Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements, but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC members. Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active) committers. Any project that we have that is populated by only one or two companies would get a -1 from me at graduation - but 3 is fine. =) -- justin And certainly one aspect of being incubated is to grow the community and ensure its health. Any podling with committers from only 1 or 2 companies only has obviously not done that and warrants a -1. We run into a weird situation, IMO, if we get too formal and number-oriented as far as the initial committer list, simply because it makes it hard for external companies to donate code to the ASF, if that code was proprietary. In that case, of course all "current" committers would be from one company, and so declining the podling proposal just on that account would be silly. However, in that case I would really like to see it that if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be included in the initial list, since I think it helps bootstrap the community process right off the bat. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, in that case I would really like to see it that if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be included in the initial list, since I think it helps bootstrap the community process right off the bat. Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with that too. Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should be the role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're going to get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that list must be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, in that case I would really like to see it that if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be included in the initial list, since I think it helps bootstrap the community process right off the bat. Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with that too. Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should be the role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're going to get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that list must be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin +1 - I like your explanation & reasoning. - 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: Policy on Initial Committership
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, in that case I would really like to see it that if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be included in the initial list, since I think it helps bootstrap the community process right off the bat. Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with that too. Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should be the role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're going to get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that list must be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin +1 In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the gold standard for creating this initial list: --- As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did this for two reasons 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn) 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our moving to apache and want to participate We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some old committers active again, so that was a big plus. --- Jason. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the gold standard for creating this initial list: --- As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did this for two reasons 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn) 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our moving to apache and want to participate We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some old committers active again, so that was a big plus. --- The concern I have with this procedure is that we'd drop folks after the proposal is voted on and approved. If this procedure were done before approval to create the initial list, that's okay with me. My concern is that if someone is on the initial list, that they have the right to commit/PPMC status if they ask for it. -- justin
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin, On Sunday October 08 2006 9:55 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, in that case I would really like to see it that > > if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal > > and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be > > included in the initial list, since I think it helps > > bootstrap the community process right off the bat. > > Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that > I'm okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is > happy with that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial > list and desire that they earn their commit bits through actual > participation, I'm okay with that too. My question is: how is the podling community supposed to decide if it's OK or not? Prior to the PMC accepting the podling, there isn't any formal lists setup (other than [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for the podling participants to discuss this except through the proposers, which are probably the ones doing the "piling on". I suppose thats part of the "champions" job is to talk to all the participants and gage the concerns and such. I'd just be concerned with flooding the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list with a bunch of "does XXX belong as a commiter on project YYY" type chatter.This list is hard enough to follow somedays. I suppose one idea might be upon proposal submission but prior to the PMC vote, immediately setup the "dev" list so the podling community can start talking and working together to "fix up" the proposal. At that point, other ASF members who were not contacted as part of the proposal could also join the list and possibly help guide the podling, express interest in helping, ask to join as commiters, etc... Basically, try to "jump start" the community before the official iPMC vote.This could ALSO help the iPMC people see how the people are acting, etc... which could also provide valuable insight into helping them vote. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:55:47AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm > okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with > that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire > that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with > that too. > Why even bother with that? it is usually so much easier to give out commit access to people who already are committers - if we hold off on that type of "piling on" until after the proposal has been accepted, then we're sure that the podling want those people on there, and we don't risk voting on a proposal that is skewed by various people adding themselves because they can. Sure, I think podling should be open to taking active committers (from non-incubator projects) onto the list without much fuss, but that's different from opening the gates to everyone, will get roughly as many people committing on the project and doesn't have the same avenues for abuse as your position. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:32:56AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: > --- > As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty > neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the > actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status > file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did > this for two reasons > > 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of > activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn) > 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our > moving to apache and want to participate > > We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some > old committers active again, so that was a big plus. > --- > +1 especially if this is carried out _before_ the proposal is voted on. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Approve the 2.0.1 release of Cayenne
On 10/5/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now a practical question - what's involved in distributing the release? Anything beyond placing a copy to "people.apache.org:/www/ people.apache.org/dist/incubator/cayenne/" ??? AFAIK, no (i've never cut incubator releases so i hope that people will jump in if i have this wrong) if it were a standard apache release then i'd wait a day or so for the mirrors to sync and then check the download pages before posting the announcements. AIUI incubator releases are not mirrored and so this isn't necessary. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> However, in that case I would really like to see it that >> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal >> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be >> included in the initial list, since I think it helps >> bootstrap the community process right off the bat. > > > Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is > that I'm > okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is > happy with > that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list > and desire > that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm > okay with > that too. > > Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should > be the > role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're > going to > get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that > list must > be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin +1 In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the gold standard for creating this initial list: --- As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did this for two reasons 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn) 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our moving to apache and want to participate I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the code again. At the very least we should have some provision for preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can come back at any time. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Garrett Rooney wrote: > I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an > incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how > I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's > being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former > contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the > ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the > code again. At the very least we should have some provision for > preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can > come back at any time. Uhm there is, no? * join committers by following the instructions * introduce yourself * declare yourself emeritus/temporarily (at least) retired Otherwise * join the dicussion * introduce yourself as the folk who wrote the Xxxx components * ask to participate If you can't do the first over the course of 2 mos, 3 mos, 6 mos or the year it takes to graduate, follow the second course? Somewhere in this scheme common sense needs to be re-introduced :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:09 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > I'd previously suggested (with an fresh message topic, even) a meeting at > ApacheCon > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > but no one replied. I'm still game for an Incubation meeting with whomever > wants to gather. If this is to happen on Thursday I will be there. Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Garrett Rooney wrote: > I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an > incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how > I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's > being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former > contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the > ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the > code again. At the very least we should have some provision for > preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can > come back at any time. Uhm there is, no? * join committers by following the instructions * introduce yourself * declare yourself emeritus/temporarily (at least) retired Otherwise * join the dicussion * introduce yourself as the folk who wrote the Xxxx components * ask to participate If you can't do the first over the course of 2 mos, 3 mos, 6 mos or the year it takes to graduate, follow the second course? Somewhere in this scheme common sense needs to be re-introduced :) Ok, so I'm mostly using my experience from Subversion as an example here, since it's the largest non-ASF project I'm involved in. We've got a large number of formerly very active but currently dormant committers. Every so often one of them will become active again, and contribute either a small useful bug fix, or a large new feature (usually by becoming active again for a period of time, because they no better than to drop a code bomb on us). I'd hate for there to be any impediment to such a thing just because a project moved to the ASF. The fact that the committer would have to send in the CLA and wait for an account is already an impediment enough, it gets even worse if they have to potentially fall into a debate with the younger generation of developers over their "right" to commit access. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
