Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Doug Cutting]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

This looks like a very interesting technology, and when proposed as a
collaboration by actual persons A, B, and C (who happen to work for
X, Y, and Z) we will have something to discuss.


Great, because that's what I think we have.  It so happens that persons 
D, E and F also helped write up the proposal, but they won't be writing 
the code, so they're not listed in the committer section.


Doug

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Jason van Zyl]

On 23-Jul-08, at 6:12 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:


I really don't see what the problem is here, there are two named
committers in the proposal. Whatever the interests of the companies
they work for, Tashi will have to create a healthy community to
graduate and I don't think corporate backing should be used as a
reason to deny entry in the first place. Also its a *good thing* IMO
that the proposal is open about the three companies that are prepared
to fund work and I would hate to see that rewarded with a -1, since it
may prompt others to be less open in the future.




Right on. Why does it matter if it's committed individuals or  
committed organizations? It will always be a mixture, and that's a  
good thing. It's fallacy to think that every project can be the ideal  
of a diverse set of committed individuals who will remain eternally  
devoted to a project. Maybe that happens sometimes, but organizations  
can also help make sustainable technologies as well, and is more  
likely to be the case these days for better or worse. At least they  
are honest, and that matters more then anything I think.


Thanks,

Jason

--
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
--
What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people  
can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.


 -- Paul Graham


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Michael Stroucken]

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

Hi,

I've read the messages from Henning and William, and I'd like to address some 
of the concerns voiced by them. I'm Michael Stroucken, and I'm a senior systems 
programmer at CMU. That means I am staff, and my interests in the Tashi project 
are not driven by an interest to generate research from the project (which is a 
plus of course).

One of my tasks here is providing computing facilities to students, researchers 
and affiliates within the Parallel Data Laboratory. One of the facilities is a 
machine room designed from the bottom up to allow research on data center 
operations - the Data Center Observatory mentioned in the proposal.

When I was offered the opportunity to be part of this project, I gladly joined 
up because I'm feeling the pain of needing a means of fairly and equitably 
providing for the computing demands of our students, yet having average 
utilisation levels be rather low at the same time people are desperate for 
machines.

I have not been assigned to any part of this project as an employee of the 
university, and I am participating out of personal interest. I believe the 
project can improve services not just at our data centers, but at data centers 
in general.

While this project is likely to result in research publications, at the end of 
the day my rooms are still going to be there. For me, the fruits of the project 
will be a real asset in a production environment, benefitting from continued 
input and improvement. I believe that other adopters in industry or academia 
will regard it as such too.

Finally, as for the organisational vs. individual aspect, the project has large 
organisations behind it which provide an environment of communication and 
cooperation that would be difficult to replicate if we were just a few people 
at non-related and non-cooperating sites. I am aware that our responsibility 
towards an Apache project is as individuals, but I hope we can convince you 
that our corporate backing will be beneficial for the project.

Greetings,
Michael.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Niall Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really don't see what the problem is here, there are two named
> committers in the proposal. Whatever the interests of the companies
> they work for, Tashi will have to create a healthy community to
> graduate and I don't think corporate backing should be used as a
> reason to deny entry in the first place. Also its a *good thing* IMO
> that the proposal is open about the three companies that are prepared
> to fund work and I would hate to see that rewarded with a -1, since it
> may prompt others to be less open in the future.

+1.  -- justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Thursday 24 July 2008 05:23, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> In other words, I'll vote -1 on any Proposal for non-person entities
> X, Y, and Z to form an incubator podling, and I know several other PMC
> members who will do likewise.

I disagree. IMHO, wording in the proposal is irrelevant. If they have known 
this and written it differently, without any material change behind the 
words, what is the difference?

Now, I think that Incubation is all about proving that there indeed is a 
healthy community behind the project, and will be one of the major graduation 
criteria, but I don't see why proposals with more experienced authors are 
given green light and others are booted.


> This looks like a very interesting technology,

For me, this is an entry criteria,

> collaboration by actual persons A, B, and C (who happen to work for
> X, Y, and Z) 

... and this would be the graduation criteria.


