Re: principles of Apache communities
On 2 February 2012 06:08, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote: Joe Schaefer wrote: For ages i have wanted to add a page somewhere that explains very clearly principles and constraints for the ASF. Alas little time and none now. +1000 If anyone does have time please note that there ComDev site is writable by any committer (only ComDev can publish so please raise a ticket to ensure it gets dealt with). Don't stress over whether you put it in the right place, the PMC can worry about that - quality content is what we want (and don't miss the axtra stuff David links to below) Ross The research that i was able to manage was to find a post where Roy explained: Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: [Request For Comment] Third-Party Licensing Policy http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200603.mbox/%3caf1860b6-a15e-4e8f-9cf9-f11ed8c75...@gbiv.com%3E -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: principles of Apache communities
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:08 AM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote: Joe Schaefer wrote: Here are some of the things that guide me in my decision- making about governance and Apache communities. Please feel to add you own thoughts on the subject! 1) Fairness and Equitable Treatment- that it is wrong to apply different standards to different people based solely on their (external) accrued status. 2) Tolerance- that we respect the diversity of opinion without the need for tit-for-tat arguments about who is right. 3) Fun- that the nature of participation here is personally satisfying and not onerous. 4) Consistency- that we don't apply different standards to different people based on whatever hot topic is currently being debated. 5) Competence- that we entrust people who are most familiar with the work being performed to exercise their oversight and judgement about the codebase. 6) Empowerment- that people who show sustained levels of competence and oversight capabilities are rewarded with higher levels of organizational responsibility. [more later] Good stuff. For ages i have wanted to add a page somewhere that explains very clearly principles and constraints for the ASF. Alas little time and none now. It's funny you use 'constraints', I did a little thought experiment[1] with an analogy comparing system constraints-system properties to organizational constraints-desired properties a while back. As I mentioned there, I'm sure the analogy breaks down somewhere but it'd sure be nice to have some framework to agree on our desired organizational/cultural properties, then reason about what real constraints are in place and how/why they evoke those desired properties. I forget what motivated me then, I think it was a round of debate over some phantom constraints/rules/policy. --tim [1] - http://williamstw.blogspot.com/2010/05/architecture-of-governance-structures.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Time to vote the chair?
We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes? Cheers -- 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: Time to vote the chair?
Can we have clear and concise statements from each of the candidates about their vision for the future of the Incubator. I am particularly interested to hear the candidates opinions on the various suggestions to work more closely with ComDev (in particular the focused recommendations of Roy and Greg). I'd prefer that the candidates ran their ideas past ComDev first (although as VP ComDev I don't have any concerns personally and would be happy with having statments here that I can link to over there). Ross On 2 February 2012 12:52, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes? Cheers -- 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 -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M I know Benson was nominated on the private list but I haven't seen it here - maybe I missed something, whoever nominated him should repeat this here if that wasn't done yet. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes?.. Using the http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting tool makes sense IMO, but the current chair should drive this process. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - 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: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. Has there been any sort of official notification to poddlings that the reporting date changed? I couldn't find anything from a quick search so the discussion about it is likely to have got lost to many in all the noise on general@. ...ant ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing I've been trying to tell you Dave is that it can't be sent before the first of the month. That's just the way the script is coded. Understood. Dates are tricky spanning months (and years.) If you consider this a bug we can arrange access to the script for you to hack on (it's in perl). Yes, please. Thanks, Dave - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - 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: Incubator, or Incubation?
Isn't there also something along the lines of what's called culpable deniability? Since podlings may be in states where their offerings might not be as legal as TLPs (licensing issues, trademark/branding issues, etc.), is it not more convenient for them to be relegated to an area specifically designated as not officially supported? This is very clearly demarked by a subdomain and a subproject, and if there's to be a subdomain and a subproject it makes sense that there are people specifically managing them. I submit that the IPMC is an effect of the incubator rather than a cause. I think the mechanisms need to be in place so that not-yet-legal projects can exist and work on becoming legal projects, and that it's just as well that staff exists to manage them. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
I'll look into it... iirc, the code knows if it's run after that month's board date, so we could handle it there. I used the Date::Manip package to make it easier to do these sorts of date adjustments... On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing I've been trying to tell you Dave is that it can't be sent before the first of the month. That's just the way the script is coded. If you consider this a bug we can arrange access to the script for you to hack on (it's in perl). - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - 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: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
Thanks Jim! From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] I'll look into it... iirc, the code knows if it's run after that month's board date, so we could handle it there. I used the Date::Manip package to make it easier to do these sorts of date adjustments... On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing I've been trying to tell you Dave is that it can't be sent before the first of the month. That's just the way the script is coded. If you consider this a bug we can arrange access to the script for you to hack on (it's in perl). - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - 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: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
No prob! Will do so over the weekend... A prelim look suggests it's not that much. On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Thanks Jim! From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] I'll look into it... iirc, the code knows if it's run after that month's board date, so we could handle it there. I used the Date::Manip package to make it easier to do these sorts of date adjustments... On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing I've been trying to tell you Dave is that it can't be sent before the first of the month. That's just the way the script is coded. If you consider this a bug we can arrange access to the script for you to hack on (it's in perl). - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - 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
last release date in reports?
