Re: Podling rename, vote needed?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: ...As discussed during the Callback proposal phase [1], the podling community wasn't too certain about the Callback name and thus after some discussion they recently voted [2] on adopting the new name Apache Cordova. The vote and its result was mentioned in the December status report [3]. Now the question came up [4] about whether such a rename needs to be explicitly approved by a vote of the IPCM... The way you're handling it is perfectly fine IMO - the Incubator PMC is now officially informed of the change, if someone has a problem with the new name they can bring it up. No need for a formal vote IMO. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Podling rename, vote needed?
Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On a related matter, how is the rename being handled for the various incubator data files, web-pages, mailing lists etc.? We're still working on that, but I suppose we'll be leaving pointers from old callback locations to new cordova ones where appropriate. It may well be that we'll postpone some parts of the name change all the way to graduation, in case we can get there soon enough. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316359 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.8.0-incubating-candidate-0 Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-031/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.8.0-incubating/ MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I'm one of the main committers on Isis. I'm +1 on Mark's ideas here, and we have several ideas to better position Isis within the JEE landscape. Related to the discussion, we're working on our next release 0.2.0 which will also improve our website and marketing. We're also kicking off having at least 2 regular bloggers (myself and Kevin Meyer) putting out posts about Isis. As for Isis graduating, I feel it would be premature until we've demonstrated that we can recruit at least one new committer. But I also feel that's just a matter of time until we do that, nothing more. Dan On 9 January 2012 14:16, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: I'm actively mentoring Isis. With having bval out of incubation I will also find a bit more time to review the bits and pieces a bit better. Isis really has a pretty active community and we have quite some users coming along. It would maybe make sense to shift direction a bit from a pure NakedObjects framework to a more EE6 extensible framework. That might attract new interest. Being kind of a 4GL framework might not be that sexy nowadays, so we might spice this up with EE6 extensibility. Will discuss this with the project in the coming days. fwiw, I have LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: Sam, I started this separate thread because I view this situation as distinctive from the problem you are referring to here. I take that situation just as seriously as you do, I think. If you'd prefer that I drop this (less urgent) problem until that one is under control. I'm happy to do so. It is fair enough statement that not all of us need to work on what I happen to think is most urgent. This statement is true even if we might happen to agree on the relative priorities. I will merely point out that your suggestion is at least mildly at cross purposes to the issue that I want addressed. One of my concerns is that there are a number of podlings that are comfortably nestled in with no need to graduate. However, that is by no means my biggest concern, which is the silent attrition rate of mentors. In the case of Isis, I am fully prepared to accept that that podling has at least one active mentor. No, I'm not asking for a blank check. I'm asking you and the other more experienced people if you think that the idea of treating Isis-like podlings differently from other podlings by giving them more autonomy and less oversight makes any sense to you. If you all say, 'no, we don't want to change anything,' I'll drop it. If you say 'hmm, let's talk details,' then I'll attempt to flesh out details. However, since your bottom line is 'make a more concrete proposal,' then I will, but I will wait a bit to see if this thread attracts any other thoughts about the overall concept first. You previously mentioned that there might be incubator requirements that are burdensome on mentors. Identifying those and ways to address them are things that I could definitely support. Looking specifically at Isis, the last report[1] to the board contained: Top 3 Issues to address in move towards graduation * More blogging/publicity from existing community... * More users of the framework... * More committers to the framework The latter might be a concern. The first two however are not direct concerns. At most, they are indirect: i.e., ways to attract committers. Looking at the incubator page[2], I see more than three committers, and in fact four of them are ASF members. If at least one of these ASF members intends is willing to continue on the PMC, and the lack of committers were the only issue, then I would be comfortable with this podling graduating. - Sam Ruby [1] http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/board_minutes_2011_10_26.txt [2] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/isis.html - 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: Podling rename, vote needed?
