Re: [VOTE] Approve the 4.1 release of ActiveMQ's maven plugins
+1 On 19 Sep 06, at 1:06 AM 19 Sep 06, Hiram Chirino wrote: Howdy ActiveMQ Mentors... you know who you are :) So far I think we have 2 binding +1's from: +1 Robert Burrell Donkin +1 James Strachan I know you guys are probably busy, but could you please take a moment and review the binaries? We almost got the 3 votes needed to approve the release. Thanks! On 9/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the Apache ActiveMQ community has voted on and approved the 4.1 release of the ActiveMQ maven plugins. These plugins are required for the maven build of the ActiveMQ. These artifacts are only targeted for the ActiveMQ project to consume. We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to perform the release. Vote thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/ 200609.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: The VOTE has passed with 5 ppmc +1's and no -1s. +1 Hiram Chirino +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Rob Davies +1 James Strachan +1 Alan D. Cabrera We also had 1 non ppmc +1: +1 Kevan Miller You can checkout the binary build here: http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository/org/apache/ activemq/ The release was built from the following tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/maven-plugins/ tags/maven-plugins-4.1 The maven web site for those plugins is up here: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/maven-plugins-maven/ Releases section of the Incubation Policy: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ Incubation_Policy.html#Releases Here's my non binding +1 -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[doc] include IP/standards question in the proposal template [WAS Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling]
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up e-mail where you did post the proposal in response to Garrett Rooney, but I want to make sure that this is clear to everyone. UIMA standard (being put forward concurrently for standardization within OASIS Because anything from OASIS raises red flags for me (I could be a lot less polite about standards bodies that have all too often acted as nothing more than a rubberstamping facades to promulgate IP encumbered standards for their corporate masters), I just want to make sure that this isn't yet another OASIS problem. IBM has generally been a good citizen, but please confirm that the UIMA standard is not IP encumbered. IMO, we should make sure to have this question on the submission template. IMO need to think about this through a little... we probably need to know which standards the proposal proposes to implement so that these can be checked for suitability. if the standard is not capable of an open source implementation then that's easy. so, it would make sense to include a new section in the template documentation describing the standards implemented. the policy on which standards are open enough for an apache implementation has not complete crystallized. apache has been strong in pushing for standards which are openly developed and free of IP encumberance from the standard setters. IMHO apache should keep up this pressure but not sure that the policy is clear enough to be written down yet, though. opinions? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of ServiceMix 3.0-incubating
Could incubator PMC members please take a look at this release ? Or should I restart a vote ? Cheers, Guillaume Nodet wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: i'd like to see these issues resolved I have uploaded new binaries with the above problems fixed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] call for feedback for http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards promoting it (and putting it in the indexes). +1 to marking it as a non-draft document, it seems quite reasonable to me, and nothing jumped out as requiring changes. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
Hi, When we requested OASIS to set up a Technical Committee chartered to develop a platform-independent specification for text and multi-modal analysis, we specified that it be set up under the RF on Limited Terms mode of the OASIS IP Policy. RF means Royalty Free, and the Limited Terms means companies that are working with us on the Technical Committee are restricted in adding additional terms. These are the most liberal terms and make any Essential Claims available to ALL and ROYALTY FREE. For the details please refer to: - http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php - http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php Ultimately of course, there is always a risk that someone in the world holds a patent that can be claimed as Essential. The most any standards organization can do is govern the behavior of those who participate in its work and publicly document the licensing commitment of all participants. -Dave
RE: [doc] include IP/standards question in the proposal template
