Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 21:19 -0800, Ted Leung wrote: > > > > Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not > > been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure, > > so have little basis to complain about anything. > > I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from > the incubator, after being there for about a year.As member of > the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask > whether what we have is working for the foundation or not. +1. I too am on the incubator PMC and am mentoring 2 projects: Woden and Synapse. With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that not contributing to infra reduces Ted's or my contributions to the foundation or the incubator. I care a lot about the future of ASF and I have lots of concerns about the incubation process and what it means to the ASF. I will pick up that discussion on the members list. Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. I understand how the rules currently work. I don't agree that they are working well for us. I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name Methinks you have forgotten that there was no bar before incubator existed -- the code was just copied to cvs. No, I remember, and I wouldn't choose to go back to those days. And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation. Everything done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are organized better than others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our license. And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in the incubator or not. To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF. To the majority of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly) is branding stamp. You might not like it, but that's how many people treat it. And that's why one of the first things a company wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release. If people believe that the Incubator should not accept any new projects, then they should convince the board to make it so. The incubator is the place where people wanting to work on new projects can do so within a neutral environment with limited risk to the foundation. If you think that such things should be done at SourceForge instead, and that the ASF should only accept fully-formed communities after they have a questionable track-record of IP contributions, then go ahead and ask the board to shut down the incubator. Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure, so have little basis to complain about anything. I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from the incubator, after being there for about a year.As member of the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask whether what we have is working for the foundation or not. Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] [draft #2] "How to graduate from the incubator" topic
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 08:01:14PM -0800, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Incubator Graduation Check List
> ---
>
> [ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
> [ ] *** ? *** requests that infrastructure move svn repository
> Should it be made via email to infrastructure@ or Jira issue?
Belts and suspenders. =) File a JIRA issue and email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [ ] PMC updates the svn-authorization files to provide committers
> access to the newly-named repositories.
> [ ] Project verifies all committers have commit access
> [ ] Project removes the incubator disclaimer README at the top level
> [ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
Do you mean the STATUS file within Incubator site? The project may have
its own STATUS too...
> [ ] Move web site
>[ ] PMC requests UNIX karma from infrastructure@ for committers to
> access new location on people.apache.org
Changes in groups requires root privs. So, email root@ and JIRA. (Someone
more involved in infra@ than I am may know if the policy has changed...)
>[ ] Project makes sure all committers know how to and have karma to
> update the new web site
>[ ] Project checks out/deploys the files in the new location
>[ ] PPMC redirects old incubator URL to the new one by editing
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/.htaccess
>[ ] Project verifies the redirect works, then deletes old stuff at
> /www/incubator.apache.org/${PROJECT}
>[ ] PPMC updates http://incubator.apache.org/projects/${PROJECT}.html
> with link to new website location
>
> [ ] Incubator cleanup
> PPMC updates http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html
> project from "Currently Incubating" to "Successfully Incubated" table.
>
> [ ] Project updates information in JIRA/Bugzilla for the project
This will require infra@ help.
> [ ] Move mail lists
> PMC requests that infrastructure@ move mailing lists and archives.
File JIRA issues too...
> [ ] If the graduating project wants to send out a press release, it must
> be cleared with the PRC.
Yes.
> Additional steps for a TLP:
>
> [ ] A new TLP needs board approval. The PPMC creates a proposal
> including a proposed PMC chair and sends that to the board.
> [ ] *** ? *** notifies infrastructure@ about the new TLP (so they can
> add DNS entries ***and anything else***)
The Chairman will usually send out an official notice that a new TLP has
been approved by the Board. (Notifications from anyone else should be
ignored.)
> [ ] *** ? *** updates www.apache.org to point to new TLP web site.
Any member can do that. Ideally, the mentor.
> [ ] *** ? *** adds the new PMC to the board reporting schedule
> (update the committee.txt file).
Pick the one that has the least amount of projects on it to keep it in
balance. =)
Also, a new TLP is on the hook for monthly board reports for three months
after approval.