On 10 January 2012 10:13, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On a related matter, how is the rename being handled for the various incubator data files, web-pages, mailing lists etc.? We're still working on that, but I suppose we'll be leaving pointers from old callback locations to new cordova ones where appropriate. It may well be that we'll postpone some parts of the name change all the way to graduation, in case we can get there soon enough. At the very least, please update the status page to document the name change. BR, Jukka Zitting - 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: Small but otherwise happy podlings
On Jan 8, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: Should smaller incubator projects be encouraged to graduate as sub-projects of existing projects or is that not an option anymore? Specifically, I was thinking about Amber, which might just work as a sub-project of Apache Shiro if they are too small to make it on their own. However, we (the Shiro PMC) haven't suggested this to them and they haven't contacted us. Since Jakarta, my understanding is that the incubator would rather see the projects graduating as TLPs, not sub-projects, is that correct? Assuming a healthy community, all we need are 3 PMC members (enough to be able to vote a patch and release). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote: ... And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned, it never happened. And Oracle's private conversations, and their decisions regarding OOo contrary to the community, were somehow acceptable? Acceptable to whom? Oracle owned the copyright on the code. LibreOffice is not the community for Oracle's codebase -- it is just the most public and successful of the earlier forks. Oracle made the choice of where they wanted to contribute their own code, long before they contacted the ASF. I am damn sure that we didn't have any significant private discussion with Oracle before their proposal was submitted to the incubator. IBM did, I presume, and maybe a few others acting as individuals, but not the ASF. As far as Apache is concerned, those private discussions didn't happen. The Apache work began with a public proposal, and it wasn't until then that Oracle could be said to have discussed it with the Apache community. Is the result acceptable to us? Yes. Acceptable to the LibreOffice community? Probably not, but it wasn't their's to contribute even if they had wanted to do so. Oracle was the only entity with the ability to relicense that code to the ASF. ... There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways. I believe the point was to settle the issue so that we don't have to deal with this situation again. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Chukwa 0.5.0 Release Candidate 3
On 10 January 2012 06:09, Eric Yang eric...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Chukwa 0.5.0 is ready for release. This will be the first incubator release for Chukwa. The source tarball artifact is available at: http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukwa-0.5.0-rc3/ Documents are available at: http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukwa-0.5.0-docs/ The SVN tag to be voted upon: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/chukwa/tags/chukwa-0.5.0-rc3/ NL files look OK to me now; thanks for fixing them. Chukwa's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukwa-0.5.0-rc3/KEYS Please download, evaluate, and vote on general@incubator. The PPMC vote thread is in progress at the same time as general@incubator. Changes since rc2: - Updated LICENSE and NOTICE files to reflect changes base on Sebb's examples. The vote will close at 12:30pm PST on Saturday January 14, 2012. Thanks regards, Eric - 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: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways. There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't read them all so am a little lost on whats going on, but http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BloodhoundProposal in the section on Initial Source says: The original Trac code base has been under development for more than 8 years, though development has become minimal over the past 2 years. We have sync'd the existing Trac repository, including history, and are using it as the basis for Bloodhound. Isn't that a fork? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote: The VOTE was based on misleading information. The Incubator PMC should declare it void and request a new proposal. The existing Bloodhound podling should be placed on hold until this is sorted out. What is the status of the Bloodhound proposal? Roy has asked for an updated proposal and re-vote, would that be acceptable? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating(RC7)
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Devin Han wrote: The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes (3 +1). Looks good to me, I'm +1 to the release (IPMC binding) Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Jan 10, 2012 9:30 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways. There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't read them all so am a little lost on whats going on, but http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BloodhoundProposal in the section on Initial Source says: Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list. Cheers, -g
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list For completeness, could you mention that in the proposal, and link to the relevant threads? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list For completeness, could you mention that in the proposal, and link to the relevant threads? I agree. The proposal sits out there where people are prone to read it. -Bertrand - 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: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:20, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list For completeness, could you mention that in the proposal, and link to the relevant threads? I agree. The proposal sits out there where people are prone to read it. Done: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BloodhoundProposal Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating(RC7)