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: please confirm that the [necessary] standard is not IP encumbered. IMO, we should make sure to have this question on the submission template. IMO need to think about this through a little. Absolutely. The question to be asked isn't the simple one above. It would probably be very helpful to have folks like Dims, Sanjiva, Cliff and Sam help out with the actual requirement and phrasing. we probably need to know which standards the proposal proposes to implement so that these can be checked for suitability. +1 And the proposal should include a statement regarding the known IP policy, if any. the policy on which standards are open enough for an apache implementation has not complete crystallized. apache has been strong in pushing for standards which are openly developed and free of IP encumberance from the standard setters. IMHO apache should keep up this pressure but not sure that the policy is clear enough to be written down yet, though. Hence the list of people mentioned above, all of whom have worked in this area. I would like to see us work on the IP policy. But please note: if the UIMA IP is sufficiently open, I would not want to hold up incubation of that project, assuming that we get a positive vote. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
David Ferrucci wrote: we specified that [UIMA] be set up under the RF on Limited Terms mode of the OASIS IP Policy. RF on Limited Terms specifies the exact Royalty Free licensing terms and conditions that may be included in a patent holder's license and that must be granted upon request without further negotiations. ref: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php With TCs operating under the RF on Limited Terms IPR Mode, Obligated Parties may not impose any further conditions or restrictions beyond those specifically mentioned in Section 10.2.1 on the use of any technology or intellectual property rights, or other restrictions on behavior of the Licensee, but may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship, including the following: choice of law and dispute resolution. ref: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php These are the most liberal terms and make any Essential Claims available to ALL and ROYALTY FREE. The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our code. Does that apply to UIMA? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
Garrett Rooney wrote: snip I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent person, but honestly I have no clue what an architecture and software framework for creating, discovering, composing and deploying a broad range of multi-modal analysis capabilities actually is, and I see little potential for any project that's so bad at selling themselves to actually grow a useful community. snip Garrett, you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further explanations are still not clear, or that those explanations should go into the proposal itself (as opposed to a link from the Wiki)? UIMA may not be the easiest thing in the world to explain, and I can accept that our proposal doesn't do a very good job. However, I do believe that we address an important problem and can make an interesting contribution to Apache. Making the first couple of paragraphs of the proposal more understandable should be a surmountable problem. --Thilo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Automating Report Reminders (and the Project Index)
David Reid asked: Noel J. Bergman wrote: david reid wrote: Where is the information you maintain presently? The site is built from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/, and the specific stuff that you'd be looking for is in multiple locations: Projects (one file per): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects / Is there any good reason why this is one huge file? It seems to make far more sense as smaller files which then are linked to get to the behemoth that exists today. Which one huge file? We have many files. Or do you mean that you want to go from one per project to several per project? Please elaborate on your thoughts. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] call for feedback for http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards promoting it (and putting it in the indexes). +1. 1 presentation (is the way the content presented easily digested and understandable?) Two small comments for your consideration. First, what about a TOC at the beginning that links to the other sections of the documents? That way people have an idea of the sections - but this document is long enough that a TOC is nice to have. The other thing that I would find helpful is to change the color of the examples and commentary. They are way too similar. Maybe one of them should be boxed with a dark-color background? It's a minor nit, but I think if we can make the distinction greater (the font difference isn't enough, IMO), it'd be easier to understand. (Actually, if I look at it, I think you may have tried with a light-blue and white? If so, the color difference is too subtle.) Even with these minor nits, this is certainly good enough to link from the main page. Thanks so much - this is going to be a great help! -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further explanations are still not clear, or that those explanations should go into the proposal itself (as opposed to a link from the Wiki)? Yes, those explanations should be folded into the proposal itself. UIMA may not be the easiest thing in the world to explain, and I can accept that our proposal doesn't do a very good job. However, I do believe that we address an important problem and can make an interesting contribution to Apache. Making the first couple of paragraphs of the proposal more understandable should be a surmountable problem. I hope so. =) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
