summaries of pertinent discussion
be made public, periodically.

Whilst i agree with Sam -- we do have to be open -- we're still a closed
foundation, one that benefits from it's meritocracy of interested experts.
(I wonder what i'm doing here then :)). That means to me that it is OUR
foundation we have to look after -- and to look after each other -- and not
a place for end users to jump into straight away.

I guess in these early stages I consider community@apache.org kinda like a
"staff-line" news bulletin. News to the troops, discussion, general
information. apache information. Not really a vehical that we use to
communicate to users. That's [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 -- james

RE: Man, it's quiet here

[James Cox]

> "Andrew C. Oliver" wrote:
> > 
> > So why don't you go next...with the introductions...
> 
> who, me?  heh.  everyone knows me; i'm the git with the big mouth. :-/

hmm, i thought you were just the nice old man, Ken :) 

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Peter Donald]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:28, David Crossley wrote:
> On a related issue, i am having trouble finding any docs
> about voting procedures for the Apache community.

Goto http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html and then lookup the 
"Decision Process" link

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
"Artists can color the sky red because they know it's blue.  Those of us who
 aren't artists must color things the way they really are or people might 
 think we're stupid." -- Jules Feiffer 

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[David Crossley]

Greg Stein wrote:
>  Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > Okay.  Sam and others have convinced me. .  though I reserve the right 
> > to taunt you all when the J.D.s enter and we have too much goofiness 
> >  (more than I cause that is ;-) )
> > 
> > lets open it up and see what happens.  if havoc is wreaked its 
> > correctable so I change my vote to +1 for all open.  I think thats the 
> > forming consensus so lets wrap this up in the next day or so and just do 
> > it.  Then some karma blessed person should update the "site".
> 
> Euh... how about giving the vote more than 24 hours? Vote taking should
> preferably be given about 72 hours. There are always cases where it needs to
> be shortened, but this isn't one of them.

The planet had not even rotated half-way around. The "vote"
started at 23:30 last night Australian time. I got my mail
early on Sunday morning and some are saying that it is over.
?

Sorry, i trust that my next statement is not too disruptive,
but it is important to get things straight early, hence ...

I think that this vote may not have followed decent procedures.

We were asked on a Friday to wait until the subscriber base
of "community" had built and fade out on "reorg". One of the
first threads on the list is a vote!

I was under the impression that a clear [PROPOSAL} is discussed
first to formulate the intent of a vote. The options that are
arrived at during that thread are then clearly stated by the
originator of the proposal in a subsequent ]VOTE] thread.

This vote was too rushed. I see people voting +1 on two
options, and others trying to re-write the options to be
clearer on what is being voted for.

On a related issue, i am having trouble finding any docs
about voting procedures for the Apache community.
--David

list intent and purpose via community-info cmd ezmlm

[David Crossley]

We really should use the community-infoapache.org
response from ezmlm to show the intent of the "community"
list. This should go out with the Welcome message and
be thereafter available via the ezmlm commands.

This is the response that i get from the listname-info
and listname-faq commands of every list that i tried.
 "No information has been provided for this list."

Perhaps that purpose should have been well-defined
before the call to vote on whether "community" list be
open or closed.

If the list ends up being wide-open, then we will
certainly need a clear statement of intent, otherwise
we end up with way too much babble.

I know that there are various tidbits on scattered
webpages that give very brief explanation of some
of the lists. This needs to be drawn together and
further detail added for each.

The "-info" commands could provide a precis, then
provide the URL for further info.
--David

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tapestry joins Jakarta

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Jakarta could vote right now, but the LGPL issue alone gives me the 
whillies.  And it would be hard to get a 3/4 majority with my -1.

Its not a problem, they plan to change their licensing.  So I didn't see 
this as an issue.  I figured that was one of the first things they could 
vote on.

The incubator will forward the code base to the appropriate home.  Ken 
has indicated that Jakarta could be the right home.  But we will never 
know until the process gets started. 
Okay, I'd rather have some plan of action, but if we must put the issue 
off, I suppose its okay.  Just let everyone involved commit not to put 
the project in the Limbo of Apache catch 22-ism.. . Its sooo frustrating 
when that happens for everyone involved.  And it breeds fear, and fear 
leads to hatred.  ;-)

-andy
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Dear incubator

[dion]

Since the discussion was initiated here on [EMAIL PROTECTED], I'd prefer we 
kept it here until there is a way forward via incubator, rather than move 
it off to yet another list.