Cheers
-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Niall Pemberton]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Cutting wrote:
>>
>> There's no conspiracy here to steal Apacheness.  Rather, Yahoo!, Intel and
>> CMU would like to collaborate on open source software.  Intel and CMU have a
>> prototype, and Yahoo! is interested in helping to develop this further.  All
>> three believe that other parties will also be interested in this software.
>>  Apache is a good home for collaborative, open-source software projects, no?
>
> Here's the gist of the issue, and your email highlights it perfectly.
>
> Yahoo!, Intel, CMU etc have no standing at the ASF.  The ASF does not
> recognize collaborative "corporate" development; the ASF recognizes
> collaborative development by physical persons, not other legal constructs
> or amalgamation.
>
> In other words, I'll vote -1 on any Proposal for non-person entities
> X, Y, and Z to form an incubator podling, and I know several other PMC
> members who will do likewise.
>
> This looks like a very interesting technology, and when proposed as a
> collaboration by actual persons A, B, and C (who happen to work for
> X, Y, and Z) we will have something to discuss.

I really don't see what the problem is here, there are two named
committers in the proposal. Whatever the interests of the companies
they work for, Tashi will have to create a healthy community to
graduate and I don't think corporate backing should be used as a
reason to deny entry in the first place. Also its a *good thing* IMO
that the proposal is open about the three companies that are prepared
to fund work and I would hate to see that rewarded with a -1, since it
may prompt others to be less open in the future.

Niall

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Doug Cutting wrote:


There's no conspiracy here to steal Apacheness.  Rather, Yahoo!, Intel 
and CMU would like to collaborate on open source software.  Intel and 
CMU have a prototype, and Yahoo! is interested in helping to develop 
this further.  All three believe that other parties will also be 
interested in this software.  Apache is a good home for collaborative, 
open-source software projects, no?


Here's the gist of the issue, and your email highlights it perfectly.

Yahoo!, Intel, CMU etc have no standing at the ASF.  The ASF does not
recognize collaborative "corporate" development; the ASF recognizes
collaborative development by physical persons, not other legal constructs
or amalgamation.

In other words, I'll vote -1 on any Proposal for non-person entities
X, Y, and Z to form an incubator podling, and I know several other PMC
members who will do likewise.

This looks like a very interesting technology, and when proposed as a
collaboration by actual persons A, B, and C (who happen to work for
X, Y, and Z) we will have something to discuss.





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Doug Cutting]

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

- Are the proposed committers,  people "assigned to work on the project"
or are they genuinely interested in this software.


Those are not necessarily disjoint sets.  Folks who are "assigned" are 
frequently also "genuinely interested", and vice versa.



IAW, will they stick around or leave as soon as they are reassigned to
other projects or their grants run out?


Folks who are "genuinely interested" often lose interest over time, and 
folks who are "assigned" are often long-term contributors who even 
change employers and are "re-assigned" to work on the same project, 
i.e., are hired for their familiarity and involvement with the project. 
 Nearly everyone on Hadoop from Y! was initially assigned.  Most have 
found it a plum assignment.  A few have moved on, some to Hadoop-related 
jobs at other companies.



The wording for the Yahoo! "slot" sounded to me like there has been a
decision at management level that CMU, Intel and Yahoo! want to do some
work on that subject and they like to have the soft, warm glow of
Apacheness on their effort for a (PR?) reason.


There's no conspiracy here to steal Apacheness.  Rather, Yahoo!, Intel 
and CMU would like to collaborate on open source software.  Intel and 
CMU have a prototype, and Yahoo! is interested in helping to develop 
this further.  All three believe that other parties will also be 
interested in this software.  Apache is a good home for collaborative, 
open-source software projects, no?


Also, if Tashi doesn't garner a diverse, active set of contributors in 
the incubator, it will die a slow death with little harm done.



So there is an engineer
from each group assigned to "work on this" until further notice. From
thirteen names on the proposal, only two will be committers? I know
about Doug, who are the other ten?


Several are managers that contributed to the proposal.  They control 
budgets that will pay contributors.  Should they remove their names?



That is not exactly the kind of project that we want. The whole Tashi
proposal sounds to me like an abstract to a scientific paper, which has
the tendency that as soon as the paper is done, the interest in the
subject goes down.