September 2006 Incubator Board Report
Since the last report, there has been significant progress made by individual projects within the Incubator (below). Traffic on general@incubator.apache.org has been significant, with contributions and oversight by many ASF Members and Directors. General Incubator topics of discussion have included: - the pros and cons of using IRC as a communication tool - Specifications as a project type - Discussion related to governance and structure of the proposed JINI incubation, which has aspects of a specification and an implementation of the specification. - Establishing a Maven repository *just* for Incubator artifacts - Continued work on improving the Incubator documentation One project, Felix, proposed graduation, and was asked to provide a draft of the request that would come before the Board, and was also asked --- a bit of a subtle change in how people have generally viewed releases from projects in the Incubator --- to demonstrate a release, so that people would be comfortable that they knew how to put out a release conforming to ASF policy. The Board should expect to see the request at the October meeting. QPid (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/QpidProposal) was accepted for Incubation (actually, immediately prior to the August report). Wicket (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WicketProposal) was accepted for Incubation. ActiveMQ The ActiveMQ community continues to grow as evidenced by the mailing list volumes. Each month mailing list volumes continues to grow. Last month we had 574 emails sent to the developer list and 905 email sent to the user list! We have also seen a big increase in the amount of patches and contributions submitted from non ActiveMQ committers. A large amount of development work and community interest has been around the Native clients used to access the Messaging broker. Tim Bish's excellent work on the STOMP c++ client has earned him an invitation to become an ActiveMQ committer. Amazon did a in house c++ client to ActiveMQ and that source code donation was accepted and committed to the source tree. All the source headers in the 2 active branches have be update to comply with the new policies outline at: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. The Apache ActiveMQ 4.0.1 has successfully been released. For more information about the release, see: http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/activemq-401-release.html Development continues on the next 4.1 release. In tandem, the 4.0 branch has continued to stabilize and a 4.0.2 release should be ready shortly. The project has discussed graduating and feels that ActiveMQ is ready and would prefer to become a TLP. Once the 4.0.2 release is completed expect more serious discussions regarding graduation to pop up on the incubator mailing lists. ADF Faces The ADF Faces / Trinidad project solved lot's of todos. We repackaged the software to get rid of adf inside the namespace. We also renamed some of the JSF components. We managed to get a website and deployed it the the incubator site. We created a first RC of our maven2 plugins, which is currently under review phase by some Incubator PMC members. The size of committers is grwoing. Added two new committers to the project during the last three month. Users (or developers) action is much beyond from just sending questions. Jira is a important fact of this community, where users apply patches to. The community is still growing. In August we had 438 sent to the developers list. In July it have been 266. Cayenne Finished tasks: Finished switch to the ASF infrastructure. Finished relicensing files. Received CLAs from all contributors but Gary Jarrel Released Cayenne 1.2 externally to Apache Voted for a new PPMC member (member's acceptance is still pending) Mentored 3 students as a part of Summer of Code Switched the code to Maven Had discussions with Geronimo project on JPA integration. Scheduled: Will rewrite those few pieces by Gary Jarrel to finish out IP issues, then Will release Apache Podling Cayenne 2.0 in a week or two. CeltiXfire The CeltiXfire project is moving along quickly now. In the last few weeks accounts have been created and the initial source code has been checked in. The code is now under very active development. There has been lots of discussion on the dev list between the different developers on several topics including tooling, configuration, release packaging, and REST support. We are currently working to define a set of criteria for our first milestone. In addition to coding, there has been some effort to get a website up and going, but we're currently debating the best tools for the job. Also, we've also
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
Noel J. Bergman wrote: The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our code. Does that apply to UIMA? I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php but didn't see the notification clause. Which clause is of concern? -Marshall Schor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] call for feedback for http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