Hi All, +1 from me too (binding): Sigs verified: [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ curl -O http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/odftoolkit/KEYS % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 100 2381 100 23810 0 28623 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ gpg --import KEYS gpg: directory `/home/mattmann/.gnupg' created gpg: new configuration file `/home/mattmann/.gnupg/gpg.conf' created gpg: WARNING: options in `/home/mattmann/.gnupg/gpg.conf' are not yet active during this run gpg: keyring `/home/mattmann/.gnupg/secring.gpg' created gpg: keyring `/home/mattmann/.gnupg/pubring.gpg' created gpg: /home/mattmann/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trustdb created gpg: key 56185A70: public key Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 (RSA: 1) [ [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ for file in `ls *.asc` do gpg --verify $file done gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:39 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:39 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:40 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:39 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:38 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Thu 22 Dec 2011 11:29:39 PM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Tue 27 Dec 2011 03:43:19 AM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Tue 27 Dec 2011 03:43:18 AM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 gpg: Signature made Tue 27 Dec 2011 03:43:19 AM PST using RSA key ID 56185A70 gpg: Good signature from Devin Han (Devin Han works at Apache ODF Toolkit) devin...@apache.org gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 28C5 B919 039F 605B 9787 1BEE 51B4 A56A 5618 5A70 [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ MD5s checkout: [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ for file in *.tar.gz *.zip; do md5sum $file allmd5s.txt; done [mattmann@snow odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7]$ md5sum -c allmd5s.txt odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-bin.tar.gz: OK odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-doc.tar.gz:
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On 1/10/2012 6:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote: There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways. I believe the point was to settle the issue so that we don't have to deal with this situation again. Roy That was the point of my choice of subject lines, yes ;-) It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening. I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion of the policy. The letter seems to be: Apache projects don't import and incorporate code without the owners' consent. License to use is not synonymous with consent to import. The spirit seems to be: It is terminally rude to try to form an Apache project by ripping up an existing community without its consent. Most of the Apache people commenting here seem to agree on these things. Most of the argument on this thread seems to have been about whether or not they apply to Bloodhound. Bloodhound notwithstanding, there's probably enough practical clarification here to put up on a page somewhere, with a link from the main policy page saying, For a discussion of the issues, click here. But perhaps I'm naive. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On 1/10/2012 2:20 PM, Donald Whytock wrote: I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion of the policy. The letter seems to be: Apache projects don't import and incorporate code without the owners' consent. License to use is not synonymous with consent to import. The spirit seems to be: It is terminally rude to try to form an Apache project by ripping up an existing community without its consent. Most of the Apache people commenting here seem to agree on these things. Most of the argument on this thread seems to have been about whether or not they apply to Bloodhound. Bloodhound notwithstanding, there's probably enough practical clarification here to put up on a page somewhere, with a link from the main policy page saying, For a discussion of the issues, click here. But perhaps I'm naive. No, that's exactly what I've interpreted. Perhaps it is a bit more nuanced; if there were two sets of 'copyright holders' who could no longer tolerate collaborating together, perhaps the ASF would raise the issue again. More likely, go off and work your project elsewhere and come to the ASF demonstrating you already operate with appropriate community dynamics (fork'ers being presumptively suspect of problematic community dynamics ;-) So A. above appears to be Almost never without agreement. And let there be one heck of a detailed justification in the exception case. It would be good for the board to issue an explicit policy to this effect. But the discussion was sufficient to move on. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Recommend graduating Apache Bean-Validation (BVAL) as a TLP
Folks, a big sorry, but I think we hit a road blocker because we need to rethink our project name. Bean Validation is just not ok as the spec is already named that way. The projects PMC will find another name and check it with trademark. Thanks again to sebb, jukka and all others for their input and guidance on lots of other points! And no worries, We'll be back, baby :) txs and LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Recommend graduating Apache Bean-Validation (BVAL) as a TLP Hi Jukka! Thanks for this very constructive post! I'm not a native english speaker, but even I understand the point with not using JSR-330 but a more 'descriptive' wording :) What about the following? WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to the Content Bean Validation Specification and its implementation as Apache BeanValidation and extensions for distribution at no charge to the public. Which leads me to another point which lets me think that we should cancel the vote and restart after we cleaned up the wording. The current proposal erroneous had Apache Bean Validation as project name. This is a failure as the projects name always have been Apache BeanValidation (without a space) or short Apache BVAL. I really like to change this in the proposal and restart the vote. Neither Bean Validation nor BeanValidation nor BVAL are trademarked yet, but Bean Validation (with space) might be hard to defend as trademark (as it's also the name of the spec itself [1]) WDYT? We should Cancel the vote and fix those issues, right? txs and LieGrue, strub [1] http://jcp.org/en/jsr/summary?id=303 - Original Message - From: Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com To: general general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Recommend graduating Apache Bean-Validation (BVAL) as a TLP Hi, +1 to graduate, with the following note: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software related to creating an implementation compliant with JSR-303 and a library of pre-developed validators and extensions for distribution at no charge to the public. As noted by others, the project scope could use some clarification. Also, rather than referring specifically to JSR-303, it would probably be better to refer to the Bean Validation API to avoid tying the project to a specific version of the API. For example the Apache Jackrabbit resolution [1] referred to the Content Repository for Java Technology API instead of JSR-170 which would by now (with JSR-283 and JSR-333 defining updated API versions) be outdated. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_03_15.txt BR, Jukka Zitting - 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: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening. I see no indication of this escalating into a board issue, so I don't see why the voices of directors should carry any more weight than those of other experienced members of our community. Or why they for some reason should agree more with each other than the rest of us do. Instead I'd find it odd if the directors came here with a common voice, implying that the board has already collectively decided what we should do. The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation to the IPMC. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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: Small but otherwise happy podlings
Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening. I see no indication of this escalating into a board issue, so I don't see why the voices of directors should carry any more weight than those of other experienced members of our community. Or why they for some reason should agree more with each other than the rest of us do. Instead I'd find it odd if the directors came here with a common voice, implying that the board has already collectively decided what we should do. The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation to the IPMC. The IPMC accepted this podling on terms that at least one director though were wrong. The fact that a subsequent discussion led to a better plan is good, but not quite the same. Greg both acquiesced in picking another plan while at the same time he did not retreat from the position that there is no set Foundation policy here. Roy takes a strong and continuing line that there is one. So I personally wish that the board put this on its agenda, and pass a resolution one way or another stating the board-level invariants. I'm sure that there will remain plenty of IPMC-level interpretation for evaluating particular situations. BR, Jukka Zitting - 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: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On 1/10/2012 4:04 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: Greg both acquiesced in picking another plan while at the same time he did not retreat from the position that there is no set Foundation policy here. Roy takes a strong and continuing line that there is one. So I personally wish that the board put this on its agenda, and pass a resolution one way or another stating the board-level invariants. I'm sure that there will remain plenty of IPMC-level interpretation for evaluating particular situations. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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 - 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: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On 1/10/2012 3:50 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation to the IPMC. Not if there is a foundation-wide policy, we aren't. The IPMC can no more violate our rules on accepting forks than it can accept GPL'ed projects, without the board revisiting policy. This is not G v. R arguing we should or shouldn't accept forks, this is G v. R arguing that a foundation-wide policy already exists. Let the board square it up. If the answer is 'depends', then you are right, incubator would have been the committee to weight those conditions. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me. On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
It's not about blame, it's about tangible, recorded demonstrations of oversight. As I said elsewhere we place no conditions on mentors when they sign up to mentor a podling, and I think that is part of the problem we face here. A podling will be able to report about a poor report from a mentor easily enough, we don't need to police each other all that much. We do need to start actively collaborating tho, and we can't do that without ensuring there's actual participation. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me. On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I'm not worried about a mentor that can't write a decent report. I want a podling that can write a decent report. I'm much more worried when the mentor can't prod the podling to write a report, and doesn't review it or sign it when they do. If the podling submits a poor report that is evidence enough that the mentors need a bit of education. Ralph On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: It's not about blame, it's about tangible, recorded demonstrations of oversight. As I said elsewhere we place no conditions on mentors when they sign up to mentor a podling, and I think that is part of the problem we face here. A podling will be able to report about a poor report from a mentor easily enough, we don't need to police each other all that much. We do need to start actively collaborating tho, and we can't do that without ensuring there's actual participation. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me. On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects are mostly relevant to the podling's progress towards graduation. Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever, and Tashi, which has been incubating since 2008, writes exclusively about technical issues and really says zilch about their progress towards graduation. IMO that project clearly is in dire need of guidance. What should we do, just pass that unsigned report along to the board and continue to ignore the podling? - Original Message - From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I'm not worried about a mentor that can't write a decent report. I want a podling that can write a decent report. I'm much more worried when the mentor can't prod the podling to write a report, and doesn't review it or sign it when they do. If the podling submits a poor report that is evidence enough that the mentors need a bit of education. Ralph On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: It's not about blame, it's about tangible, recorded demonstrations of oversight. As I said elsewhere we place no conditions on mentors when they sign up to mentor a podling, and I think that is part of the problem we face here. A podling will be able to report about a poor report from a mentor easily enough, we don't need to police each other all that much. We do need to start actively collaborating tho, and we can't do that without ensuring there's actual participation. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me. On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