Looks good! -- justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[doc] [draft #2] "How to graduate from the incubator" topic
This consolidates input from Dims, Craig, David, Dain, and Martin
(thanks, everyone). The original thread starts at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
I tried to clarify who should do what:
- "PPMC" means the old PPMC for the graduating project.
- "PMC" means the new PMC under which the graduating project falls
(might be the former PPMC for a TLP)
- "Project" means all the committers on the graduating project.
Stuff that needs to be clarified is marked by ***
What did I miss? changes? corrections?
thanks,
-jean
Incubator Graduation Check List
---
[ ] Move svn repo from incubator to new location
[ ] *** ? *** requests that infrastructure move svn repository
Should it be made via email to infrastructure@ or Jira issue?
[ ] PMC updates the svn-authorization files to provide committers
access to the newly-named repositories.
[ ] Project verifies all committers have commit access
[ ] Project removes the incubator disclaimer README at the top level
[ ] Project updates the STATUS file to reflect graduation
[ ] Move web site
[ ] PMC requests UNIX karma from infrastructure@ for committers to
access new location on people.apache.org
[ ] Project makes sure all committers know how to and have karma to
update the new web site
[ ] Project checks out/deploys the files in the new location
[ ] PPMC redirects old incubator URL to the new one by editing
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/.htaccess
[ ] Project verifies the redirect works, then deletes old stuff at
/www/incubator.apache.org/${PROJECT}
[ ] PPMC updates http://incubator.apache.org/projects/${PROJECT}.html
with link to new website location
[ ] Incubator cleanup
PPMC updates http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html
project from "Currently Incubating" to "Successfully Incubated" table.
[ ] Project updates information in JIRA/Bugzilla for the project
[ ] Move mail lists
PMC requests that infrastructure@ move mailing lists and archives.
[ ] If the graduating project wants to send out a press release, it must
be cleared with the PRC.
Additional steps for a TLP:
[ ] A new TLP needs board approval. The PPMC creates a proposal
including a proposed PMC chair and sends that to the board.
[ ] *** ? *** notifies infrastructure@ about the new TLP (so they can
add DNS entries ***and anything else***)
[ ] *** ? *** updates www.apache.org to point to new TLP web site.
[ ] *** ? *** adds the new PMC to the board reporting schedule
(update the committee.txt file).
Resources:
http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
Makes sense. Thanks! -- George -Original Message- From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:51 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net George, 2) What are the minimum mailing list that I will need? I am thinking [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I need anything else, one for SVN, for example? OG: I suggest you use "net-dev" and "net-user" for mailing list named, so we follow the same pattern as with Java Lucene: java-user and java-dev. Otis - 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: Incubating java projects
Hehe. cross checked the ACL's. James should be able to update any incubator document we have :) -- dims On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/22/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of > > the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide? > > +1 > > submit a patch ;) > > (been waiting years to say that to james) > > AUIU the consensus seems to be that the documentation needs lots of > work so i don't think anyone would have any objections to you diving > in (would they?) > > - robert > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 23.12.2005, at 00:23, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on, because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration. That's all fine and to be honest I didn't expect a detailed answer to my exaggerated question - what I wanted to show is that your authoritative sounding reply to Ted did contain a very conflictive view and I think that might confuse a lot of people: You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. vs. What you do have is the right to vote against their graduation if you so desire. The second sentence does exactly what the first sentence forbids, no? It tells people what they cannot do at the ASF. Maybe I'm too picky or this is a language thing, not sure - just wanted to point that out. Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Pay attention to the details. I do. Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: So, in your opinion, there is never a reason to tell a project, no, you don't fit here? As long as they (think they) want to be at the ASF, we should keep moving them in that direction? That happens when a proposal gets no mentors. It could also happen if a podling disregards our policies and does something that could harm the ASF. The responsible PMC or the board can kill a project any time it wants, for whatever reason, so there is no need write down all the possible ways that a project can be terminated. Also, what signifies dormancy? Is there a time period after which dormancy is indicated? Or is it the members of the project saying, yes, we have abandoned the effort? When the incubator PMC gets around to removing the podling, which isn't going to happen until someone asks us to do so. Usually it is whoever is listed as mentoring the podling. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On December 22, 2005 3:26:57 PM -0500 Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I look through the list of projects in the incubator, trying to figure out where I can be useful, I notice several projects that have been in the incubator for a LONG time. Which got me thinking ... is there a graceful exit option? I see on the list that one project is listed as a "Failed incubation", which seems really harsh. Is there an option for "You're very nice, but you just don't fit at the ASF"? Or is it assumed that the two options are "Graduate" and "Keep trying." It takes as long as it takes. The only requirement I have is that there is a continued effort towards attracting community. If a project goes completely dormant (i.e. no traffic whatsoever), then yes it can fail and should be terminated. However, placing arbitrary limits on the Incubation period is the opposite of what we want to achieve. It would "force" a community to meet artificial deadlines when that may be the worst thing we could do. So, in your opinion, there is never a reason to tell a project, no, you don't fit here? As long as they (think they) want to be at the ASF, we should keep moving them in that direction? Also, what signifies dormancy? Is there a time period after which dormancy is indicated? Or is it the members of the project saying, yes, we have abandoned the effort? -- Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on, because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration. Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Pay attention to the details. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
> > It takes as long as it takes. > > > > The only requirement I have is that there is a continued effort towards > > attracting community. If a project goes completely dormant (i.e. no > > traffic whatsoever), then yes it can fail and should be terminated. > > > > However, placing arbitrary limits on the Incubation period is the opposite > > of what we want to achieve. It would "force" a community to meet > > artificial deadlines when that may be the worst thing we could do. > > +1 > > but it would be a very good idea to have some sort of process for > domancy: no development for even a month should ring alarm bells and > call for either active intervention (if there is still a community) or > a move to dormacy. I wonder whether there isn't another problem here: that of the (missing) oversight of the PMC that originally voted the project into incubation. For instance, while I'm on the DB PMC and voted e.g. Derby into incubation (just to pick an example), I did not really follow its way through incubation for all the usual reasons (too much work, own projects, bla, bla, bla). And I don't think that is much different for other PMCs. Now the problem that I see is that I was not 'forced' to take more care about the projects that I vote into incubation. Correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption, but in my naive view the incubator PMC has the role of ensuring that the project learns/follows the ASF ways, building a community etc. Whereas the DB PMC in my example would deal with things regarding the 'content' of the project. If now for instance, the DB PMC would somehow automatically get the the incubation mails for the projects that it voted into incubation and its reports, oversight from this PMC might enhance. After all it involves more work to actively delete mails than to not get them in the first place. And thus potential problems with incubated problems would surface sooner, and the workload of the Incubator PMC might decrease - one individual PMC has only a few projects in incubation whereas the Incubator PMC has to take care of all incubated projects. Tom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
On 12/22/05, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > I'd say after X months (6? 12?), there should be a VOTE on incubator > > PMC whether to continue that project or not. > > Ok, so say we went with X=12. There are 13 projects that fit that > description. Of those, 3 have status updates that date within that X > month timeframe, leaving 10 that, at least to me, appear to be inactive > for more than X months. I can speak a little for AltRMI and the FtpServer projects which were spun out of Avalon oh so long ago. This was early in the Incubator's history before we had the guidelines and procedures we do today. The FtpServer has seen more recent activity, but those who have expressed interested in AltRMI (myself included) simply haven't invested in building a community around it (it was mostly stable code even when it was in Avalon). I believe a similar situation may be true of other dormant incubator projects. And "dormant" might be better than "failed." If someone wants to come along a pick up these projects and re-activate them, they are more than welcome. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/22/05, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of > the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide? +1 submit a patch ;) (been waiting years to say that to james) AUIU the consensus seems to be that the documentation needs lots of work so i don't think anyone would have any objections to you diving in (would they?) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Growth