It's really good, I like the template a lot. It will probably be very helpful. And I agree that a TOC would be helpful. On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/18/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards promoting it (and putting it in the indexes). +1. 1 presentation (is the way the content presented easily digested and understandable?) Two small comments for your consideration. First, what about a TOC at the beginning that links to the other sections of the documents? That way people have an idea of the sections - but this document is long enough that a TOC is nice to have. The other thing that I would find helpful is to change the color of the examples and commentary. They are way too similar. Maybe one of them should be boxed with a dark-color background? It's a minor nit, but I think if we can make the distinction greater (the font difference isn't enough, IMO), it'd be easier to understand. (Actually, if I look at it, I think you may have tried with a light-blue and white? If so, the color difference is too subtle.) Even with these minor nits, this is certainly good enough to link from the main page. Thanks so much - this is going to be a great help! -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: September 2006 Incubator Board Report
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the last report, there has been significant progress made by individual projects within the Incubator (below). Note that we asked for one-line summaries of podlings that are included in the report. Is there any chance we can get that pulled together for this month's report? Thanks! -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Rooney wrote: snip I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent person, but honestly I have no clue what an architecture and software framework for creating, discovering, composing and deploying a broad range of multi-modal analysis capabilities actually is, and I see little potential for any project that's so bad at selling themselves to actually grow a useful community. snip Garrett, you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further explanations are still not clear, or that those explanations should go into the proposal itself (as opposed to a link from the Wiki)? Yes, they should absolutely go into the proposal. You're asking us to vote on the proposal, not on some conversation on the mailing list. Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear, it's also in part that you showed up at the incubator with a proposal that was incomprehensible to anyone who didn't already know what your project did. If that's how you're marketing yourselves to a group that you want to be a part of, how are you going to market yourself to the rest of the world. A big part of becoming an ASF project is attracting other developers who want to work with you, building a community, and that's hard to do when your basic introduction isn't comprehensible to someone new. We already have too many projects at the ASF who can't seem to explain what it is they do without a maze of incomprehensible acronyms, I see little benefit in adding something that does away with the acronyms yet still manages to be say very little about what it actually does. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] call for feedback for http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
This is very good Robert. Comments inline: robert burrell donkin wrote: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a draft document. i think that it's strong enough to push towards promoting it (and putting it in the indexes). feedback would be very much appreciated. as always, if anyone can see any improvements please post a patch to this list, open a JIRA or (if you have karma) dive in. but in particular please reply with feedback about: 1 presentation (is the way the content presented easily digested and understandable?) Yup. 2 commentary (is the commentary on the template generally too long, too short or just about right?) Seems just right to me. 3 examples (would more examples and/or long examples improve the document or (conversely) are the examples too verbose at present?) The examples are very helpful. Definitely not too verbose! 4 style changes (blue for notes) The styling makes it very clear whats an example and whats not. I like it. Cheers, - Dan -- Dan Diephouse (616) 971-2053 Envoi Solutions LLC http://netzooid.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
Marshall Schor wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our code. Does that apply to UIMA? I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php but didn't see the notification clause. Which clause is of concern? RF on Limited Terms specifies the exact Royalty Free licensing terms and conditions that may be included in a patent holder's license and that MUST BE GRANTED UPON REQUEST without further negotiations. If downstream users of the code must notify IP holders in order to gain the IP grants, we have an issue. If downstream users automatically receive the IP grants, we're fine. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
source audit tool?
