Re: [VOTE] Release Bean Validation 0.2-incubating RC2
+1 Ran apache-rat:check on the source-release.zip and it passed. Was able to build the source-release using Maven 2.2.1 and 1.6.0_20. Stand-alone TCK tests passed. In-container TCK tests passed. Staged artifacts have PGP signatures and contain the required License, Notice and Disclaimer files. -Donald On 8/13/10 1:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > A Bean Validation 0.2-incubating release candidate #2 has been created > with the following artifacts up for a vote: > > SVN source tag (r985290): > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bval/tags/0.2-incubating/ > > Maven staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebval-102/ > > Source release: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebval-102/org/apache/bval/bval-parent/0.2-incubating/bval-parent-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip > > Javadoc staging site: > http://people.apache.org/~dwoods/bval/0.2-incubating/staging-site/apidocs/ > > PGP release keys (signed using D018E6B1): > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bval/KEYS > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > Thanks, > Donald > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Bean Validation 0.2-incubating RC2
A Bean Validation 0.2-incubating release candidate #2 has been created with the following artifacts up for a vote: SVN source tag (r985290): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bval/tags/0.2-incubating/ Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebval-102/ Source release: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebval-102/org/apache/bval/bval-parent/0.2-incubating/bval-parent-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip Javadoc staging site: http://people.apache.org/~dwoods/bval/0.2-incubating/staging-site/apidocs/ PGP release keys (signed using D018E6B1): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bval/KEYS Vote will be open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, Donald - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: an experiment
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > ...The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for > the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that > the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process > for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock > to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html +1, but I think we should require at least one +1 from a mentor in those votes, to make sure mentors are following the action. And mentors or IPMC members making the account requests. > > The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to > admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC > itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who > best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it, > especially as it pertains to releases Sounds good to me, having PPMC members participate in the IPMC helps cross-pollination of ideas. Here as well, I'd require the mentors to nominate those significant committers, as another way of making sure mentors are involved in the process. -Bertrand (didn't read the whole thread yet - holidays ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Future of RAT
I'd be willing to help out with a RAT TLP. We're using it in our normal build process for OpenJPA, Geronimo and Bean Validation, so helping out on future votes is the least I can do. -Donald On 8/12/10 5:52 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> The real point though is not size - its *activity*. >>> >>> [absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped] >>> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from not being able to get 3 PMC votes. >>> >>> I understand that and share the concern to some degree. >>> >>> RAT has probably never been the primary project for any of its >>> contributors. Most of us jumped in to scratch specific itches and other >>> than that RAT is a side project somewhere down the list of projects we >>> contribute to regularly. Pretty far down. >>> >>> That being said, we are aware of the problem and have tried to address >>> that by adding four more committers last December, that doesn't seem to >>> have been enough. >>> >>> One reason probably is that RAT does what it is supposed to do well >>> enough for most of us - the feedback of people who said RAT was so >>> important to them that it should become a TLP indicates it is good >>> enough for most other people as well. In a way RAT has already been >>> mature and in maintenance mode when it entered incubation. >>> >>> So yes, development activity is low. >>> >>> OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to >>> fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been >>> necessary on the last release, it just wasn't necessary so people >>> preferred to work on other things rather than checking releases. >> >> Right. it is being properly managed. >> >> Just like the Apache Tcl TLP. And Apache Excalibur. And Apache Perl. >> ... could probably find a few more low-activity TLPs, but I believe >> you see my point. It isn't about activity either. It is about whether >> you have eyeballs on the community and the codebase. > > Clearly then there are small TLPs that operate effectively. However > any TLP that can't get 3 PMC votes is effectively dead and I don't > want to see RAT end up in that situation in a year or two. Seeing only > 3 votes on the RAT 0.7 release from its PPMC raises that concern. > > Niall > > >> Cheers, >> -g > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: an experiment
On 8/11/10 5:30 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > On 08/11/2010 05:19 PM, Donald Woods wrote: >> >> >> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby, >>> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational >>> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in >>> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push >>> the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and >>> self-governance in an incubating project, following the >>> lessons I've learned from httpd's treatment of the subprojects >>> it happens to be responsible for. >>> >>> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for >>> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that >>> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process >>> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock >>> to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html. >> >> How about requiring at least one mentor on the vote, so there is still >> some oversight? > > Having all mentors vote is good but not necessary...IMHO > >>> >>> The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to >>> admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC >>> itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who >>> best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it, >>> especially as it pertains to releases. >> >> Would still like this to be an opt-in, where any existing PMC member >> interested in helping with the Incubator could request membership and be >> added after 72 hours (expanding ASF member rules to apply to all PMC >> members.) For committers (non-PMC members), I'd want an existing IPMC >> or PMC member nominate the person to the IPMC and require a 72hr lazy >> consensus, since IPMC members are expected to mentor and teach new >> podlings about the Apache way. > > By PMC you mean PPMC? i am confused. Any PMC member of a TLP. The projects have obviously vetted their skills and contributions before inviting to their PMC, so the barrier to IPMC membership should be lower for them. > >>> >>> I welcome your comments, criticisms, and other feedback. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: an experiment
On 8/11/10 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > - Original Message > >> From: Donald Woods >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM >> Subject: Re: an experiment >> >> >> >> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby, >>> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational >>> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in >>> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push >>> the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and >>> self-governance in an incubating project, following the >>> lessons I've learned from httpd's treatment of the subprojects >>> it happens to be responsible for. >>> >>> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for >>> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that >>> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process >>> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock >>> to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html. >> >> How about requiring at least one mentor on the vote, so there is still >> some oversight? > > I'm actually not in favor of that idea because relatively few > mentors are active developers in their projects (I'm certainly > in that category). Part of what I'm trying to teach is that > self-governance requires active participants to be making the > critical decisions. > > OTOH I would be perfectly OK with the idea that a mentor must > file the account request, or more simply must submit an ACK request > regarding the vote to either gene...@incubator or priv...@incubator. > Sounds like a good solution for accounts, but I'd still like to see at least one mentor vote required on release artifacts, as the mentors agreed to step up and guide/teach podlings about the Apache Way, which includes using RAT and IANAL plugins to ensure license headers on the code and license/notice/disclaimer artifacts in the released artifacts. >>> >>> The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to >>> admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC >>> itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who >>> best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight over it, >>> especially as it pertains to releases. >> >> Would still like this to be an opt-in, where any existing PMC member >> interested in helping with the Incubator could request membership and be >> added after 72 hours (expanding ASF member rules to apply to all PMC >> members.) > > Are you referring to ASF members here? PMC members themselves who > are not ASF members must be voted in by the IPMC to gain IPMC membership. > ASF members interested in IPMC membership need only notify the chair > of their intentions. I don't expect any of that to change with what > I'm proposing. > >> For committers (non-PMC members), I'd want an existing IPMC >> or PMC member nominate the person to the IPMC and require a 72hr lazy >> consensus, since IPMC members are expected to mentor and teach new >> podlings about the Apache way. > > I would expect a more formal process of consensus voting for IPMC > membership in the case of a podling committer, ie 3 +1's and no > vetoes. The vote would be held on priv...@incubator naturally. > Agree. > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
