Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012, at 22:35, Luciano Resende wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. > wrote: > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org] > >>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM > >>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer > >>Subject: 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... > > > > From my perspective as a podling PPMC member, I disagree with this > > approach. From what I have learned, it is the Incubator's > > responsibility to develop a self-sustaining community. IMO, any > > viable community should be responsible for managing their own > > destiny. Mentors should prod, poke, suggest, influence, coach and > > verify everything the podling does, but the PPMC should be > > responsible for developing and reporting out a graduation roadmap. > > > > +1, The mentor should help, but producing the actual report should be > a Community/PPMC responsibility. I was thinking about this differently: mentors be responsible for ensuring IPMC has a complete picture, but normally the PPMC members write the reports. (Not unlike how, in a PMC, any PMC member might write the report but it's the Chair's responsibility to ensure it is complete and accurate.) > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > - > 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: Improviing quarterly reports
On 1/11/2012 11:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 00:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever >> >> This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the >> requirement, such as closing down commit access until reports are posted? I >> don't have an issue with saying that a project that does not report by the >> assigned cut-off date has its commit access turned off until the report is >> posted. Or, perhaps to give weight to your view that Mentors need to be >> more involved, until after it is signed off by a Mentor? > > Is sending (satisfactory) reports to the IPMC the responsibility of the > mentors or of the PPMC? The project. Which means, the PPMC collectively, including its mentors. Optimally the mentors lead the first few times to an incoming community who isn't familiar with our reporting goals. They can pick it up from there. The goal of incubation is for the PPMC to (gradually) assume all of the tasks that a TLP is responsible for. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: January 2012 Incubator Board Report
On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:39 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >> - >> >> Any23 >> > ... >> Yes, all of the code has been ported from Google Code to the ASF. >> Thanks to Daniel Shahaf and Michele Mostarda for leading the >> charge here. > > To clarify: I'm not a member of the Any23 community; I only participated > here as a member of Infra. We appreciate your help and I still am happy that I gave you credit in the report regardless. Cheers, Chris ++ 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: January 2012 Incubator Board Report
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 01:09, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Below are podling reports. Sam Ruby has already reviewed the original list > prior to posting, and requested that specific posts not be provided to the > Board, as he was unhappy with their status: > > Kato: has been in limbo for years due to Oracle. The podling needs to > decide what to do, or terminate > Bloodhound, HISE, JSPWiki and Openmeetings: missing > VXQuery: not signed off by a Mentor > Perhaps to state the obvious, but: Mentors and PPMCers of the above projects, please relay the above to your dev lists. > - > > Any23 > ... > Yes, all of the code has been ported from Google Code to the ASF. > Thanks to Daniel Shahaf and Michele Mostarda for leading the > charge here. To clarify: I'm not a member of the Any23 community; I only participated here as a member of Infra. - 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 Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>-Original Message- >>From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org] >>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM >>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer >>Subject: 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... > > From my perspective as a podling PPMC member, I disagree with this approach. > From what I have learned, it is the Incubator's responsibility to develop a > self-sustaining community. IMO, any viable community should be responsible > for managing their own destiny. Mentors should prod, poke, suggest, > influence, coach and verify everything the podling does, but the PPMC should > be responsible for developing and reporting out a graduation roadmap. +1, The mentor should help, but producing the actual report should be a Community/PPMC responsibility. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
January 2012 Incubator Board Report
A number of substantive issues came up during the past month. First, and although it was raised on the private list and therefore details won't be part of the public report, we advise the Board that there is substantial discussion regarding changing the Incubator VP, which has been held for almost 8 years by the current VP. Second, there is a dispute, both in the abstract and concretely, regarding whether or not the ASF, via the Incubator, may play host to a community that has forked a compatibly licensed codebase. Roy suggested that, in the specific case: > 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. Greg has said, more recently, that "the Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list." If that comes to pass, perhaps no further attention from the PMC and Board will be required on this issue. If not, we'll have to revisit the specific case. However, Bill Rowe has requested that the Incubator PMC formally put the general matter to the Board: what policy do or should we have regarding a community that wishes to fork a suitably licensed codebase and come to the ASF? If so, what is that policy? Or is that decision still a matter to be determined situationally by the Incubator PMC? For whatever it is worth, the latter is the opinion of the Incubator VP, who recalls that more than one successful ASF project started elsewhere and came to the ASF as a fork, and not without some complaint from members of the outside community (e.g., Apache Felix). Third, there was a lot of discussion surrounding a couple of Incubator issues: 1) podlings being comfortably settled in the Incubator, and not being focused enough on graduation; 2) Mentors being insufficiently active, and thus not providing either proper guidance or oversight. We definitely need to address these issues, promoting both Mentor involvement and graduation from the Incubator. And, finally, Jukka spent time reviewing the status of many of the older podlings, and recommending an action. Perhaps not coincidentally, ACE, Gora and Bean Validation Framework are all in graduation mode. But, meanwhile, Bloodhound (the podling previously mentioned), DeviceMap and Flex have joined. Below are podling reports. Sam Ruby has already reviewed the original list prior to posting, and requested that specific posts not be provided to the Board, as he was unhappy with their status: Kato: has been in limbo for years due to Oracle. The podling needs to decide what to do, or terminate Bloodhound, HISE, JSPWiki and Openmeetings: missing VXQuery: not signed off by a Mentor Although initially requested to be excluded, the Celix and Tashi reports were revised to provide at least some graduation guidance, and so their reports are included, below. - Any23 Any23 is defined as a Java library, a Web service and a set of command line tools to extract and validate structured data in RDF format from a variety of Web documents and markup formats. Any23 is what it is informally named an RDF Distiller. A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation 1. Port Any23 code to ASF infrastructure and update license headers 2. Develop a strong community with organizational diversity and with strong connections to other relevant ASF communities. 3. At least one Any23 incubating release Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC), Tika PMC, or ASF Board wish/need to be aware of? Yes, all of the code has been ported from Google Code to the ASF. Thanks to Daniel Shahaf and Michele Mostarda for leading the charge here. How has the community developed since the last report? All ASF karma has been granted on the repository, and we've received a few JIRA issues, but not from outside the core set of PPMC members as of yet. The team needs to respond to Paolo Castagna's points regarding RDF frameworks and collaboration, and will hopefully do so this month. How has the project developed since the last report? Any23 was voted into the Incubator by the IPMC on October 1, 2011. We have Jenkins CI builds going thanks to Lewis John McGibbney, code up and running at the ASF thanks to Michele and to Daniel, so we're all set to really get kicking! Celix Celix is an implementation of the OSGi Specification in C. Celix entered incubation on November 2, 2010. Over the last few months lots of work has been put into integrating APR and updating the Celix code base to the proposed code style. This code style has partially been documented on [1]. Also some effort has been put into updating the source for Visual Studio, even though not yet finished some interesting and helpful patches where submitted and applied. In Oktober a
Re: Improviing quarterly reports
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 00:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Joe Schaefer wrote: > > Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever > > This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the > requirement, such as closing down commit access until reports are posted? I > don't have an issue with saying that a project that does not report by the > assigned cut-off date has its commit access turned off until the report is > posted. Or, perhaps to give weight to your view that Mentors need to be > more involved, until after it is signed off by a Mentor? Is sending (satisfactory) reports to the IPMC the responsibility of the mentors or of the PPMC? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Improviing quarterly reports