On 12/22/05, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > On 12/21/2005 7:22 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > >> Folks, > >> > >> Right now any PMC can automatically ok projects into incubator. How > >> about we change that rule? So that the only pmc that can approve a > >> proposal is the incubator PMC. > > ++1 > > > Without putting too much thought into my response I think that the > > Incubator PMC wields enough control given that they have the final say > > on Incubation graduation. > > Having a no vote in what enters the incubator, but only on what leaves: > 1) sets up the folks doing the work for burnout due to the possibly > large numbers of projects in at any one time. Controlling throughput is > important. +1 > 2) sets up a larger number of projects for failure. If there is > (hypothetically) some compelling reason that a project isn't going to be > graduated, then isn't it better to be able to say that at the start, > rather than waiting for a certain number of hoops to be jumped through? +1 > > Yes, absolutely, I believe the incubator should have a vote up front to > approve what enters the incubator. +1 - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
On 12/22/05, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On December 22, 2005 3:26:57 PM -0500 Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > As I look through the list of projects in the incubator, trying to figure > > out where I can be useful, I notice several projects that have been in > > the incubator for a LONG time. > > > > Which got me thinking ... is there a graceful exit option? I see on the > > list that one project is listed as a "Failed incubation", which seems > > really harsh. Is there an option for "You're very nice, but you just > > don't fit at the ASF"? interesting: i can't really see this happening for any project that entered the incubator with the right spirit (it's tough being rejected).they just tend to fade away. but perhaps you were thinking of projects who entered with the wrong spirit and refused to change. i'd hope that this would be an oversight issue and would be dealt with appropriately by the incubator pmc. > > Or is it assumed that the two options are > > "Graduate" and "Keep trying." > > It takes as long as it takes. > > The only requirement I have is that there is a continued effort towards > attracting community. If a project goes completely dormant (i.e. no > traffic whatsoever), then yes it can fail and should be terminated. > > However, placing arbitrary limits on the Incubation period is the opposite > of what we want to achieve. It would "force" a community to meet > artificial deadlines when that may be the worst thing we could do. +1 but it would be a very good idea to have some sort of process for domancy: no development for even a month should ring alarm bells and call for either active intervention (if there is still a community) or a move to dormacy. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
George, 2) What are the minimum mailing list that I will need? I am thinking [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I need anything else, one for SVN, for example? OG: I suggest you use "net-dev" and "net-user" for mailing list named, so we follow the same pattern as with Java Lucene: java-user and java-dev. Otis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
On 12/22/05, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Garrett, > > 1) Is this where Jira is: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa Yep, that's it. Use the "Mailing Lists" component in the Infrastructure project. > 2) What are the minimum mailing list that I will need? I am thinking > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I need > anything else, one for SVN, for example? Yes, you'll need a commits list for Subversion commits. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:51:42PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > Ok, so say we went with X=12. There are 13 projects that fit that > description. Of those, 3 have status updates that date within that X > month timeframe, leaving 10 that, at least to me, appear to be inactive > for more than X months. > > So, say we were to vote on their continuation. Then what? Do we list > them as "failed"? That seems really harsh. Is there another term that > can be used? > I'm not sure that "voting on their continuation" is the correct thing to do, but I would certainly hope that the incubator pmc will take the project up to revision at that point - probably even after 6 months of no apparent activity. Auto terminating after a set period would be too harsh, but reviewing and deciding wether to continue is reasonable. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
