[VOTE] Approve the 2.0.1 release of Cayenne
Cayenne community has voted and approved 2.0.1 release of Cayenne. This release marks a major milestone in Cayenne incubation as we've fully resolved all IP issues and got rid of incompatible license dependencies. Now we would like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC to perform the release. There were 6 "+1" votes (including 3 from PPMC members) and no other votes: Andrus Adamchik +1 Michael Gentry +1 Tore Halset +1 Mike Kienenberger +1 Kevin Menard +1 Jim Jagielski +1 (cast on the PPMC list) Vote thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cayenne-dev/ 200609.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Release artifacts can be found here: http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.1/ And here is my +1 (non-binding) Andrus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPMCs [was Re: what are required for contributing to release management]
On 28 Sep 06, at 12:59 PM 28 Sep 06, Garrett Rooney wrote: Well, PMCs are formed by the board when a project moves to top level status. PPMCs are formed for an incubating project, and exactly how that works tends to differ a bit between projects. Some mentors start off with just the mentors on the PPMC, and then invite project members as time goes on (or that's the impression I've gotten). Others just start with the whole group of committers plus the mentors on the PPMC (that's what we did with Abdera). I think starting with the mentors is the wisest choice as at that point any committers can be brought aboard if deemed fit. So that can support both models as all committers can be brought aboard if it fits, or over time if more suitable. I was also confused about this as I heard one thing from Noel and one thing from Jim, but the mentors deciding seems sensible as projects can be dealt with on a case by case basis. I don't believe committers should automatically be made (P)PMC members as to me it's a different level of understanding and commitment. -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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
On 30 Sep 06, at 10:09 AM 30 Sep 06, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Jim, Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important decision as this they should at least communicate the above. setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective. I will again defer to Jason van Zyl who was the prime focus of all this. Unless Jason responds by Monday, I will email a synopsis from my PoV. I will state however that from the get-go, I said: I just got back from being on the road and wanted to be around and prepared for the ensuing discussion. There will certainly be some debate and I didn't want to throw the issue out and then not being around to follow the discussion. I would be somewhat hesitant about doing this via a con-call. Certainly we can request a cxf-private list that contains the mentors and the PPMC members (see #2). The reason is simple: such policy discussions should be archived, since they affect the project and its future. One key question was "who is the PPMC". My interpretation is that the initial PPMC consists of the Mentors and the initial group of committers noted and agreed to in the proposal. Some had issues with that and said that the initial list of committers was "stacked". Generally, I think there are problems with a number of proposals that have gone in recently in that they deviate heavily from existing notions of meritocracy. What's important is that going forward is that the process is clear as I made assumptions based on how existing, non-incubating, projects work and there seems to be a discrepancy between how I feel projects should be initiated according to Apache history and what some projects are doing or did. At any rate the discussion was between the mentors so effectively the PPMC for CeltiXFire. The thread was initiated off list but everyone agreed to bring it on list and the onus is on me to put the message forward because I think there are problems. I will fully disclose everything and summarize to the list by Monday now that I'm back home. Jason. - 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Jim, Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important decision as this they should at least communicate the above. setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective. I will again defer to Jason van Zyl who was the prime focus of all this. Unless Jason responds by Monday, I will email a synopsis from my PoV. I will state however that from the get-go, I said: I would be somewhat hesitant about doing this via a con-call. Certainly we can request a cxf-private list that contains the mentors and the PPMC members (see #2). The reason is simple: such policy discussions should be archived, since they affect the project and its future. One key question was "who is the PPMC". My interpretation is that the initial PPMC consists of the Mentors and the initial group of committers noted and agreed to in the proposal. Some had issues with that and said that the initial list of committers was "stacked". - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
I would agree with the notion of a low bar to membership for incubators. I run the JBossESB effort which has really only been going since March and we've taken a similar approach. The community has grown immensely since then, with a dozen serious committers from a range of companies. Give people a chance and they'll help. Add barriers to entry and they'll go elsewhere. Mark. On 29 Sep 2006, at 14:47, Jim Jagielski wrote: Without discussing anything regarding the initial list and who should or should not have been on it, it needs to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is increasing the community. I would recommend that anyone who does not have commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc which serve to indicate the work they've done. As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not have been going on, let me also state that it is really against the ASF to make any sort of development decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves, and any leaking of that information is considered a VERY bad thing to do. On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote: Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire. At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail. However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the delay provided. Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result (and one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors) is frustrating. Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial commiters typical? Thanks, Mark. -- Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of Redhat). - 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]
[doc] first call for review for http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html is currently a draft document. i think that it's strong enough now to push towards promoting it. please find some time to review this document both editorially and for content. if you have improvements then please either create patches in JIRA, make suggestions to the list or (if you have karma) apply the changes. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Jim, Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important decision as this they should at least communicate the above. setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective. the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of reference without a binding decision. i would expect any decision made about varying the initial comitters list to appear in the private list of the podling together with at least 3 +1's binding on apache (from incubator PMC members). i've searched the lists and cannot find such a VOTE nor even any discussion. it's important that apache has records of all decisions taken. if the matter is so delicate that the PPMC list is not private enough, i would hope that the mentors would raise this on the incubator PMC list. if this is not confidential enough then i would hope that the mentors contact the incubator chair personally. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