--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:  http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers


"Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/10/2002 11:30:10 AM:

> Dear incubator,
> 
> I feel like I'm speaking to the wizard of Oz posting to a list I can't 
> see ;-)
> 
> Tapestry (tapestry.sourceforge.net) is a web app framework similar in 
> use and scope to Velocity/turbine and JSP/Struts, but certainly very 
> different in approach.
> 
> dIon Gillard and I have both agreed to help with the transition. 
> However we both feel the first step is for the tapestry community 
> (to whom's mail list I am now subscribed) to adopt apache voting rules (
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html) before joining.  once 
> they've demonstrated this transition and identified 3 core 
> committers, we should identify whether they go through some new 
> process or identify the new incubator process.  Whatever the case 
> they should not be unduely lubricated through the guidelines, nor 
> unduely inhibited by the transition.  I think we're all up to this 
> challenge and this could (hopefully) set a very nice precident.
> 
> To this end and to the ends of providing more interaction between 
> the various elements here at apache, I would like to suggest Ken 
> Coar whom I have approached as the "member sponsor" and "advisor" of
> the project and has stated his interest.  His experience and 
> abillities will be an asset to this transition as well as provide 
> greater insight to the rest of the Apache community on the goings on
> of a Java/Jakarta project.
> 
> I'd like to start a conversation on what the process/guidelines for 
> accepting Tapestry should be at the same time and what its path for 
> acceptance as either a Jakarta project or top level apache project 
should be.
> 
> I would suggest that this discussion happen on the community at 
> apache list and move to the general at jakarta list if deemed 
> appropriate as dion and I cannot participate in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> list nor can the project principals.
> 
> Thanks for your support,
> 
> Andrew C. Oliver
> committer POI, Lucene
> contributer Cocoon, JAMES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> For additional commands, e-mail: 

> 

> ForwardSourceID:NT0008711E 

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tapestry joins Jakarta

[Sam Ruby]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
WHO needs to vote? Jakarta or Incubator?
 From reading this incubator.apache.org I would say the incubator. 
However I think that makes it a top level project.  Otherwise its jakarta.
Jakarta could vote right now, but the LGPL issue alone gives me the 
whillies.  And it would be hard to get a 3/4 majority with my -1.

The incubator will forward the code base to the appropriate home.  Ken 
has indicated that Jakarta could be the right home.  But we will never 
know until the process gets started.

- Sam Ruby

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tapestry joins Jakarta

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Awesome.  Thanks Erik.  You're like a pillar of the Java side of Apache 
and I mean that.  
And you write a nice book too ;-)

-Andy
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Count me in for providing whatever assistance I can spare for helping 
Tapestry join Jakarta.  Just ping me and let me know what if anything 
I can do to help.

Erik
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Mr Ship,
I totally disagree with Pier's statement (and you'll find many here 
will feel the same as I on this).  The opinion of Tapestry joining is 
very good.
Realize Apache is more like a confederation than anything.  So 
different people feel
differently.  We're still ironing out a new process as Pier said, 
however most folks I've
spoken to have felt that the Apache voting rules must be adopted as a 
first step not
later.  Dion and I have both committed to helping you with this 
transition (though I don't
think he ever stated so publically...Dion?).  And I'll be happy to 
subscribe to the tapestry
list if you desire and help you build the structure.

The steps as I see them:
1. Adopt apache voting rules
2. Vote to join and relicense (in one swoop)
3. Submit a formal proposal
4. You're in
The challenges ahead are:
1. Apache: figure out what the procedure is that you will join under  
 (my position is it doesn't matter as long as things are relaxed 
on you because we wanted
  to try something out and that things aren't full of extra 
hurdles because the procedure is
  in transition)
2. Tapestry: Find your voting committers, reorganize yourself into a 
meritocratic structure
3. All: Patience and due dilligence.

Me & Dion
1. Find a sponsoring member
2. Assist you in reorganizing
3. Assist you in your propoasal
4. Make our case
5. Assist you in getting your sources/structures here.
Thats as clearly as i can lay it out.  Hopefully others will chime in 
constructively and clear up anything I got wrong or is fuzzy ;-)

-Andy
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 26/10/02 15:01, "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

So, this went out about a week ago, and the guidelines only cover 
as far as
publishing a proposal on the Jakarta General List.  What is the 
next step?

So far, I haven't seen any real negative responses, and a lot of 
positive
ones (I think a lot of ex-WebObjects folks are lurking about :-)).  
I could
summarize in more detail if that would be helpful.  Obviously, the PMC
hasn't really weighed in.  Again, what next?
  

Not being a committer to any of the Jakarta projects, and not being 
a PMC
member, I can't say much on this, but from a general feeling that I 
gather
from different parts of the foundation, I would say that _right_now_ 
the
timing is not that great because of the "big reorg" going around ASF 
wide.

But the decision is left to the Jakarta committers and PMC members...
   Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   

For additional commands, e-mail: 


 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tapestry joins Jakarta

[Andrew C. Oliver]

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/management.html
For Tapestry to become a subproject of Jakarta requires a 3/4 majority
of the PMC.  I am very interested in getting the incubator team to help
with the licensing issues and community issues.
I am optimistic about the outcome as there are plenty of people
motivated to make this work.
   