--On December 22, 2005 3:26:57 PM -0500 Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I look through the list of projects in the incubator, trying to figure out where I can be useful, I notice several projects that have been in the incubator for a LONG time. Which got me thinking ... is there a graceful exit option? I see on the list that one project is listed as a "Failed incubation", which seems really harsh. Is there an option for "You're very nice, but you just don't fit at the ASF"? Or is it assumed that the two options are "Graduate" and "Keep trying." It takes as long as it takes. The only requirement I have is that there is a continued effort towards attracting community. If a project goes completely dormant (i.e. no traffic whatsoever), then yes it can fail and should be terminated. However, placing arbitrary limits on the Incubation period is the opposite of what we want to achieve. It would "force" a community to meet artificial deadlines when that may be the worst thing we could do. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
Davanum Srinivas wrote: I'd say after X months (6? 12?), there should be a VOTE on incubator PMC whether to continue that project or not. Ok, so say we went with X=12. There are 13 projects that fit that description. Of those, 3 have status updates that date within that X month timeframe, leaving 10 that, at least to me, appear to be inactive for more than X months. So, say we were to vote on their continuation. Then what? Do we list them as "failed"? That seems really harsh. Is there another term that can be used? -- Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
Hi Garrett, 1) Is this where Jira is: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa 2) What are the minimum mailing list that I will need? I am thinking [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I need anything else, one for SVN, for example? Regards, -- George -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Rooney Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:27 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net On 12/22/05, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Does anyone happen to know how or what I need to do to setup mailing > list(s) for Lucene.Net? I have been trying to find out how for the > past few days without much luck. > > I am trying to finish off the infrastructure setup for Lucene.Net > under incubator, and the mailing list is the remaining item. File an issue in the infrastructure section of Jira specifying what mailing lists you need. You also might want to mention that the commit list will need svn commits sent to it, if that hasn't already been set up correctly. -garrett - 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: Is there a "no graduate" option?
I'd say after X months (6? 12?), there should be a VOTE on incubator PMC whether to continue that project or not. thanks, dims On 12/22/05, Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please forgive if this has been discussed in the past. I respond very > well to "go look in the archives" responses. However, since folks' > attention seems to be pointed this way, I thought I'd ask. > > As I look through the list of projects in the incubator, trying to > figure out where I can be useful, I notice several projects that have > been in the incubator for a LONG time. > > Which got me thinking ... is there a graceful exit option? I see on the > list that one project is listed as a "Failed incubation", which seems > really harsh. Is there an option for "You're very nice, but you just > don't fit at the ASF"? Or is it assumed that the two options are > "Graduate" and "Keep trying." > > If a project has been in the incubator for more than 2 years, isn't it a > safe assumption that they're not moving along very well, and we need to > cut them loose and let them get on with their lives? > > Perhaps, as long as we're talking of establishing limits, there needs to > be a time deadline as well. Say, if you don't graduate in X TimeUnits > (12 months? 24 months?) then we need to find a way to gracefully say, > this isn't going to work out. It's a disservice to the project to keep > them hanging if there's no real progress. It's a disservice to the > infrastructure to keep them incubating if they're never going to hatch. > > This isn't necessarily failure. There are a lot of good projects that > just don't fit here. It's not a condemnation. > > -- > Rich Bowen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
On 12/22/05, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Does anyone happen to know how or what I need to do to setup mailing list(s) > for Lucene.Net? I have been trying to find out how for the past few days > without much luck. > > I am trying to finish off the infrastructure setup for Lucene.Net under > incubator, and the mailing list is the remaining item. File an issue in the infrastructure section of Jira specifying what mailing lists you need. You also might want to mention that the commit list will need svn commits sent to it, if that hasn't already been set up correctly. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting up mailing list for Lucene.Net
Hi Everyone, Does anyone happen to know how or what I need to do to setup mailing list(s) for Lucene.Net? I have been trying to find out how for the past few days without much luck. I am trying to finish off the infrastructure setup for Lucene.Net under incubator, and the mailing list is the remaining item. Regards, -- George - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a "no graduate" option?