That is certainly not my understanding.  The intent as I understand it 
is to build cluster management software that will actually be used to 
manage clusters.  Yahoo!, my employer, has many clusters and seeks 
better software to manage them.


Doug

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[Henning Schmiedehausen]

Hi,

a number of questions:

- Are the proposed committers,  people "assigned to work on the project"
or are they genuinely interested in this software.

IAW, will they stick around or leave as soon as they are reassigned to
other projects or their grants run out?

The wording for the Yahoo! "slot" sounded to me like there has been a
decision at management level that CMU, Intel and Yahoo! want to do some
work on that subject and they like to have the soft, warm glow of
Apacheness on their effort for a (PR?) reason. So there is an engineer
from each group assigned to "work on this" until further notice. From
thirteen names on the proposal, only two will be committers? I know
about Doug, who are the other ten?

That is not exactly the kind of project that we want. The whole Tashi
proposal sounds to me like an abstract to a scientific paper, which has
the tendency that as soon as the paper is done, the interest in the
subject goes down.

- The sentence "A number of events at Yahoo, Carnegie Mellon, and Intel
Research Pittsburgh motivated the development of Tashi and convinced us
to work together in the context of an open-source community" makes me
wonder, what these events were and why specifically the Apache Incubator
was chosen. 

- And finally: from your proposal and your concept, it is very clear to
me that you *will* be cutting very very close to proprietary open source
(i.e. GPL licensed) code and you will need to interface with such code.
Are you aware of our strict rules about non-Apache licensed code and how
will you amend this? Has your current code (which is not visible
anywhere) hard dependencies on Apache-incompatible software that you
will need to change/rewrite? XEN e.g. is GPLv2 licensed and you can not
host any code at Apache that needs to be linked with XEN.


Ciao
Henning


On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 10:36 -0400, David O'Hallaron wrote:
> No worries. I've removed the entry on the wiki version of the proposal
> at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TashiProposal. It now reads
> simply:
> 
> Initially, there will be one committer each from Carnegie Mellon and
> Intel Research:
>  * Michael Stroucken ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>  * Michael Ryan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doug Cutting wrote:
> >>
> >> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> With respect to "Initially, we plan to start with one committer each from
> >>> Carnegie Mellon and Intel Research, with a Yahoo committer to be
> >>> determined
> >>> later", that's awkwardly phrased.  It appears to imply a corporate
> >>> representative doing commits for "hidden" people, something that we
> >>> consider
> >>> to be an anti-pattern.
> >>
> >> That is not the intent.  The intent is for Yahoo! to assign someone to
> >> work on this project as a direct contributor.  But that person has not yet
> >> been identified.
> >>
> >>> Whomever is to be actively involved in development
> >>> should be on the committer list.  If it is just a community of just The
> >>> Two
> >>> Michaels, fine, but the wording should be rephrased.
> >>
> >> +1 If Y! does not name someone soon, then that entry should be removed.  A
> >> committer from Y! can always be added later, based on merit.
> >
> > No; the entry should be removed now.
> >
> > Yahoo the Company cannot place a reservation on a place at the table for
> > an unnamed body.  This is not how the ASF works.  Nor are committers
> > expressed as delegates of the institutions the work for/study at.
> > This places a cloud over the acceptance of this particular project, and
> > I would encourage everyone to be sure their mentors/champions review the
> > text before posting a proposal for incubation..
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -
> > 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: [PROPOSAL] Tashi

[David O'Hallaron]

No worries. I've removed the entry on the wiki version of the proposal
at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TashiProposal. It now reads
simply:

Initially, there will be one committer each from Carnegie Mellon and
Intel Research:
 * Michael Stroucken ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 * Michael Ryan ([EMAIL PROTECTED])