WHO needs to vote? Jakarta or Incubator?
 

From reading this incubator.apache.org I would say the incubator. 
However I think that makes it a top level project.  Otherwise its 
jakarta.  

Personally, I don't give a rat's behind to be honest.  

Back when I was in college (which I dropped out of to catch most of the 
Boom...thank god or I'd have graduated in time for the bust with no 
experience!)...  I had this misfortune of being on the Student 
Government  (ours was called something else which escapes memory because 
it was appointed...basically anyone who wanted to actually be on it 
could be).  Well we were funded to and went to the State (or was it 
regional?  It was in tallahassee that part I do remember.) meeting 
of these.  The agenda was very simple and easy and could have been done 
in a 15 minute meeting had there not been a contingent who determined to 
fillibuster 2 days worth of talk with their mastery of the Robert's 
rules of order.  You see they debated the procedures and the such until 
the last hour when the board finally told them to sit down and shut up 
(which I'm sure violated page something or other) and we managed to pass 
one miniscule resolution of something stupid or other.

While the procedure and all that is very interesting and is important 
for the future of apache, it is not *particularly* important in the 
scope of accepting tapestry.  As long as there are "do-ers", it meets 
the guidelines for community, etc -- and there is a certain amount of 
good will, what is destined to be for the better will happen.  Maybe the 
project won't organize itself properly...maybe they'll not make the 
cut...I think they will, but regardless.

Or we can be like the florida something or other board of student 
governments and fillibuster ourselves to death over procedure, all get 
ticked off and argue until the apopcalypse...  

I would prefer the former rather than the latter but I'm a crazy 
man...so what do I know.  (Plus I've had an enormous chimichanga and a 
pint of Dos Equis...so I'm prone to be more democratically philisophical 
about things...)

-andy
   Pier (dumb)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 
 

Dear incubator

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Dear incubator,
I feel like I'm speaking to the wizard of Oz posting to a list I can't 
see ;-)

Tapestry (tapestry.sourceforge.net) is a web app framework similar in 
use and scope to Velocity/turbine and JSP/Struts, but certainly very 
different in approach.

dIon Gillard and I have both agreed to help with the transition.  However we 
both feel the first step is for the tapestry community (to whom's mail list I 
am now subscribed) to adopt apache voting rules 
(http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html) before joining.  once they've 
demonstrated this transition and identified 3 core committers, we should 
identify whether they go through some new process or identify the new incubator 
process.  Whatever the case they should not be unduely lubricated through the 
guidelines, nor unduely inhibited by the transition.  I think we're all up to 
this challenge and this could (hopefully) set a very nice precident.
To this end and to the ends of providing more interaction between the various elements here at 
apache, I would like to suggest Ken Coar whom I have approached as the "member sponsor" 
and "advisor" of the project and has stated his interest.  His experience and abillities 
will be an asset to this transition as well as provide greater insight to the rest of the Apache 
community on the goings on of a Java/Jakarta project.
I'd like to start a conversation on what the process/guidelines for accepting 
Tapestry should be at the same time and what its path for acceptance as either 
a Jakarta project or top level apache project should be.
I would suggest that this discussion happen on the community at apache list and 
move to the general at jakarta list if deemed appropriate as dion and I cannot 
participate in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list nor can the project principals.
Thanks for your support,
Andrew C. Oliver
committer POI, Lucene
contributer Cocoon, JAMES

Re: [VOTE] Open this list

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Euh... how about giving the vote more than 24 hours? Vote taking should
preferably be given about 72 hours. There are always cases where it needs to
be shortened, but this isn't one of them.
Cheers,
-g
 


Okay ;-)  *foot tappingclock watching* ;-)
-Andy

Re: Why aren't they committers? (was: [VOTE] Open this list)

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Ouch!  Yes.  Ever notice how many of your typos end up being amazingly 
close to keywords in programming languages that you happen to use...

++1 - just no one end an argument with fi or esac ;-)
:-)
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why aren't they committers? (was: [VOTE] Open this list)

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> > did you mean 'clashes'?  just want to make sure, since it changes the
> > meaning a little.. :-)
> 
> Ouch!  Yes.  Ever notice how many of your typos end up being amazingly
> close to keywords in programming languages that you happen to use...

indeed.  a customer support friend told me about an oddball request
from a customer: to *remove* a word from the system dictionary.
they carefully spell-checked the announcement they were sending
to 25'000 people, and found no errors -- so blithely invited all those
people to a 'pubic auction'.

'we have *no need* for the word pubic in our dictionary!' said the
customer.
-- 
#kenP-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist  http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"