Re: Undermining the Incubator
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:33:00 +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > >>From: Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>First of all, thanks for this thorough resonse. > > Sure. > >>True. This does belong on community@ > I think it belongs in the Incubator, as the Incubator is exactly for > these discussions (where constructive). For sure, as long as such interested parties would assure themselves that there might be no "teacher"s in apache. "Coaching and mentoring" minds might be necessary for the incubation. Yes, i can see it that the incubator project itself is evolving. You do not have to "behave" as a teacher. If you want to become a teacher (or someone expect you to be a teacher), you are sure to be infected by the disease of bureaucratism. ... Oh, six months investigations and observations (perhaps I, observer, influenced upon the status of the community a lot deducted by quantum mechanics :-) completely made me very assured. Perhaps my own theory might be able to evolve in the future :-) The keyword might be "awareness"... (and "symbiosis"? :-) Thank you, brothers. Love. (Phila-delphia? :-) -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an Incubator case study
Hi gang,
The avalon project is currently merging an externally developed
codebase, "MerlinDeveloper", with an internally developed codebase that
has the same goals. The codebase is about 60 files. We found some
licensing issues when we started incubation (referenced LGPL code, wrong
license headers, etc etc), but these have all been resolved quickly by
the projects developer once we identified them.
I'm one of the mentors of the project, and as a 'hobby' I've pretty much
made a detailed record of how much time it takes. So far I have spent:
* 0 hours convincing the incubator that this project should be
incubated;
* 1 hour convincing the avalon pmc that the project should be incubated;
* 3 hours doing a code inspection (which would have likely taken me
2 hours longer, btw, hadn't there been forms and process
descriptions to use in incubator cvs, cause I would have had to find
out what to look for all by myself);
* <1 hour filling out a status form, sending a status report, running
project acceptance votes for two PMCs;
* 1 hour figuring out parts of the process as we go ("no, we don't
really need a mailing list"), but this is also part of my role as
incubator pmc member, so I'm not sure if I should book it as "time
spent incubating";
* 4 hours explaining to various parties what we are doing, that it is
not bureaucratic, that it is not all a big formal mess, that this
thing really is required, etc etc.;
* I'll probably spend a few more minutes tallying vote results and
notifying two PMCs of the results.
From this it is easy to see that if it weren't for all the resentment
by various parties towards the incubation process, it seems likely that
the import of the project would have actually been more efficient, and
easier, than if the import process would have been managed by the avalon
project all by itself, because avalon benefits from the expertise and
knowledge of the incubator project.
I'll also note that 'defending' that something should be done and spent
time on is something that I really don't enjoy at all, so those 4 hours
spent count double IMHO.
Do with this data what you please. The conclusion I personally draw from
it is "we should stop complaining about process, and JFDI".
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Undermining the Incubator
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: From: Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... First of all, thanks for this thorough resonse. Sure. True. This does belong on community@ I think it belongs in the Incubator, as the Incubator is exactly for these discussions (where constructive). Interested parties can subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]@apache.org Andy, for one that rants about tricameral votes (which have been abandoned looong ago), you are pretty trigger-happy about cross-posting. :-PPP -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disregard Re: Undermining the Incubator
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:22:17 +0100 Santiago Gala Pérez wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > (...) > | Many of us rant in email, delete, then recompose with some decorum. > | Since many things that are discussed in community involve strongly held > | personal opinions and beliefs, this safety measure ensures that > intelligent > | dialogs can be pursued and the best course of action followed. > In this very spirit, 8 hours ago I was about to suggest Andy to put his > outbox in a moderation queue, but then I thought my message was too > harsh and I refrained from sending it... Oh, great. Nifty. By the way, maybe I could *invent* new medicine (patch form) which aids mitigation of the "withdrawal symptoms" of such *writing impulse* effectively -- USAGE: apply one patch which is effective 16 hours a day -- However, I am afraid I can not export it to the place where Andy lives in, because the ministry of health and welfare in japan is banning me from doing it or due to the failure of the delivery system. I could import nicotine patch from new zealand, though. ... Very sad ... ;-) -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Undermining the Incubator
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:27:35 -0500 Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > Except that it is not. I just think I'll bring it up in 6 months > when there are more dead bodies floating around. Noel does a great PR > job though. Oh, "Dead Bodies"? ... scared. I do not think there are dead bodies. However, i think you can "shout"/"cry"/scream"/"yell-out" at such zombies if you insist it that there are dead bodies floating around just like you did 6 months / 1 year ago :) Perhaps it would be better for you to do them @ either Mt. Evans or Mt. Fuji... with Meditation/Yoga :) Happy year 2004. -- Tetsuya. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2003: Year of Apache (fwd)