Dave


On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Cutting wrote:
>>
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>
>>> With respect to "Initially, we plan to start with one committer each from
>>> Carnegie Mellon and Intel Research, with a Yahoo committer to be
>>> determined
>>> later", that's awkwardly phrased.  It appears to imply a corporate
>>> representative doing commits for "hidden" people, something that we
>>> consider
>>> to be an anti-pattern.
>>
>> That is not the intent.  The intent is for Yahoo! to assign someone to
>> work on this project as a direct contributor.  But that person has not yet
>> been identified.
>>
>>> Whomever is to be actively involved in development
>>> should be on the committer list.  If it is just a community of just The
>>> Two
>>> Michaels, fine, but the wording should be rephrased.
>>
>> +1 If Y! does not name someone soon, then that entry should be removed.  A
>> committer from Y! can always be added later, based on merit.
>
> No; the entry should be removed now.
>
> Yahoo the Company cannot place a reservation on a place at the table for
> an unnamed body.  This is not how the ASF works.  Nor are committers
> expressed as delegates of the institutions the work for/study at.
> This places a cloud over the acceptance of this particular project, and
> I would encourage everyone to be sure their mentors/champions review the
> text before posting a proposal for incubation..
>
> Bill
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>



-- 
-- David O'Hallaron
-- Director, Intel Research Pittsburgh
-- Assoc Prof of CS and ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
-- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~droh

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE]: Buildr 1.3.2 release

[ant elder]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:18 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Looks ok to me so +1.
> >
> > Would be helpful to include a RAT report with the request, but I ran it
> > myself and it didn't highlight any issues.
> >
> > If the doc pdf is going to be distributed separately it should probably
> > include the Incubator disclaimer text, maybe on the page which already
> has
> > the Apache License text.
>
> Welcome/Notices, on page 7.
>
> It's generated from the same source as the web site, so we only have
> to edit one file to include all the proper notices.
>
> Assaf
>
>
Ah ha so it is. All looks fine to me then.

   ...ant

Re: [VOTE]: Buildr 1.3.2 release

[Assaf Arkin]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:18 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks ok to me so +1.
>
> Would be helpful to include a RAT report with the request, but I ran it
> myself and it didn't highlight any issues.
>
> If the doc pdf is going to be distributed separately it should probably
> include the Incubator disclaimer text, maybe on the page which already has
> the Apache License text.

Welcome/Notices, on page 7.

It's generated from the same source as the web site, so we only have
to edit one file to include all the proper notices.

Assaf

>
>   ...ant
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Up for vote, the Buildr 1.3.2 release.  The release vote passed within
>> the PPMC with +3 (+5 including non-binding votes) and no -1:
>>
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-buildr-dev/200807.mbox/[EMAIL
>>  PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/distro/
>>
>> Specifically:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/distro/buildr-1.3.2-incubating.tgz
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/distro/buildr-1.3.2-incubating.zip
>>
>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/site/
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/site/buildr.pdf
>>
>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>> http://people.apache.org/~assaf/buildr/1.3.2/site/specs.html
>>
>>
>> Changes since 1.3.1:
>> * Added: --prereqs command line argument to show all tasks and their
>> dependencies. You can also follow with regular expression to narrow down
>> the
>> list of tasks.
>> * Changed: Upgraded to Rubyforge 1.0.0.
>> * Changed: BUILDR-86 Use newest versions of net-ssh and net-sftp gems.
>> * Changed: BUILDR-88 Test classes/resources should come before compile
>> classes/resources so they load up earlier in java classpath.
>> * Changed: BUILDR-102 Update JUnit Version to 4.4.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-73 idea7x task incorrect adds target/resources to the
>> sources
>> paths.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-76 Added more specs and fixes to compile task.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-77 Layout feature not working.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-79 Remove :source option for Scala compiler
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-80 Fix reference to Util#timestamp method on nailgun addon.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-82 Temporary work around for Net::SSH 2.0.2 attempting to
>> load Pageant DLLs when running on JRuby/Windows.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-89 JUnit (and all other Java frameworks) no longer include
>> abstract classes.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-90 Installing from source doesn't work with JRuby.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-91 When doing a release, buildr should spawn the same
>> version of buildr
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-92 IDEA 7x: add resources directories to classpath.
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-95: Only download Scala test framework artifacts when
>> required
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-100 Directory structure documentation needs updating.
>> * Fixed: Installation instructions updated for RubyGems 1.2.0.
>>
>> Assaf
>>
>> -
>> 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]