On 9 January 2012 23:52, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316359 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.8.0-incubating-candidate-0 Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-031/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.8.0-incubating/ NOTICE says: Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation If you have made any substantial changes this year, surely that ought to be changed? MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official. - 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: Small but otherwise happy podlings
UNSIGNED JANUARY REPORTS: Bloodhound Callback Celix Chukwa Deft HISE JSPWiki Kato Kitty Mesos Openmeetings Tashi VXQuery - Original Message - From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects are mostly relevant to the podling's progress towards graduation. Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever, and Tashi, which has been incubating since 2008, writes exclusively about technical issues and really says zilch about their progress towards graduation. IMO that project clearly is in dire need of guidance. What should we do, just pass that unsigned report along to the board and continue to ignore the podling? - Original Message - From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:43 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I'm not worried about a mentor that can't write a decent report. I want a podling that can write a decent report. I'm much more worried when the mentor can't prod the podling to write a report, and doesn't review it or sign it when they do. If the podling submits a poor report that is evidence enough that the mentors need a bit of education. Ralph On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: It's not about blame, it's about tangible, recorded demonstrations of oversight. As I said elsewhere we place no conditions on mentors when they sign up to mentor a podling, and I think that is part of the problem we face here. A podling will be able to report about a poor report from a mentor easily enough, we don't need to police each other all that much. We do need to start actively collaborating tho, and we can't do that without ensuring there's actual participation. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:21 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I see your point. I still think that if you read a bad report it does not matter who wrote it, in the end you can still blame the mentors because it's their responsibility. Who wrote it is not that relevant to me. On Jan 10, 2012, at 23:10 , Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing is there is no way to tell whether or not a mentor is even CAPABLE of writing a status report for a podling if the podling is immediately tasked with doing so themselves. We are in the boat we are in now because we have for too long assumed any member who offered to mentor a podling was ready, able, and willing to do a decent job of it. Without putting any feedback loops into the system for determining whether mentors are performing their job well we will never be able to move to a system that's both providing proper oversight organizationally and distributing trust to the mentors who are providing it. - Original Message - From: Marcel Offermans marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings Whilst I agree there is value in demonstrating a starting podling what a good report should look like by doing it for them, I also strongly believe in learning by doing, so I would still propose that a podling has a go at it themselves, before having a mentor step in. In the end, this is also a question of mentoring style and I think we should leave that up to the mentors and podlings. A mentor should be actively involved in the discussion about the report though, ensuring that the end result is good. Greetings, Marcel On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:52 , Joe Schaefer wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc:
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
Hi Sebb, There have indeed been some changes. This is something that IMHO can be updated on the next release. I've filed a JIRA issue to track it. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-52 And will fix it. Cheers, Chris On Jan 10, 2012, at 6:06 PM, sebb wrote: On 9 January 2012 23:52, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: This is an incubator release for Apache MRUnit, version 0.8.0-incubating. It fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311292version=12316359 *** Please download, test and vote by [3 working days after sending]. Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for convenience. Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~brock/mrunit-0.8.0-incubating-candidate-0 Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrunit-031/ The tag to be voted upon: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.8.0-incubating/ NOTICE says: Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation If you have made any substantial changes this year, surely that ought to be changed? MRUnit's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/dist/KEYS Note that the Incubator PMC needs to vote upon the release after a successful PPMC vote before any release can be made official. - 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 ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