Joe Schaefer wrote: > Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract Good idea. Lets be more specific, and put together something actionable. > Now lets look at the remainder- several projects with no report whatsoever This has been an issue. Perhaps we need to put some teeth in the requirement, such as closing down commit access until reports are posted? I don't have an issue with saying that a project that does not report by the assigned cut-off date has its commit access turned off until the report is posted. Or, perhaps to give weight to your view that Mentors need to be more involved, until after it is signed off by a Mentor? > Tashi, which has been incubating since 2008, writes exclusively about > technical issues and really says zilch about their progress towards > graduation. We've repeatedly asked projects to focus on their graduation requirements. What can we do to help push them in the right direction? --- Noel - 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
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are accepting the COMMUNITY. > One company is not a community. As you've otherwise acknowledged, I was talking in the general case, and you're addressing a specific instance. > > And it seems to me that if we are to say that a COMMUNITZY is not permitted > > to participate despite use of code that is perfectly proper according to the > > license, then we are beggaring out own license, the whole point of which is > > to permit forks, and to prevent a sole copyright holder from assuming control > > over the community. > If there is no community for the original codebase, yes. Agreed. > If there is a community and that community doesn't want Apache to fork the code that they created, > then we will not fork that code at Apache. Why not, *IF* there is an active second community that wants to fork? Again, in the hypothetical, not in the specific, case, which you say is a single vendor, not a community. > If the original developers of the code do not want their license changed, then we > will not fork the code at Apache. I kind of take that as a given, since how could we fork it if we can't relicense it? > We only accept voluntary contributions The presence of a community that wants to work here implies voluntary, and not everyone has to agree with the fork. Don't you remember the origins of Apache Felix? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating-RC7
Yes, congratulations! On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Devin Han wrote: > Hi all, > > The Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating RC7 ballot has ended. We have > received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 4 PPMC +1 votes) > during the release voting on dev and general. The vote passed! > > Results: > > From IPMC members: > name apache id > +1 Yegor Kozlov(mentor) yegor > +1 Nick Burch(mentor) nick > +1 Chris Mattmann mattmann > +1 Christian Grobmeier grobmeier > > From PPMC members: > name apache id > +1 Ying Chung Guo daisyguo > +1 Biao Handevinhan > +1 Rob Weirrobweir > +1 Svante Schubert svanteschubert > > Other votes: > name > apache id > (abstain non-binding [;<) Dennis E. Hamiltonorcmid > > We will work on releasing ODF Toolkit 0.5. Thank you everyone who worked in > this > release ! > > -- > -Devin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
> Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at > least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report > that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. To be clear, *I* read every word of every Board report that we send on. I don't take issue with whatever else you wrote. I even accept that I might well be the only person who reads the whole report. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating-RC7
Hi all, The Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating RC7 ballot has ended. We have received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 4 PPMC +1 votes) during the release voting on dev and general. The vote passed! Results: >From IPMC members: name apache id +1 Yegor Kozlov(mentor) yegor +1 Nick Burch(mentor) nick +1 Chris Mattmann mattmann +1 Christian Grobmeier grobmeier >From PPMC members: name apache id +1 Ying Chung Guo daisyguo +1 Biao Handevinhan +1 Rob Weirrobweir +1 Svante Schubert svanteschubert Other votes: name apache id (abstain non-binding [;<) Dennis E. Hamiltonorcmid We will work on releasing ODF Toolkit 0.5. Thank you everyone who worked in this release ! -- -Devin
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating(RC7)
Hi, With 3 binding IPMC votes, this vote has passed. The following IPMC members voted with a +1 on this release Nick Burch Chris Mattmann Christian Grobmeier We will work on releasing ODF Toolkit 0.5. Thank you everyone who worked in this release ! Thanks, Devin
Mentor needed for ManifoldCF (Was: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2)
Hi, On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more... ... which highlights the fact that we need one more mentor for the project. Tommaso and I are currently more or less actively mentoring the project, while Gianugo doesn't seem to have enough spare cycles. Thus one extra pair of eyes would be great. The project itself is on a pretty good track. They've done a great work navigating some trickier licensing issues, and the community is following the Apache Way. The main trouble so far has been that the development efforts were for a long while carried almost single-handedly by Karl Wright, who's still by far the most active committer. But this diversity issue has recently been quickly solving itself with new committers becoming more active and new contributors showing up with patches. At this rate I believe the project should be ready to graduate within months. Extra mentor help would be appreciated not just in reviewing releases but also in helping make the transition to a more diverse community as smooth as possible (see the private list for a recent discussion on a related topic). Anyone ready to volunteer? BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: > > The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were > going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up > with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the > Celix list as well. Excellent! > However, due to some vacations, that discussion has started attracting > responses only this week. So it's just a timing issue, the community is aware > and dealing with it. This board report just came a bit too soon. Understandable. Note: I'm a mentor of JSPWiki. I, too, kicked off some discussions there that are only now starting to produce results. Note that I included JSPWiki in the list of projects who should be asked to report again next month. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:11 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: >> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over >>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: >>> >>> Celix >> >> A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's >> report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan >> until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next >> month? WDYT? > > That's exactly what Sam is describing. Pull the incomplete report (Noel > could choose to do so) and submit a more comprehensive report next month. > No harm no foul. Ok, so I will: a) wait to see if Noel pulls this months report completely; b) either report next month or when the next report is due in three months. The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the Celix list as well. However, due to some vacations, that discussion has started attracting responses only this week. So it's just a timing issue, the community is aware and dealing with it. This board report just came a bit too soon. Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans > wrote: >> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over >>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: >>> >>> Celix >> >> A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's >> report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan >> until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next >> month? WDYT? > > I'm participating here as an Incubator PMC member. If the Incubator > portion of the Incbator report states that it was the lack of a crisp > plan for graduation was noted and discussed and will be addressed in > the next quarterly report, then I will gladly withdraw my -1 on this > report. Good point, I will explicitly add that so the board knows that a plan is being discussed, it was just not ready for inclusion in this report yet. Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: > On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over >> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: >> >> Celix > > A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's > report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan > until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next > month? WDYT? That's exactly what Sam is describing. Pull the incomplete report (Noel could choose to do so) and submit a more comprehensive report next month. No harm no foul. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: > On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over >> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: >> >> Celix > > A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's > report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan > until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next > month? WDYT? I'm participating here as an Incubator PMC member. If the Incubator portion of the Incbator report states that it was the lack of a crisp plan for graduation was noted and discussed and will be addressed in the next quarterly report, then I will gladly withdraw my -1 on this report. > Greetings, Marcel - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