Please forgive if this has been discussed in the past. I respond very well to "go look in the archives" responses. However, since folks' attention seems to be pointed this way, I thought I'd ask. As I look through the list of projects in the incubator, trying to figure out where I can be useful, I notice several projects that have been in the incubator for a LONG time. Which got me thinking ... is there a graceful exit option? I see on the list that one project is listed as a "Failed incubation", which seems really harsh. Is there an option for "You're very nice, but you just don't fit at the ASF"? Or is it assumed that the two options are "Graduate" and "Keep trying." If a project has been in the incubator for more than 2 years, isn't it a safe assumption that they're not moving along very well, and we need to cut them loose and let them get on with their lives? Perhaps, as long as we're talking of establishing limits, there needs to be a time deadline as well. Say, if you don't graduate in X TimeUnits (12 months? 24 months?) then we need to find a way to gracefully say, this isn't going to work out. It's a disservice to the project to keep them hanging if there's no real progress. It's a disservice to the infrastructure to keep them incubating if they're never going to hatch. This isn't necessarily failure. There are a lot of good projects that just don't fit here. It's not a condemnation. -- Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Growth
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On 12/21/2005 7:22 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Folks, Right now any PMC can automatically ok projects into incubator. How about we change that rule? So that the only pmc that can approve a proposal is the incubator PMC. ++1 Without putting too much thought into my response I think that the Incubator PMC wields enough control given that they have the final say on Incubation graduation. Having a no vote in what enters the incubator, but only on what leaves: 1) sets up the folks doing the work for burnout due to the possibly large numbers of projects in at any one time. Controlling throughput is important. 2) sets up a larger number of projects for failure. If there is (hypothetically) some compelling reason that a project isn't going to be graduated, then isn't it better to be able to say that at the start, rather than waiting for a certain number of hoops to be jumped through? Yes, absolutely, I believe the incubator should have a vote up front to approve what enters the incubator. -- Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal
On 12/21/05, Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd love to have a good AJAX project here at Apache, but I'm not at > all convinced that this is the best way to get it. I also talked to > Alex Russell at Dojo about coming to the ASF (at this year's OSCON), > and the overhead thing was already on his radar. Perhaps we ought > to be more concerned about making ourselves attractive to projects > like Dojo. We already know that the corporations see the value of > the Apache brand. Ask yourself why a small innovative project like > Dojo would rather stay out of the ASF. In my experience, it's because the developers on those projects haven't actually worked with Apache committers, only heard what other people say about us. :) I remember seeing a statistic once that said if a person is involved in one open-source projects, then they are likely to be involved in more than one open source project. I think a very valid source of new ASF projects -- perhaps the best source -- are the other software projects that we ourselves join. If Dojo (or anyone else) is a good fit for for the ASF, then ASF committers and members should be able to join that community first. And, having joined that community, it should be a smaller step for Dojo (or anyone else) to turn around and join the ASF. I do think ASF members should be inviting projects to join us -- if they are projects that we ourselves use, and if they are projects that we can see are a good fit for the Foundation. But, I'm not sure if we should be accepting for incubution unproven projects with no community track record and no prexisting ASF participants. There are other hosts where a project can get started, and when that project grows up and proves itself as a collaborative entity, then that's a good time to come join the ASF. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iBatis..
On 12/22/05, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1) We are not in the incubator anymore. > 2) Odd...not sure what's up with that. > 3) Probaly will not make that change (and break all those apps) until 3.x Regarding #3, you might want to check out this current thread: http://www.nabble.com/Incubating-java-projects-t779868.html -- Martin Cooper Larry > > > On 12/22/05, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > What is the status of iBatis ? On the website (ibatis.apache.org) it > doesn't say it is in the incubator (unless you look really good), in the > status on the incubator site they are still in incubator and eg in svn eg > the packages haven't changed to use the apache namespace.. > > > > Just an observation.. > > > > Mvgr, > > Martin > > > > - > > 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: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of "the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification" needs further explanation? ;-) None ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iBatis..
