Re: Proposing for Apache Member?
Ross, How can it be that 'Contributor' is not an official 'hat'-definition in the (explanatory) pages of the ASF? While so much importance is placed on correct usage of terminology in projects and elsewhere, based on those pages. Shouldn't the document http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles be amended (with respect to definitons 'User' and 'Developer) in such a way that it reflects that? Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Pierre, feel free to ask questions, but I don't see any in your last couple of mails. What can we clarify for you? Ross On 10 July 2014 04:56, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: I not only tried reading, but I did. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: Try reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html On 9 Jul 2014 22:20, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: It is a bit strange to read that 'Contributor' is not the official role for anybody who is committed to an Apache project. Equally strange is it to read that both the 'User' and the 'Developer' is defined/explained as the person who is contributing. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Chip Childers chipchild...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:42:56PM +0300, Issac Goldstand wrote: Ross, So to clarify, not all ASF officers are necessarily ASF members? Correct. See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
Re: Proposing for Apache Member?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: How can it be that 'Contributor' is not an official 'hat'-definition in the (explanatory) pages of the ASF? While so much importance is placed on correct usage of terminology in projects and elsewhere, based on those pages. Shouldn't the document http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles be amended (with respect to definitons 'User' and 'Developer) in such a way that it reflects that? I don't think a generic Contributor adds much to that document. What confusion about the term contributors would the hypothetical update clarify?
Re: Proposing for Apache Member?
On 11 July 2014 14:45, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: The hat 'User' states that the following: They contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions The hat 'Developer' states that the following: a user who contributes... In general, a user only consumes the work (the software, the documentation, the postings on the mailing list). They aren't active as contributors (in any way, within the community of a project). As soon as a user gets involved in a project (participating in discussions in the mailing list, posting JIRA issues, etc) he becomes a contributor to the project and its work. This person might be a developer or not, a documentalist or not, etc. Having the 'contribute' in both descriptions makes it ambiguous. Removing the aspect of contributing from the hat 'User' partly removes that ambiguity. Renaming the hat 'Developer' to 'Contributor', does the other part. A user and a developer are two faces on the same coin, they both contribute to the project but of course with different parts. In AOO we get a lot of highly valued opinions, suggestions and error reports from our users. These items are contributions. Once the users get involved in the project, they seem get to be committers. I tend to agree with you, that there are no reason to diferentiate user/developer, problem is that the world in general does that. Subsequently, the hat 'Committer' could be redefined with following: A *committer *is a contributor, that was given write access... Actually a committer is quite a lot more, than just having write access. rgds jan I. Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: How can it be that 'Contributor' is not an official 'hat'-definition in the (explanatory) pages of the ASF? While so much importance is placed on correct usage of terminology in projects and elsewhere, based on those pages. Shouldn't the document http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles be amended (with respect to definitons 'User' and 'Developer) in such a way that it reflects that? I don't think a generic Contributor adds much to that document. What confusion about the term contributors would the hypothetical update clarify?
RE: Proposing for Apache Member?
While a little tweaking about contributions and contributors might help, the common use of those terms tends to be sufficient. The User hat is also a casual description. There are no bright lines. Note that Contributor and Contribution as narrow terms of art are called out by explicit definition when needed, as at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt. I think the mistake is defining User as an Apache Hat. You can talk about them all you want, but it does not appear to be an useful designation other than for those who self-proclaim themselves to be users (as is certainly their right). Even user reports of misadventures and difficulties are contributions and those can be quite valuable. I see no reason for Apache to consider that a distinguishable hat, especially with implications of some sort of rank. Thinking hierarchically, an user is anyone who engages with the project. We don't know Jack about the ones that don't, not even from download counts. Identifiable engagement is a contribution, however fleeting. It would work for me to see there be contributors and then how some contributors also have committer (and other roles) at the ASF and ASF projects. I'm a committer. I am not wearing my committer hat in writing and posting this message. It doesn't seem to me that I am wearing an user hat either. I trust that it is a contribution, nonetheless. What hats are others wearing at the time of their participation on this thread? -- Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430 https://keybase.io/orcmid PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A X.509 used and required for signed e-mail PS: Since it is rare, in practice, for me to make a direct commit to any project, my being a committer works out to be more about the orcmid @a.o identifier, the fact that I have a CLA on file, and that I have access to some mailing lists and resources (including a ~orcmid computer account) that are provided to committers. -Original Message- From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 05:45 To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposing for Apache Member? The hat 'User' states that the following: They contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions The hat 'Developer' states that the following: a user who contributes... In general, a user only consumes the work (the software, the documentation, the postings on the mailing list). They aren't active as contributors (in any way, within the community of a project). As soon as a user gets involved in a project (participating in discussions in the mailing list, posting JIRA issues, etc) he becomes a contributor to the project and its work. This person might be a developer or not, a documentalist or not, etc. Having the 'contribute' in both descriptions makes it ambiguous. Removing the aspect of contributing from the hat 'User' partly removes that ambiguity. Renaming the hat 'Developer' to 'Contributor', does the other part. Subsequently, the hat 'Committer' could be redefined with following: A *committer *is a contributor, that was given write access... Regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM http://www.orrtiz.com* Services Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com wrote: How can it be that 'Contributor' is not an official 'hat'-definition in the (explanatory) pages of the ASF? While so much importance is placed on correct usage of terminology in projects and elsewhere, based on those pages. Shouldn't the document http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles be amended (with respect to definitons 'User' and 'Developer) in such a way that it reflects that? I don't think a generic Contributor adds much to that document. What confusion about the term contributors would the hypothetical update clarify?