As with most things in life, things need a kick from time to time. What about collecting a nice list of 'what's the monthly report thingy about' which explains that it's not just filed unread but is pretty important. Plus again explain what information the board likes to get and that it's not only a technical report but should also reflect the state of the respective projects community. And then send this nice little letter to PMCs@a.o LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Sam Ruby > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:55 AM > Subject: Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy > podlings) > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith > wrote: >> Hi, >> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the > incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was > nothing > going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave > Benson to clarify. > > Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 > Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board > monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at > least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that > this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. > > A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or > another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask > that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme > cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. > >> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience > as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the > other soon. > > If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no > question, they both have my vote on that question. > > If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and > paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with > little or no change, then I strongly object. > > If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to > actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very > minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually > happening, or something new is being attempted, or something > unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic > and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. > >> Regards, >> Stuart > > - Sam Ruby > > P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful > discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I > encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who > agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be > better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading > them. > >> On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby > wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair > can't > review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some > other > people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So > it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most > egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from > this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been > established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been > established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been > established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been > established. >>> >>> I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, > and >>> we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think > they're >>> close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats >>> what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if >>> they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed >>> out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not >>> doing very much in the meantime? >>> >>> ...ant >>> >>> -
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote: >> Hi, >> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the >> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was >> nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll >> leave Benson to clarify. > > Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 > Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board > monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at > least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that > this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. Sam, This is the last response I'm going to send into any thread on this topic, since I despair of ever writing anything that you don't interpret as some sort of a faux pas. The most recent message that bothered you was, really, just a paraphrase of email from Bertrand from some time ago. Why you thought that my remark about IPMC members reading podling reports as some sort of comment on the behavior of board members is, honestly, a mystery to me. Not, let me add, a mystery that I have any enthusiasm for unravelling. It is tempting for me to again summarize the discussion between (at least) Joe, Bertrand, and (quite minimally) me, but it seems a waste of electrons. I am going to concentrate on the podlings that I'm responsible for, and when their number declines slightly I'll turn up and endeavor to be helpful with others. This discussion has plenty of opinion to go around without mine, and I regret joining it, let alone trying to start a thread discussing something else. --benson > > A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or > another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask > that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme > cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. > >> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as >> mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the >> other soon. > > If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no > question, they both have my vote on that question. > > If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and > paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with > little or no change, then I strongly object. > > If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to > actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very > minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually > happening, or something new is being attempted, or something > unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic > and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. > >> Regards, >> Stuart > > - Sam Ruby > > P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful > discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I > encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who > agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be > better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading > them. > >> On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't > review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other > people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> >>> I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and >>> we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're >>> close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats >>> what
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over > a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: > > Celix A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's report. I would kindly like to ask the board to accept delaying that plan until the next report. If that is too long, we can report about it next month? WDYT? Greetings, Marcel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote: > Hi, > Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the > incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was > nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll > leave Benson to clarify. Uh, oh, what have I done now? I don't even know which project this is referring to. It is certainly true that one -1 vote on one report does not boot a podling out of the incubator, that's for sure. I'd imagine that the appropriate response is to come up with an appropriate report. Shutting down the podling would be an *eventual* response to a problematic report or to complete silence in response to a request for one. > > I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as > mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the > other soon. > > Regards, > Stuart > > > On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies >>> wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. >>> >>> This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it >>> is no change in workload to me to push this work down. >>> >>> Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the >>> board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: >>> >>> -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this >>> podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html >>> >>> Key excerpts: >>> Kato: >>> Jan 2012 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> Sept 2011 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> June 2011 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> March 2011 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> Dec 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> Sep 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> June 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> >> >> I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and >> we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're >> close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats >> what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if >> they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed >> out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not >> doing very much in the meantime? >> >> ...ant >> >> - >> 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote: > Hi, > Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the > incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was > nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll > leave Benson to clarify. Contrary to how things work here in the Incubator, at least 6 Directors read each and every report that is forwarded to the Board monthly. Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated. A number of times a year the board rejects a report for one reason or another. In each case, we do not kick the project out, we simply ask that a corrected report be submitted the next month. In extreme cases, we as a project to go back to a monthly reporting schedule. > I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as > mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the > other soon. If the question is whether Robert and Ant are good guys, there is no question, they both have my vote on that question. If the question is whether or not a podling can essentially copy and paste the same report quarter after quarter, year after year, with little or no change, then I strongly object. If you believe that unlike previous quarters, there is some reason to actually believe that things will be clearing up shortly, at a very minimum, put THAT in the report. Show that something is actually happening, or something new is being attempted, or something unexpected came up. Anything other than repeating the same optimistic and apparently unrealistic content over and over again. > Regards, > Stuart - Sam Ruby P.S. I will state that we already have had a more meaningful discussion on this topic than has been typical for the incubator. I encourage others to participate in this discussion. Both people who agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading them. > On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies >>> wrote: And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. >>> >>> This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it >>> is no change in workload to me to push this work down. >>> >>> Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the >>> board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: >>> >>> -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this >>> podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html >>> >>> Key excerpts: >>> Kato: >>> Jan 2012 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> Sept 2011 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> June 2011 >>> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>> March 2011 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> Dec 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> Sep 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> June 2010 >>> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>> >> >> I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and >> we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're >> close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats >> what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if >> they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed >> out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not >> doing very much in the meantime? >> >> ...ant >> >> - >> 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Hi, Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave Benson to clarify. I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the other soon. Regards, Stuart On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies >> wrote: >>> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't >>> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other >>> people have to step up to help. >> >> This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it >> is no change in workload to me to push this work down. >> >> Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the >> board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: >> >> -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this >> podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html >> >> Key excerpts: >> Kato: >>Jan 2012 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>Sept 2011 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>June 2011 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >>March 2011 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>Dec 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>Sep 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >>June 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >> > > I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and > we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're > close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats > what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if > they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed > out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not > doing very much in the meantime? > > ...ant > > - > 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: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Re: Cordova was completely my fault. I think after writing it and getting some quick consensus/approval my brain mistakenly filed it as done. Won't happen again! On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Thank you Sam. > > Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by > a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in > plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to > your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Mentors on top > of things. > > Re OpenMeetings - mentors absent (I am one of them, busy dayjob month for > me, must do better) > > Ross > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Jan 11, 2012 10:50 PM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies >> wrote: >> > And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't >> > review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other >> > people have to step up to help. >> >> This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it >> is no change in workload to me to push this work down. >> >> Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the >> board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: >> >> -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this >> podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html >> >> Key excerpts: >> Kato: >> Jan 2012 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >> Sept 2011 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >> June 2011 >> * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >> March 2011 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >> Dec 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >> Sep 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >> June 2010 >> * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >> >> -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: >> >> Bloodhound >> Callback/Cordova >> HISE >> JSPWiki >> Openmeetings >> >> -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a >> Mentor: >> >> VXQuery >> >> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over >> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: >> >> Celix >> Tashi >> >> For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: >> >> Approve for forwarding to the board: >> >> Any23 >> Chuckwa >> Deft >> DeltaSpike >> DirectMemory >> EasyAnt >> Empire-DB >> Flex >> Giraph >> Kafka >> Kitty >> Lucy >> Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) >> ODFToolkit >> Oozie >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> - >> 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:-1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
Thank you Sam. Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Mentors on top of things. Re OpenMeetings - mentors absent (I am one of them, busy dayjob month for me, must do better) Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 11, 2012 10:50 PM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: > > And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't > > review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other > > people have to step up to help. > > This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it > is no change in workload to me to push this work down. > > Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the > board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: > > -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this > podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html > > Key excerpts: > Kato: >Jan 2012 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >Sept 2011 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >June 2011 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. >March 2011 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >Dec 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >Sep 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. >June 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. > > -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: > > Bloodhound > Callback/Cordova > HISE > JSPWiki > Openmeetings > > -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a > Mentor: > > VXQuery > > -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over > a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: > > Celix > Tashi > > For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: > > Approve for forwarding to the board: > > Any23 > Chuckwa > Deft > DeltaSpike > DirectMemory > EasyAnt > Empire-DB > Flex > Giraph > Kafka > Kitty > Lucy > Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) > ODFToolkit > Oozie > > - Sam Ruby > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't >> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other >> people have to step up to help. > > This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it > is no change in workload to me to push this work down. > > Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the > board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: > > -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this > podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html > > Key excerpts: > Kato: > Jan 2012 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. > Sept 2011 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. > June 2011 > * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. > March 2011 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. > Dec 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. > Sep 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. > June 2010 > * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. > I'm a mentor for Kato, and there is another mentor who is active, and we talk to them regularly about deciding what to do. I think they're close to deciding to retire the poddling and i think its likley thats what they'll be saying come their next report. I think its good if they can come to that decision by themselves rather than be pushed out, is it really causing any trouble to have them sitting there not doing very much in the meantime? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't > review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other > people have to step up to help. This Board member reads each and every one of them every month. So it is no change in workload to me to push this work down. Instead of talking about this abstractly, -1 on forwarding to the board the following reports. I'll start with the most egregious one: -1 on forwarding on the Kato report. Here are prior reports from this podling: https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Kato.html Key excerpts: Kato: Jan 2012 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. Sept 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. June 2011 * Decide in what form the podling should continue, if at all. March 2011 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Dec 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. Sep 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. June 2010 * To be determined once Oracle's involvement has been established. -1 on forwarding on the following reports as they are Missing: Bloodhound Callback/Cordova HISE JSPWiki Openmeetings -1 on forwarding on the following report as it was not signed off by a Mentor: VXQuery -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation: Celix Tashi For completeness, +1 on submitting the following reports: Approve for forwarding to the board: Any23 Chuckwa Deft DeltaSpike DirectMemory EasyAnt Empire-DB Flex Giraph Kafka Kitty Lucy Mesos (borderline, but planning a release is good) ODFToolkit Oozie - Sam Ruby - 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 read them. I'm also in favor of Daniel's suggestion to have a smaller, trimmer IPMC. Me and Christian suggested that as well I believe or at least I did (although my small number was something like "30") or something, but that's a heck of a lot less than we have now on the IPMC. Cheers, Chris On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Ross Gardler wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 20:33:22 +: >> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >> On Jan 11, 2012 7:59 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote: >>> >>> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now >>> without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a >>> problem here is the sad part of the state of the incubator. >> >> We have a problem. We put the sign-of in place to identify which projects >> are affected by the problem. If the IPMC is accepting reports that are not >> signed off that is a different problem. > > Does anyone on the IPMC read podling reports? Or do only board members > read them? > > - > 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
And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other people have to step up to help. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, ant elder wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now >>> without any changes taking place. >> >> What changes would you like to see? > > I would like to see the Incubator bounce back the reports instead of > lamely forwarding them onto the board. > > - Sam Ruby > > - > 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 Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, ant elder wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now >> without any changes taking place. > > What changes would you like to see? I would like to see the Incubator bounce back the reports instead of lamely forwarding them onto the board. - Sam Ruby - 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
+1 (binding) Checksum and signature match, verifications from previous RCs hold b/c only NOTICE and LICENSE have changed. -C On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Eric Yang 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/ > > 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
Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now > without any changes taking place. What changes would you like to see? Even if we did require all mentors to sign the reports to indicate they're still alive some wont for what ever reasons - how will we notice they've not and what would we do about it? Lets say we sack them right away, that might get more mentors signing the reports more often in the future but would they be actually be being better mentors day to day? Do we even know that there is a widespread problem with AWOL mentors? ...ant - 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
Ross Gardler wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 20:33:22 +: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Jan 11, 2012 7:59 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote: > > > > It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now > > without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a > > problem here is the sad part of the state of the incubator. > > We have a problem. We put the sign-of in place to identify which projects > are affected by the problem. If the IPMC is accepting reports that are not > signed off that is a different problem. Does anyone on the IPMC read podling reports? Or do only board members read them? - 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
+1 On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:07 AM, sebb wrote: > On 10 January 2012 06:09, Eric Yang 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/ > > N&L 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 > - 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
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 11, 2012 7:59 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote: > > It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now > without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a > problem here is the sad part of the state of the incubator. We have a problem. We put the sign-of in place to identify which projects are affected by the problem. If the IPMC is accepting reports that are not signed off that is a different problem. Ross > > > > - Original Message - > > From: ant elder > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:55 PM > > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Joe Schaefer > > wrote: > >> I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum > >> devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do > >> a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports > >> on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's > >> committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have > >> repeatedly requested they do so. > >> > >> There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current > > month's > >> reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have > >> had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports > >> are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. > > Period. > >> > > > > Joe I don't actually disagree with you that a sometimes some mentors > > don't do much but just earlier in this thread we were talking about > > requiring mentors sign off on the reports didn't you described that as > > "lame"? > > > >...ant > > > > - > > 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
It IS lame because we've been beating that dead horse for over a year now without any changes taking place. That some of you doubt we even have a problem here is the sad part of the state of the incubator. - Original Message - > From: ant elder > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Joe Schaefer > wrote: >> I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum >> devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do >> a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports >> on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's >> committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have >> repeatedly requested they do so. >> >> There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current > month's >> reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have >> had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports >> are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. > Period. >> > > Joe I don't actually disagree with you that a sometimes some mentors > don't do much but just earlier in this thread we were talking about > requiring mentors sign off on the reports didn't you described that as > "lame"? > > ...ant > > - > 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 Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum > devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do > a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports > on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's > committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have > repeatedly requested they do so. > > There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current month's > reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have > had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports > are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. Period. > Joe I don't actually disagree with you that a sometimes some mentors don't do much but just earlier in this thread we were talking about requiring mentors sign off on the reports didn't you described that as "lame"? ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-sharepoint-3.0-plugin 0.1-incubating
One more binding vote needed for this subpackage. Please somebody vote! Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > +1 > > Tommaso > > 2011/12/29 Karl Wright > >> Hello incubator, >> >> We've decided to release some of the ManifoldCF server or target >> system plugins with their own versioning and release schedule. Here's >> the first one. Please vote +1 if you agree it should be released. >> We've got one vote already (from Jukka, one of our mentors). >> >> Karl >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Jukka Zitting >> Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release >> apache-manifoldcf-sharepoint-3.0-plugin 0.1-incubating >> To: connectors-...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >> Hi, >> >> +1 from me too (binding also for the upcoming IPMC vote) >> >> I checked the >> apache-manifoldcf-sharepoint-3.0-plugin-0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz >> package with SHA1 checksum 4400b19cf0940bae30778e9fdcb992122ecbc142. >> Without Windows or SharePoint readily at hand I couldn't build the >> package, just statically review it. >> >> One comment (not blocking) that applies also to the other components >> is that since these components (AFAIUI) don't contain or use any >> crypto code, we should remove the "Cryptographic Software Notice" >> entries from the README files. Those notices should only be included >> in components referenced in http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/. >> >> 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: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-4.x-plugin 0.1-incubating