Larry Meadors wrote: 3) Probaly will not make that change (and break all those apps) until 3.x You are informing new adopters about this ? Since you are forcing them to change quite quickly after their adoption, even though everyone needs to switch to the new package naming eventually anyway. So give new adopters that extra work ? Just a thought to consider :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Instead, the question is whether it also has the authority (and responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not. FWIW, I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and the members. I would see such as thing (denying acceptance) as something that would require as much reason and rationale as a code-based veto would; much more so, in fact. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently > have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator > and who does not? No, that is clearly an authority delegated by the Board exclusively to the Incubator. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: > The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their > PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, > nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of "the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification" needs further explanation? ;-) > The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what > projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, > and one that we've always held to, but it's also the > one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta > and the lack of oversight involved with them. And so on that basis, an interpretation that permits PMCs to submit projects for Incubation, and still provides for the Incubator PMC to arbitrate on exit, makes sense. > it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what > gets added in which is the issue, is that we have > the required checks and balances in place to > avoid another Jakarta. Agreed. And that is only one of the concerns that we need to be aware of. > Going under the assumption that there "should" be some > sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new > projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator > is the best such entity currently in existence (other > than the board itself). That's all ;) Agreed, and we are the authority on what leaves the Incubator. And since we have traditionally held that any ASF Member can join the Incubator PMC, that provides the ASF Membership with a lot of say in what happens, should they choose to become active here. But this still leaves open WHEN that authority comes into play: on entrance to the Incubator, or on exit. On the other hand, since exit may include Incubation failure ... hmmm ... I suppose that the Incubator PMC could vote to fail a project, even if it can't vote on whether or not to accept it. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/21/2005 11:21 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. that can be easily resolved. you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no project or PR firm can mention apache there. Although I'm not sure we should take that step right now, I don't think that's such a crazy suggestion. I do believe we should rethink the branding of incubating project: Today, we complain that corporations working on incubating projects are taking advantage of the Apache brand. We wonder why the press and public aren't aware of the distinction of incubating projects, and yet we *require* these projects always preface their name with the same master brand we use on fully endorse projects, "Apache". We can't keep a low bar for incoming incubating projects and allow for this confusion. We may indeed need a multibrand strategy when it comes to incubating projects. I think that this thread has much merit and should be pursued further. Regards, Alan
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? Not at all. No one (afaik) denies the fact that the Incubator is the final arbiter of who graduates or not. Instead, the question is whether it also has the authority (and responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not. Deciding who graduates ensures that new projects have the required IP clearance and community health to (hopefully) grow and prosper, and to ensure the ASF stays on an even keel. This is good and worthwhile. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? On 30.11.2005, at 21:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles. Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has some constraints -- does anyone know what they are? I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly don't need more than one WS/SOA federation. Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release. That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague relationships. So why don't you get involved instead or vote against their graduation if you so desire? Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
(for the benefit of those joining the thread, here's the context) > > On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake > > both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to > > a failure of oversight has personal consequences. > > > > i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very > > little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever > > vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the > > incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and > > effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. On 12/22/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs? ATM the sponsoring pmc votes and then the incubator pmc and the mentors do the work :) > I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs > If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a > problem for the project community. how much that is true probably depends on the particular pmc in question. problems with TLPs are ASF problems. if it were generally true that every pmc cared so much about every podling, then i suspect that fewer people would be worried. ATM though (unlike most ASF votes) each +1 is only a recommendation rather than an active promise to help. it's committing someone else's time and reputation... - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/2005 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Going under the assumption that there "should" be some sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Going under the assumption that there "should" be some sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/21/2005 3:13 AM, Leo Simons wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere & noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned (& we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Sun Microsystems in their coding standards :-). It was in retrospect not such a good idea perhaps... One thing we *can't* have is trademarks that aren't owned by the ASF (registered or not), so *if* the package isn't changed then yes the org.roller name and domain *should* probably come under full control of the ASF (I'll say that's a good idea anyway). I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. FWIW, ActiveMQ and ServiceMix are currently in the process of being transfered. Regards, Alan
RE: Incubating java projects
Greg Stein wrote: > Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating > > project move to the org.apache package? > I would say "yes". As would (and did) most others. We should add this to the Incubation checklist. I don't want to see another mistake made as was apparently made with iBatis. And, as Jim noted, this should go into the Incubation Guide. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Growth
On 12/21/2005 7:22 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Folks, Right now any PMC can automatically ok projects into incubator. How about we change that rule? So that the only pmc that can approve a proposal is the incubator PMC. Without putting too much thought into my response I think that the Incubator PMC wields enough control given that they have the final say on Incubation graduation. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iBatis..