I like Joe's suggestion of having Mentors writing a report. But I would like the PPMC get some experience as well, since once they graduate they are tossed into the fire of producing real board reports on their own. Possible extension of Joe's suggestion; The PPMC produce the Board report as if they were a top level project. Mentor produce separately the road map to graduation report, covering what has been done, what is going on right now and what is left to do. IPMC will quickly see AWOL Mentors and which podlings need help, without taking away the training of the PPMC... Cheers Niclas On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't know about you, but in the podlings I mentor I am subscribed to most if not all of the mailing lists and try to read the bulk of it all. I could easily write status reports for them if it was my responsibility to do so, and for the initial 6 months would prefer that mentors showed their podlings and their fellow mentors what can be done with a properreport before passing that duty along to the PPMC. - Original Message - From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings I like the idea of mentors being expected to signoff on the wiki just to show that they are paying attention, but i also agree that it might be useful to have along with the poddling reports to have comments from the mentors. So how about doing both? Just extend the mentor signoff section to include comments so a poddling report is the poddling comments, mentor comments about whats going on and what they'd like to see the poddling doing in the next months and a signoff from all active mentors. Or Joe are you saying that we should scrap the poddling comments bit entirely? I think its useful to get a quick overview of whats going on and it gets them used to the TLP board report requirement. ...ant On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Lame. I would actually like to see mentors WRITING the reports at least for the first 6 months to a year, then going to sign-off on the wiki. - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings On 1/9/2012 11:40 AM, Upayavira wrote: Regarding attrition of mentors, it was discussed having mentors 'sign' the board report for their podling. Could that be encouraged, and used as a sign of minimum 'activity' for a mentor? How about simply sign off on podling-dev@? Even if it is Thanks for drafting this! No edits from me. - 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 -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: On Etch status
+1 to graduate. This is a project in a fierce space as Martijn noted, and I think incubating is hampering its attractiveness. It will become a swim or sink challenge as TLP, but doubt the forecast is any better of staying here. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: Etch is a cross-platform, language- and transport-independent framework for building and consuming network services. The Etch toolset includes a network service description language, a compiler, and binding libraries for a variety of programming languages. It currently supports C, C# and Java. Support for Go, JavaScript and Python is deemed alpha status. Etch has 4 mentors listed: Yonik, Doug, Niclas and myself. Currently it seems I am the only mentor active. The facts: - We have roughly 4 active contributors: 3 committers and 1 person responding to messages on the dev/user lists. - We know how to add committers: the 3 currently active committers were all not part of the team when incubation started. One of them was voted in in the last half year. - The community is diverse, or as diverse you can get in a 4 person group. - We know how to cut releases. - Reporting has been on schedule. The podling is IMO ready to graduate, but lacks a sustainable community (as noted elsewhere). The podling started out as a project of Cisco, and had an active group of committers, but when the economy happened, the team was disbanded and effectively left the podling stranded. When I think of the reasons why people are reluctant to join Etch, I think that: - being in incubation hinders adoption of the code base - its use is not advertised well (e.g. BMW uses it in their Minis) - competition in the networking library space is fierce (though not too many libs exist) The project can address 2, 3 is something external and the IPMC can address 1. Now the big question: is Etch a candidate for graduating to TLP? I think it is, given the facts. It will be a TLP with issues of activity, but so far user questions, development questions are answered and releases are cut. The website has been updated recently, so I don't see an immediate danger of the project going south. I think that graduation of the podling will be a good thing and might give the project a bit of renewed energy. So... What to do? Looking at commits in the last three months shows only two active committers [1] extending that to six months shows three committers and looking in the mail archives i see that extra committer has emailed the dev list last month so is still around. So i think it could be argued that there are three active committers and assuming they're independent of each other then technically that meets that aspect of the minimum graduation requirements. Seems like a borderline case but there are other existing TLPs with few active committers. I did a bit of digging about in the project and i guess my gut feel would be if the mentors are recommending graduation is the best thing for them now and are going to be helping out by being on the PMC then i'd vote +1 for graduation too. ..ant [1] http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?from=20111001path=%2Fincubator%2Fetch - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 22:59, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ... This sounds more and more like an example of Fascination of the Apache brand, as a lever for commercial interest. I agree with Roy that this is bad taste, and I wish WANdisco simply makes a commercial derivative, OR even a commercially backed, open source licensed derivative on GitHub, which may build traction with a larger community and we can discuss it again... To understand why WANdisco wants Bloodhound to be an Apache project, rather than their own, please read their CEO's message: https://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev/msg/5bc628afdd5a4ff3 They approach some things wrong, but I agree with David's sentiment in that message: the ASF is the best way to create a long-lived, healthy, and vendor-neutral project. There is a strong assumption that a community will evolve around Apache Bloodhound, and that is what the Incubator is for. Most podlings arrive with the hope and assumption that a community is out there, just waiting to be discovered. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
On Jan 11, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: UNSIGNED JANUARY REPORTS: Celix Celix is late reporting this month because of holidays. A report is being worked on, written by the PPMC and actively monitored by me. You can expect it later today. Greetings, Marcel