We need one more binding IPMC vote for this sub-package. Any takers? Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > +1 > > Tommaso > > 2011/12/29 Karl Wright > >> Sorry - you can find the proposed release package at: >> http://people.apache.org/~kwright. >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> > Hello incubator, >> > >> > We've decided to release some of the ManifoldCF server or target >> > system plugins with their own versioning and release schedule. Here's >> > the second one. Please vote +1 if you agree it should be released. >> > We've got one vote already (from Jukka, one of our mentors). >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > >> > -- Forwarded message -- >> > From: Jukka Zitting >> > Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:40 PM >> > Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-4.x-plugin >> > 0.1-incubating >> > To: connectors-...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > +1 from me too (binding also for the upcoming IPMC vote) >> > I checked the apache-manifoldcf-solr-4.x-plugin-0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz >> > package with SHA1 checksum 84065fe25707beec3b25831a9df56579ad685a50. >> > See my comments for the Solr 3.x plugin. >> > >> > 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: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-3.x-plugin 0.1-incubating
With Tommaso's and Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We still need one more binding IPMC vote for this subpackage. Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > +1 > > Tommaso > > 2011/12/29 Karl Wright > >> Sorry - you can find the proposed release package at: >> http://people.apache.org/~kwright. >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> > Hello incubator, >> > >> > We've decided to release some of the ManifoldCF server or target >> > system plugins with their own versioning and release schedule. Here's >> > the third one. Please vote +1 if you agree it should be released. >> > We've got one vote already (from Jukka, one of our mentors). >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > >> > -- Forwarded message -- >> > From: Jukka Zitting >> > Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:35 PM >> > Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-3.x-plugin >> > 0.1-incubating >> > To: connectors-...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > +1 from me too (binding also for the upcoming IPMC vote) >> > >> > I checked the apache-manifoldcf-solr-3.x-plugin-0.1-incubating-src.tar.gz >> > package with SHA1 checksum 14adbae8c05dc589a707208a172901cddd5c19d5. >> > >> > Some comments, none blocking: >> > >> > * The release signing guide [1] recommends to have also SHA1 checksums >> > for the release. >> > * The approach to do an svn checkout as a part of the build is a bit >> > troublesome. The build will fail as soon as Lucene rearranges their >> > svn tree. >> > * Would it make sense to contribute this code directly to Solr instead >> > of having it in ManifoldCF? Especially since the code has no direct >> > ManifoldCF dependencies. >> > >> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html >> > >> > 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: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2
With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more... Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > +1 > > Tommaso > > 2012/1/4 Karl Wright > >> Hello Incubator IPMC, >> >> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.4-incubating, >> RC2. This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection. >> You can find the artifact at >> http://people.apache.org/~kwright/apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, or >> in svn at >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/tags/release-0.4-incubating-RC2 >> . >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Karl >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Fwd: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2
I think Jukka meant to post this to general@i.a.o... Karl -- Forwarded message -- From: Jukka Zitting Date: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2 To: Karl Wright Hi, +1 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
Yes, we should send a message to mentors that business as usual ended this month by closing the Incubator to new podlings for one month. During that time we can get our house in order by going thru the disaster zone we have created and start educating each other about mentor expectations with some actual binding documentation. We may have to tell existing podlings that without any available and competent mentor representation that they'll simply have to go elsewhere, we're sorry but we over-promised and under-delivered. - Original Message - > From: Daniel Shahaf > To: Joe Schaefer > Cc: "general@incubator.apache.org" ; > "antel...@apache.org" > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:07 PM > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings > > You've identified several problems in your last mails -- do you also > have a suggestion on how to move forward? > > If asked, my default suggestion would be to go for "what works > elsewhere", namely: reduce the IPMC to nine people, rotating annually, > who are expected to read and review all podling reports --- and act on > them when they indicate a problem with the mentors and/or the podling. > > Joe Schaefer wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:52:48 -0800: >> I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum >> devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do >> a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports >> on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's >> committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have >> repeatedly requested they do so. >> >> There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current > month's >> reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have >> had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports >> are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. > Period. >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: Ross Gardler >> > To: general@incubator.apache.org >> > Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:05 AM >> > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings >> > >> > On 10 January 2012 22:03, Marcel Offermans > >> > wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > +1 a mentoring role is one of guiding not doing. I don't support >> > mentors writing reports for podlings. I expect that at least one >> > mentor is involved in the writing of those reports. >> > >> > If people want to ask mentors to comment on reports when they sign off >> > that's fine, but if you ever see that I've signed off on a > report it >> > means that I have at least read the thread that produced the report >> > and might have already commented on it on the dev lists. Isn't > that >> > how it should be? >> > >> > Do mentors sign off on reports they don't agree with? I hope not. > If >> > not then all we need to do is ensure the mentors themselves are >> > capable of writing better reports. >> > >> > Ross >> > >> > - >> > 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
You've identified several problems in your last mails -- do you also have a suggestion on how to move forward? If asked, my default suggestion would be to go for "what works elsewhere", namely: reduce the IPMC to nine people, rotating annually, who are expected to read and review all podling reports --- and act on them when they indicate a problem with the mentors and/or the podling. Joe Schaefer wrote on Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:52:48 -0800: > I hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum > devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do > a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports > on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's > committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have > repeatedly requested they do so. > > There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current month's > reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have > had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports > are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. Period. > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Ross Gardler > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer > > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:05 AM > > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings > > > > On 10 January 2012 22:03, Marcel Offermans > > wrote: > >> 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. > > > > +1 a mentoring role is one of guiding not doing. I don't support > > mentors writing reports for podlings. I expect that at least one > > mentor is involved in the writing of those reports. > > > > If people want to ask mentors to comment on reports when they sign off > > that's fine, but if you ever see that I've signed off on a report it > > means that I have at least read the thread that produced the report > > and might have already commented on it on the dev lists. Isn't that > > how it should be? > > > > Do mentors sign off on reports they don't agree with? I hope not. If > > not then all we need to do is ensure the mentors themselves are > > capable of writing better reports. > > > > Ross > > > > - > > 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 hate the fact that these discussions continue to happen in a vacuum devoid of any grasp of the reality that mentors typically don't do a fucking thing for their podlings. No they don't discuss reports on list, nor do they offer opinions on how to grow a smallish podling's committer base, nor do they bother to sign reports even tho we have repeatedly requested they do so. There are over a DOZEN unsigned reports RIGHT NOW in the current month's reports. If you bother to do any research to see if those podlings have had any dev-list discussion about it, you will be disappointed. Reports are treated as a bureaucratic formality that nobody bothers to read. Period. - Original Message - > From: Ross Gardler > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: antel...@apache.org; Joe Schaefer > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:05 AM > Subject: Re: Small but otherwise happy podlings > > On 10 January 2012 22:03, Marcel Offermans > wrote: >> 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. > > +1 a mentoring role is one of guiding not doing. I don't support > mentors writing reports for podlings. I expect that at least one > mentor is involved in the writing of those reports. > > If people want to ask mentors to comment on reports when they sign off > that's fine, but if you ever see that I've signed off on a report it > means that I have at least read the thread that produced the report > and might have already commented on it on the dev lists. Isn't that > how it should be? > > Do mentors sign off on reports they don't agree with? I hope not. If > not then all we need to do is ensure the mentors themselves are > capable of writing better reports. > > Ross > > - > 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: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