OSGi and CXF and Karaf and who knows what at ApacheCon
I need help with the content that's in the CXF/OSGi tab on the spreadsheet at http://tm3.org/aceu2014tracks I must admit that I am utterly ignorant of this technology space, and I'm not even sure if it's a legit categorization for a track or group of tracks. Can someone please review the stuff in there, possibly splitting it into two separate tabs that we can schedule from? A track, by the way, is 6 talks, plus, optionally, one or more talks by people who already have accepted talks, to serve as fallbacks. Thanks --Rich -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
ApacheCon - Uncategorized talks
Yes, me again. Yes, I'm going to keep bugging you right up until ApacheCon, and then start in on the next one. :-) There are currently 48 talks that are still uncategorized. This makes it hard for me to schedule them. And, alas, I need help categorizing them. For convenience, I've moved these talks all over to the UNCATEGORIZED tab, and could really use some help putting them in some kind of coherent categories that I might be able to turn into content tracks. Thanks. (By the way, with current space limitations, we could presumably add a few additional tracks, but each additional track costs an extra $5k, approximately, for the space. I say costs because it's more complicated than that, with waiving a speaker's admission, additional signage, and so on, but that's a ballpark. However, if scheduling a particular type of content brings on a particular sponsor who cares about that content, then it's all good.) -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: OSGi and CXF and Karaf and who knows what at ApacheCon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/14 21:36, Rich Bowen wrote: I need help with the content that's in the CXF/OSGi tab on the spreadsheet at http://tm3.org/aceu2014tracks I must admit that I am utterly ignorant of this technology space, and I'm not even sure if it's a legit categorization for a track or group of tracks. Can someone please review the stuff in there, possibly splitting it into two separate tabs that we can schedule from? CXF and OSGi are not really related to each other, in my opinion. Although CXF uses OSGi internally, the proposed talks on CXF are more about creating REST/Web APIs. I think we could separate these into two tracks. I've taken the liberty of proposing a split for two tracks, CXF and OSGi, which can be found in column M. WDYT? - -- Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect +31 631 765 814 /My world is revolving around PulseOn and Amdatu/ Luminis Technologies B.V. J.C. Wilslaan 29 7313 HK Apeldoorn +31 88 586 46 30 http://www.luminis-technologies.com http://www.luminis.eu KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93 BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTwGCaAAoJEKF/mP2eHDc48aUQAKh+lGG9mrVXCB4FiXpBOE3a 5f2YRBAm5oHZ59LITUOwg1N33F4UV1ppBUCNrxdSybhr1BswvlBpqOf3KbNMhbn2 0LprlsOWLAhFPbjH3mRCVseeKRYGb1QpL0N7s0c0fFcgWvgSisUngBtaxtptGrBF Emvb0ofVeZN0SMS/p6lURJ3/460fnr8Oo2T2vVQOv6Ode5QRrwQKvbTtVGPFE7ef d0kVkQR48R1DKZ/RB25o3sm1D58r83gu7RUetU85cEAbH/qQ3XVOzddKkDPbanfU phGCXd4zjeWq+USgFHvuPj7t2E1HMwBWFA5yTOUvZGe3wx8c4RkF2pIqPdeKpPTI 6txo1przBHgCMGYGgSjgtjVjmfLx/ec3KFE2BLQTKvVENHoFSj7jvQX882mqUSBU fP7MjOgttTRew2ceV8zuqwApZOLPFMwWzymgid3MDMTctw/Yyqbf35MO9qMh0jEW of4wFsFGHEvpkTCy6AMuZ4Pt2KJL1a2VbMWJ0vwL5Cv01TsT0Bc0Xr19ajhBT5Ki fLwd1Lifae3z2vVqsl8vIeSPdrl5U7pwhKKx16gDDGfPFJpiMBrCbmR8ZNQG+d1h KR1MY3ob3WkKP3pzhTMrurFVhdXxkULWk1HYV1V9leR/X8Hev0sbGS5tAOwjYRig 7LcpYfYgd6KVPOCjSL6o =XU82 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: OSGi and CXF and Karaf and who knows what at ApacheCon
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Jan Willem Janssen janwillem.jans...@luminis.eu wrote: I've taken the liberty of proposing a split for two tracks, CXF and OSGi, which can be found in column M. This was my generalists take as well.