On 12/22/05, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) We are not in the incubator anymore. > 2) Odd...not sure what's up with that. if it's wrong, patch it :) - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating java projects
James Strachan wrote: > I don't see why we need to force a major package name > change on our users. Branding and consistency. A wrapper package can be used to deprecate the old names. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had >>> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a >>> proposed project, acceptance. >> >> You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets >> that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that >> it has that right. > > Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; > There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, > that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That > is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's > the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: iBatis..
1) We are not in the incubator anymore. 2) Odd...not sure what's up with that. 3) Probaly will not make that change (and break all those apps) until 3.x Larry On 12/22/05, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > What is the status of iBatis ? On the website (ibatis.apache.org) it doesn't > say it is in the incubator (unless you look really good), in the status on > the incubator site they are still in incubator and eg in svn eg the packages > haven't changed to use the apache namespace.. > > Just an observation.. > > Mvgr, > Martin > > - > 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]
iBatis..
Hi all, What is the status of iBatis ? On the website (ibatis.apache.org) it doesn't say it is in the incubator (unless you look really good), in the status on the incubator site they are still in incubator and eg in svn eg the packages haven't changed to use the apache namespace.. Just an observation.. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 22 Dec 2005, at 06:36, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 19:47 -0800, Greg Stein wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:16:13AM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? I would say "yes". Big +1. We of course cannot control standard APIs like org.w3c.dom, or javax.* etc., but for software that is developed at Apache the Java packaging should always be org.apache.*. IMO that's the signal to the world of Java programmers that they're using ASF code and its a valuable signal that we must not lose. "Hurting" current users with the change cost is a good thing in this case IMO: that way they too realize that there's a big change in the project and that its now an ASF project. Great point Sanjiva - am completely sold now, many thanks. Package renaming for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix coming up real soon Thanks everyone for your comments. We should maybe capture some of the points raised in this thread into the incubation guide? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs? I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a problem for the project community. regards, Martin On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > > > > >> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had > > >> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a > > >> proposed project, acceptance. > > > > > > You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets > > > that role, > > > I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that > > > right. > > > > > > > Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: > > > > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is > > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products > > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be > > it further > > > > There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, > > that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That > > is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's > > the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and > > we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us > > more control over that which we are charged with in the > > first place :) > > > the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake > both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to > a failure of oversight has personal consequences. > > i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very > little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever > vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the > incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and > effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. > > - robert > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > >> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had > >> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a > >> proposed project, acceptance. > > > > You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets > > that role, > > I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that > > right. > > > > Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: > > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be > it further > > There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, > that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That > is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's > the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and > we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us > more control over that which we are charged with in the > first place :) the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to a failure of oversight has personal consequences. i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. - robert
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be it further There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us more control over that which we are charged with in the first place :) PS: IMO, in response to the actual subject line, I certainly don't feel that the Incubator is out of control, or on a certain path for disaster, or anything like that. I simply think that, knowing the currently growth plan, some changes may be a Good Idea to *prevent* any future problems or concerns. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 21 Dec 2005, at 10:50, Ted Leung wrote: Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Corporations see the value of the brand name, that's why they want to come here and are willing to put up with all our overhead. I agree but i believe we're picking the wrong example. For me, the low bar is because many code donations are happening in the folds of other-than-the-Incubator PMC: The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah, thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse stuff. Combine this with mentors preferring to read and use the system as it has been designed and drafted literally, rather than according to what the (somewhat intangible) Apache Way dictates, and this is bound to create tension. Quite frankly, I don't have the slightest idea anymore what is happening in the WebServices and Geronimo corner of Apache. That's either an indication of the fact that I should read more mail (yeah right), or something slightly more worrying. Too much, too fast, too eager, too soon. That way, we'll burn out rather than fade away. :) -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought Open Source Java & XML stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