On 11 January 2012 18:06, Patrick Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote: >>> +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine. >>> >>> It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here >>> (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for >>> other projects. Typically you want to have a single source release >>> artifact. You could then create "convenience artifacts" off that. >> >> Having multiple archive types is very common in other ASF projects. >> > > Ok, but that means that we need to verify/vote on both, correct? (we yes. > can do them together, I'm just saying that it requires more reviewer > work than just verifying the single artifact). > >>> I verified that the contents of the two artifacts are exactly the >>> same, just differing archiving tools. >> >> Or possibly also differing in EOL setting, e.g. >> Windows more commonly has zip support, so source may have EOL=CRLF >> Un*x systems more commonly support tar/gz, so source may have EOL=LF. > > In this case the files are exactly the same, there is no difference > btw the contents of the two archives (which makes verification > simpler). Yes. The source archive(s) should also be checked against the SVN tag. > Patrick > > - > 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: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM, sebb wrote: > On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote: >> +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine. >> >> It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here >> (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for >> other projects. Typically you want to have a single source release >> artifact. You could then create "convenience artifacts" off that. > > Having multiple archive types is very common in other ASF projects. > Ok, but that means that we need to verify/vote on both, correct? (we can do them together, I'm just saying that it requires more reviewer work than just verifying the single artifact). >> I verified that the contents of the two artifacts are exactly the >> same, just differing archiving tools. > > Or possibly also differing in EOL setting, e.g. > Windows more commonly has zip support, so source may have EOL=CRLF > Un*x systems more commonly support tar/gz, so source may have EOL=LF. In this case the files are exactly the same, there is no difference btw the contents of the two archives (which makes verification simpler). Patrick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
On 11 January 2012 17:49, Patrick Hunt wrote: > +1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine. > > It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here > (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for > other projects. Typically you want to have a single source release > artifact. You could then create "convenience artifacts" off that. Having multiple archive types is very common in other ASF projects. > I verified that the contents of the two artifacts are exactly the > same, just differing archiving tools. Or possibly also differing in EOL setting, e.g. Windows more commonly has zip support, so source may have EOL=CRLF Un*x systems more commonly support tar/gz, so source may have EOL=LF. > Patrick > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Brock Noland 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=12311292&version=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 > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release MRUnit version 0.8.0-incubating
+1 sig/xsum match up, tested clean and RAT reports fine. It's a bit odd to me that there are two source release artifacts here (one archived with tar/gz the other with zip), I've not seen that for other projects. Typically you want to have a single source release artifact. You could then create "convenience artifacts" off that. I verified that the contents of the two artifacts are exactly the same, just differing archiving tools. Patrick On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Brock Noland 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=12311292&version=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
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Michael Stroucken wrote: > Joe Schaefer wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > I'll respond for Tashi here. The quarterly report requirements state:- >> >> Your report should contain the following: >> >> * Your project name >> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the >> project >> or necessarily of its field >> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move >> towards graduation. >> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be >> aware of >> * How has the community developed since the last report >> * How has the project developed since the last report. > > Most of the activity in Tashi is development of the code base, so I think it > is a fair expectation that the majority of the report fits in the "How the > project has developed since the last report" section. The issues holding us > back from graduation are much less volatile, such that one item was removed > from the "list of three most important issues to address" section between > our October report and now, but the other two remain. > > The most serious issue for us is dead code of indeterminate mass in the code > base. 1) There is code that we wrote for experiments and proof of concepts > at some time, and code that supports certain hardware, but we have not been > able to maintain to the degree as the core parts of the system. 2) We > migrated from one RPC layer (Thrift) to another (RPyC) early in the project, > and while I believe none of Thrift code is still used, I have been reluctant > to blow it away because of people possibly using code from issue 1). Michael, Neither the foundation nor the incubator has requirements for live or dead code or anything like it. So long as IP clearance is OK, you can release any valid release, and validity is all about source that builds and appropriate notices. You should not be waiting for *any* technical achievement to graduate -- you should release what you have, and you should graduate when you've shown that you can make releases, incorporate new people, etc. > > We have a stable branch of the code that I think is conditionally usable as > an Incubator release version, but I was planning to ask our mentors about > how to handle our release issues once a new branch with major new > functionality was approaching a merge back into the trunk. I see that > happening in the next few days. > > Greetings, > Michael. > > > - > 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?
Hi, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM, sebb wrote: > At the very least, please update the status page to document the name change. Done. 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
Joe Schaefer wrote: 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? I'll respond for Tashi here. The quarterly report requirements state:- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. Most of the activity in Tashi is development of the code base, so I think it is a fair expectation that the majority of the report fits in the "How the project has developed since the last report" section. The issues holding us back from graduation are much less volatile, such that one item was removed from the "list of three most important issues to address" section between our October report and now, but the other two remain. The most serious issue for us is dead code of indeterminate mass in the code base. 1) There is code that we wrote for experiments and proof of concepts at some time, and code that supports certain hardware, but we have not been able to maintain to the degree as the core parts of the system. 2) We migrated from one RPC layer (Thrift) to another (RPyC) early in the project, and while I believe none of Thrift code is still used, I have been reluctant to blow it away because of people possibly using code from issue 1). We have a stable branch of the code that I think is conditionally usable as an Incubator release version, but I was planning to ask our mentors about how to handle our release issues once a new branch with major new functionality was approaching a merge back into the trunk. I see that happening in the next few days. Greetings, Michael. - 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
>-Original Message- >From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:nic...@hedhman.org] >Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:25 PM >To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer >Subject: 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... >From my perspective as a podling PPMC member, I disagree with this approach. >From what I have learned, it is the Incubator's responsibility to develop a >self-sustaining community. IMO, any viable community should be responsible >for managing their own destiny. Mentors should prod, poke, suggest, >influence, coach and verify everything the podling does, but the PPMC should >be responsible for developing and reporting out a graduation roadmap. > > >Cheers >Niclas > >On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:52 AM, 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 >>> 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 >>> 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. > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Upayavira > 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating
>-Original Message- >From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:mfrank...@mitre.org] >Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:45 AM >To: general@incubator.apache.org >Cc: rave-...@incubator.apache.org >Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating > >>-Original Message- >>From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] >>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:21 AM >>To: general@incubator.apache.org >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating >> >>On 9 January 2012 13:09, Franklin, Matthew B. >wrote: >>> Does my answer below suffice? It would be nice to close this vote out one >>way or another >>> >> >>The answer describes what happened. >>However, it does not fix the problem, which is that the end-user sees >>a file with conflicting information. > >Thanks. This is what I was looking for, so that we can have the discussion as >to >whether or not to cancel the release (we won't do a re-release). > >> >>Not a blocker, but you may find it takes less time overall to fix the >>issue before release rather than dealing with user queries afterwards. >> >>It may also lessen confidence in the release: if there is such an >>obvious error, what other errors are lurking? > >While I agree that it doesn't look great, the CHANGELOG is distributed with >the source release and is probably not viewed as much as the release notes >sent out with the announcement (which will be the JIRA list I linked). I will >take this back to our dev list, but if they don't see it as a blocker, would >you be >comfortable voting +1? The community was presented with the issue and via lazy consensus agreed to move forward with the release, even though the CHANGELOG file is incorrect. We still need 1 final IPMC vote to release. [ Community discussion on proceeding: http://markmail.org/message/tp5nyqh24tdpybw6 ] > >> -Original Message- From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:mfrank...@mitre.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:19 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating >-Original Message- >From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 7:06 AM >To: general@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.6-incubating > >On 28 December 2011 19:15, Franklin, Matthew B. > >wrote: >> This is the fifth incubator release for Apache Rave, with the artifacts >>being >versioned as 0.6-incubating. >> >> We are requesting at least one additional IPMC member vote, as we >>have >received 2 binding IPMC +1 votes during the release voting on rave-dev - >> >> VOTE: http://s.apache.org/Czr >> RESULT: http://s.apache.org/yIQ >> >> IPMC member votes from the rave-dev list: >> Ate Douma: +1 >> Ross Gardler: +1 >> >> Release notes: >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/rave/tags/0.6- >incubating/CHANGELOG Apparently, I didn't commit back the CHANGELOG for 0.6 . Here is the >issue list from JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12311 >2 >>90 &version=12317563 > >which says: > >Release Notes - Rave - Version 0.5-INCUBATING > >So what was changed for 0.6? > >> SVN source tag (r1208867): >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/rave/tags/0.6-incubating/ >> >> Maven staging repos: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacherave- >>278/ >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacherave- >>279/ >> >> Source release: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacherave- >278/org/apache/rave/rave-project/0.6-incubating/rave-project-0.6- >incubating-source-release.zip >> >> Binary releases >> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/rave/0.6- >>incubating/apache- >rave-0.6-incubating-bin.tar.gz >> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/rave/0.6- >>incubating/apache- >rave-0.6-incubating-bin.zip >> >> PGP release keys: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/rave/KEYS >> >> Vote open for 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> >> - >> 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
On 10 January 2012 22:03, Marcel Offermans wrote: > 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. +1 a mentoring role is one of guiding not doing. I don't support mentors writing reports for podlings. I expect that at least one mentor is involved in the writing of those reports. If people want to ask mentors to comment on reports when they sign off that's fine, but if you ever see that I've signed off on a report it means that I have at least read the thread that produced the report and might have already commented on it on the dev lists. Isn't that how it should be? Do mentors sign off on reports they don't agree with? I hope not. If not then all we need to do is ensure the mentors themselves are capable of writing better reports. Ross - 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)
+1 (binding) Checked sigs, looked at the artifacts, all well Cheers! Christian 2012/1/9 Devin Han : > Hi all, > > The ODF Toolkit 0.5 is ready for release. This will be our first incubator > release. > We had a preliminary vote in the PPMC, which had great results, including a > +1 from our mentor, Yegor. > > The PPMC vote result thread is here: > http://markmail.org/message/tw3juzkak6kdiod2 > The vote thread is here: > http://markmail.org/message/h6qfmhl4vulyjyhw > > We need two more IPMC votes to pass. > > Please vote on releasing the following candidate RC7 as Apache ODF Toolkit > (incubating) version 0.5. > > This release candidate fixes the pom.xml file inconsistant issue found in > RC6. Thanks Yegor! > > The candidate for the ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating release is available at: > http://people.apache.org/~devinhan/odftoolkit-release/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7/ > > The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/tags/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating/ > > The SHA1 checksum of the zip archive is > 4e97a1a79291035d590b5578caf79478dc3f6de8. > The MD5 checksum of the zip archive is 8883f036ee34282077d3c175329f6257. > > Besides source code, binary packages and javadoc packages are also listed > in： > http://people.apache.org/~devinhan/odftoolkit-release/odftoolkit-0.5-incubating-rc7/ > All of the artifacts supply three package formats, tar.gz, tar.bz2 and zip. > > Keys: > http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/odftoolkit/KEYS > > The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of votes > (3 +1). > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache ODF Toolkit 0.5-incubating > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > To learn more about Apache ODF Toolkit, please access: > http://incubator.apache.org/odftoolkit/. > > Regards, > > -- > -Devin -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - 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 10:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > If there is a community > and that community doesn't want Apache to fork the code that they created, > then we will not fork that code at Apache. If the original developers of the > code do not want their license changed, then we will not fork the code at > Apache. > We only accept voluntary contributions (contributions == the stuff we take on > as > change-controller and managed as such by one of our collaborative projects). > We use other open source code and include that other code in our own releases, > but we don't take change-control over it without the blessing of the original > authors. [Citation Needed] While I agree with the general idea, the closest I can find to it being written down is http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-community which is not very close at all. Did the subject actually come up before or is this the first time you wrote this down? Also, we should consider that the modus operandi of open source is changing. The default behavior on github for example is to put a "fork me on github" button on your project website, which doesn't mean a "community fork", but for the healthier projects it does mean "community chaos" as forks and pull requests simply happen all over the place. So the relationship between "take change-control" and "community fork" is a bit different in those instances. You could say that the "fork me on github" (or just using github) is in fact inviting everyone to take as much change control as they want. cheers, Leo - 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 Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > 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'm not sure looking at signatures on past reports is going to be useful. We've never before discussed that mentors should be signing reports so people don't, as nothing happened with the signing its seemed a bit pointless to me so i often didn't bother even though i had read the reports on the wiki. I expect I'm not the only one. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: On Etch status
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Leo Simons wrote: > But I guess it does meet the minimum size. If 3 is not enough, what > number is? If it does become a problem, there's an attic process. The project is already in the process of adding another committer. I have every intention to put him on the PMC when graduating. The vote on the private list also shows interest of other non-committing PPMC members, so there might be more folks active-ish. One of the biggest tasks for graduation IMO is to prune the PMC to the really active members that are able to provide oversight for the project, cut and check releases, apply patches and vote in new community members. The latter doesn't seem to be a problem, other than attracting new members. > What would be really bad for Etch is if the incubator recommends it > graduates into a TLP and then the board doesn't want to pass the > resolution because it's a very small PMC. I would almost be inclined > to prod board@ to see what they have to say on the matter? Good suggestion. I'll do so. Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: On Etch status
Hey hey, On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > 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? I had a look. I agree with your assessment. I feel a bit uncomfortable at the idea of a PMC with 3 people + 1 mentor on it, though I do not quite have a solid reason for it. Maybe because making binding decisions in that case effectively requires full consensus? But I guess it does meet the minimum size. If 3 is not enough, what number is? If it does become a problem, there's an attic process. What would be really bad for Etch is if the incubator recommends it graduates into a TLP and then the board doesn't want to pass the resolution because it's a very small PMC. I would almost be inclined to prod board@ to see what they have to say on the matter? cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: On Etch status
I'll give it a couple of more days for folks to look into this, then I'll propose the community to start work on graduation. Martijn On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > +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 wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst >> 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=20111001&path=%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 > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