I would like to use this as part of the run-up for Tuscany's next release. Did you check this in somewhere and if so where? If not, can I have a copy I can run locally? Thanks -- Jeremy On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:31 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: i have a basic tool that i've been running against the source releases recently. it's simple but helps to track down some basic issues. no documentation. would this tool be useful for podlings (mentors and release managers in particular)? if so, would it be appropriate to check the source in somewhere in the incubator public tree? - robert - 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: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear, it's also in part that you showed up at the incubator with a proposal that was incomprehensible to anyone who didn't already know what your project did. If that's how you're marketing yourselves to a group ...snip, snip, snip... Well, I think that's a little unfair. Your criticisms should be aimed at the mentors (Ian, Sam, Ken) - but I don't think it's fair to expect that people who are new to our community to understand how we work. That's what the mentors are for. If the mentor isn't doing their job, then take it up with them - not the people who are just learning who we are and how things work. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear, it's also in part that you showed up at the incubator with a proposal that was incomprehensible to anyone who didn't already know what your project did. If that's how you're marketing yourselves to a group ...snip, snip, snip... Well, I think that's a little unfair. Your criticisms should be aimed at the mentors (Ian, Sam, Ken) - but I don't think it's fair to expect that people who are new to our community to understand how we work. That's what the mentors are for. If the mentor isn't doing their job, then take it up with them - not the people who are just learning who we are and how things work. You can place the blame wherever you like, but it seems to me that basic stuff like A proposal should explain what the project is used for isn't too high a bar to expect when people walk in the door. If a mentor is required to explain that, then that seems like a warning sign to me in and of itself. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of ServiceMix 3.0-incubating
On 9/19/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could incubator PMC members please take a look at this release ? i've taken a quick look and the license issues look better now Or should I restart a vote ? IMHO it would be cleaner to do so. it can be hard to tally and follow VOTE threads when the proposal changes each time. it's usually best to choose a slightly different subject name for a vote on an altered proposal. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: source audit tool?
On 9/19/06, Jeremy Boynes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to use this as part of the run-up for Tuscany's next release. Did you check this in somewhere and if so where? i've been having a bit of a think about whether committers is the right place. this would be the first actively developed application (rather than scripts). maybe offshore would be better. i'll have a think then try to get stuff sorted out tomorrow (GMT) If not, can I have a copy I can run locally? probably best to run from the source. don't expect too much: it isn't a lot better than a skilled grep as yet. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 20/09/2006, at 6:52 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote: On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well in and of itself. My objection isn't just your proposal is unclear, it's also in part that you showed up at the incubator with a proposal that was incomprehensible to anyone who didn't already know what your project did. If that's how you're marketing yourselves to a group ...snip, snip, snip... Well, I think that's a little unfair. Your criticisms should be aimed at the mentors (Ian, Sam, Ken) - but I don't think it's fair to expect that people who are new to our community to understand how we work. That's what the mentors are for. If the mentor isn't doing their job, then take it up with them - not the people who are just learning who we are and how things work. You can place the blame wherever you like, but it seems to me that basic stuff like A proposal should explain what the project is used for isn't too high a bar to expect when people walk in the door. If a mentor is required to explain that, then that seems like a warning sign to me in and of itself. it was explained quite well in the initial thread. you forget the people who propose a technology are sometimes intimately versed in it, and it is sometimes hard for people to know at what level they should pitch a proposal at as they don't understand what the basic level of understanding is in the crowd. The people doing the pitch are used to talking to people in the unstructured search environment, people who understand what UIMA is about, and the terms and phrases that make it up. It is similar to me attempting to put a project to describe a arcane technology (eg a tool to determine the risk and return of a portfolio using CAPM ) and assuming people reading the proposal understand the basics of portfolio theory. To a person with a understanding of finance this wouldn't require any more explanation. or take a proposal which implements Market Basket Analysis. To a person with a data warehousing background, this requires no further explanation. The same goes with UIMA. To a person with a understanding of unstructured search the proposal is clear. Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have no clue about them either as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely. The only mistake here is the initial proposal might have assumed that people had a understanding of the topic area. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://garden-gossip.com/ -- what's in your garden? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have no clue about them either as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely. Yes, and that's a BAD thing. If this proposal was for some j2ee/WS/SOA related monstrosity with 98 different acronyms in the first paragraph it would be getting exactly the same -1 from me. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
Excellent, now that this is out of the way, I'm looking forward to an improved proposal, so we can vote on it. Perhaps, if Garrett doesn't mind, you may want to run the improved proposal by Garrett first, before sending a new [VOTE] email with inlined proposal to the list. Otis - Original Message From: Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:09:34 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have no clue about them either as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely. Yes, and that's a BAD thing. If this proposal was for some j2ee/WS/SOA related monstrosity with 98 different acronyms in the first paragraph it would be getting exactly the same -1 from me. -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]