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:00:35 -0800 (PST) Brian Behlendorf wrote: > Something for us all to be proud of. While this post talks about > httpd, 2003 was no doubt the year many of the ASF's projects really > started to shine, in addition to some very important new projects > getting under way. Oh, good. Congratulations! > Perhaps future historians will view httpd as the "gateway drug" for > people learning about Apache software and Open Source in general. :) LOL. BTW, Nicotine-"Patch" works(ed) well for me, especially effective in the improvements of my *brain*. :) -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Undermining the Incubator
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: All legal matters are for the Board and the Foundation's attorneys to address. Regarding audits ... There is a presumption of innocence in our legal system. I do not believe that due diligence requires an a priori presumption of fraud, and a investigation to "prove" its absence. Nor do I believe that due diligence requires all code to be subjected to http://www.catb.org/~esr/comparator/ across all published codebases, although that would be an interesting project. As I understand it, if we receive a signed CLA or Software Grant, there is a presumption that they had the right to provide it. In some cases, that may not have been the case, but such a situation would need to be dealt with at that time. However, the Incubator is in a position to learn from such situations, e.g., to remind people to be sure that they are not violating any work-for-hire issues. Code is audited as part of the Incubation process. That audit is done by the PPMC, as was done recently by several Avalon members for an incoming codebase. Early on, some GPL dependencies were discovered and removed. In the reverse situation, I cannot say what audit, if any, was done on codebases that bypassed the Incubator. We do know that no code grant was received, since that is one reason why the incident was belatedly brought to a PMC's attention. Finally, when concerns have been raised about a particular codebase, more people have looked. You are well aware that the code you are particularly interested in has been reviewed by people involved in the project, by people with no association at all with the project, by people with a vested interest in finding violations, and by tools looking for concordance. With respect to any follow-up questions you may have in mind, I remind you that "all legal matters are for the Board and the Foundation's attorneys to address." > you can read the archive for numerous "hey what the heck are you > guys doing other than yacking about status files and process"). To put this in perspective ... The Incubator as not working well. The entrance of a project such as Geronimo forced changes within the Incubator. In excess of 1000 e-mails were expended putting together new rules and structures and ... and that pretty much sucked, too. In late November, Geir made a proposal that became the germ of the PPMC concept, and it clicked. As the concept was refined, the cruft was replaced with a simple concept: direct, collaborative, authoritative management, while still maintaining the Incubator's oversight. That is in the archives, too. :-) The Incubator is not perfect, but the structure is finally right. Now we need to work on operations, such as improving responsiveness with respect to resource creation. But that is not isolated to the Incubator. And the Incubator just started a review with each project of its STATUS, prepatory to its own report to the Board, which should help to get everyone on the same page. >>> * Creates confusion. Most people will believe the project is an Apache >>> project at the point of incubation. > And it weakens Apache as a brand. It brings us all down. Thank you for confirming the importance of the Incubator branding. We agree. We will have to disagree about whether the ASF branding is weakened by the presence of quality projects in our Incubator. > If I had a mature project ready for production which had been so for > a number of years and then I said "I want to be part of Apache" > You'd put it in the "incubator" and tell the world it needed incubation? > Pretty ugly perception that pushes about a mature project. Spam Assassin doesn't seem to have a problem with it. That would be an example of a mature project with an active, viable, community that is in the Incubator for a time to prepare for TLP status. And as soon as a project is ready, it leaves the Incubator. > The project must vote (or at least should). The Incubator PMC must vote. > The accepting project or board must vote. That¹s three houses voting for > project promotion. Again, things no longer work that way. The PPMC votes to present the project to the Board. The Board must still vote to create a TLP. The Board doesn't want it until the PPMC says that it is ready, and the PPMC isn't authorized to create a TLP. > 1-2 sponsoring members specifically interested in that project are essential. The Incubator PMC makes sure that there are multiple interested PMC members actively participating in the PPMC. See: http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html#PMC+%28Project+Management+Commitee %29. Out of the currently 20 PMC members, 18 are ASF Members and 5 are either current or past Board members. Any ASF Member interested in the Incubation of the ASF's future projects is encouraged to participate. > > The goal of the incubator is to help people in. Part of that is, > > necessarily, determining that some projects maybe should not come > > in. I don't see this as a bad thin