I've looked over the reports so far for February and am fairly impressed at the quality of them compared to January's bunch. OTOH one bit of information I'd like to see given more attention is a podling's last release date, to see how they are progressing technically as a community which focuses on producing quality software suitable for public consumption.
Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])]
Thanks! On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: No prob! Will do so over the weekend... A prelim look suggests it's not that much. On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Thanks Jim! From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 10:12 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] I'll look into it... iirc, the code knows if it's run after that month's board date, so we could handle it there. I used the Date::Manip package to make it easier to do these sorts of date adjustments... On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: The thing I've been trying to tell you Dave is that it can't be sent before the first of the month. That's just the way the script is coded. If you consider this a bug we can arrange access to the script for you to hack on (it's in perl). - Original Message - From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Giving podlings enough time to report [Fwd: Incubator PMC/Board report for Feb 2012 ([ppmc])] On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: OK. With this and the script, I guess you would say that patches are welcome ;-) If someone would point me to the script I'd like to see if I can make an improvement trying on my new IPMC hat in a non-mentor role. The issue is that because the script is run the 1st of the month, it implies that the lead time for podlings will always be somewhat short. But these are *reminders*. Podlings should know well in advance without these when their reports are due. Understood. The deadline was recently moved up a week and therefore the message in the email either needs to be rewritten. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. to This is your only reminder that the deadline is very soon to submit your quarterly or monthly board report. Or the email could be sent a week earlier with no change in the text. Regards, Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: last release date in reports?
Hi Joe, I don't know if this is as fundamental as the 'last release date' issue you raise, but it might be also advantageous to the board for (especially) podlings to mention whether trunk is broken or not. In the past I've seen some podlings with trunk broken for some time and although in some cases this might be something trivial, in other cases it can mean that there is something more severe at play and the board may wish to know an accurate snapshot representation of the project when reporting is due. This is just my personal opinion, and I know it is not paramount, but it creates a layer of transparency which I think could really help mentors as well as the Board to comment accordingly. Thanks Lewis On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: I've looked over the reports so far for February and am fairly impressed at the quality of them compared to January's bunch. OTOH one bit of information I'd like to see given more attention is a podling's last release date, to see how they are progressing technically as a community which focuses on producing quality software suitable for public consumption. -- *Lewis*
Re: last release date in reports?
Personally that's probably a wee bit too much detail other than to mention anecdotally. If the person who is writing the report perceives problems with the technical aspects of the project, we certainly encourage them to write about it. From: Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 11:22 AM Subject: Re: last release date in reports? Hi Joe, I don't know if this is as fundamental as the 'last release date' issue you raise, but it might be also advantageous to the board for (especially) podlings to mention whether trunk is broken or not. In the past I've seen some podlings with trunk broken for some time and although in some cases this might be something trivial, in other cases it can mean that there is something more severe at play and the board may wish to know an accurate snapshot representation of the project when reporting is due. This is just my personal opinion, and I know it is not paramount, but it creates a layer of transparency which I think could really help mentors as well as the Board to comment accordingly. Thanks Lewis On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: I've looked over the reports so far for February and am fairly impressed at the quality of them compared to January's bunch. OTOH one bit of information I'd like to see given more attention is a podling's last release date, to see how they are progressing technically as a community which focuses on producing quality software suitable for public consumption. -- Lewis
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Greg, First off, thanks for commenting on this. My replies below: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 21:22, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Bill, On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: ... VP Project Incubation works with those Champions. Much like the foundation-wide security@a.o team works with all the individual projects as a resource, but isn't responsible for the oversight of individual project security defects. Yeah, I get what you're saying. You say the VP Incubator is a resource, but to me the role is the head of a committee that just adds extra burden and overhead to what should inherently be distributed and decentralized. I don't see this working without an appointed coordinator. I do :) just with the coordinating living within the project, just like TLPs, and that's the Champion/VP of the podling. This proposal creates a differentiation between normal TLPs and incubating TLPs. I honestly didn't mean to do that, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. I don't want to distinguish between them. Let's just say that they are projects like any other projects, with the following principles: 1. In the Incubator proposal used to run by the membership to create the project, at least 3 of the initial PMC members must be ASF members. 2. A proposed VP (or Champion either name is fine with me) should be identified as part of the submitted proposal. That is the PMC chair, until otherwise changed by board resolution just like any other project. The incubating TLPs have extra restrictions on them (branding, releases, etc), and they need extra tracking to determine whether they are ready to graduate. This is true, but in reality they aren't extra restrictions they are simply specific brand guidance, given to any other TLP, along with the special Incubator stuff. I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. Mailing lists need somebody to own them, too, or they end up in a weird state. This new-fangled Incubator group would be the owner of the general@ list where proposals come in and are discussed. Yeah I agree, but can't we say that ComDev owns general@incubator after my proposal is implemented? And yes, I forgot to specify this initially well didn't forget, I just didn't think of it, so thanks for you and Bill and for discussion to help flesh it out. I'd like to add that to my proposal. ComDev owns general@incubator. The VP of an incubating-TLP has ASF experience, but is otherwise just another peer on the PMC and is the liaison with the Board. I'm not sure that it makes sense to give them these extra burden[s] that you're talking about. I think it's the same burdens that all VPs get, which is what the projects should be striving for from day 1. We always have this odd situation in the Incubator to date when a new project starts, especially with an elected chair that isn't used to interacting with the board. There's some knowledge that has to be gained, so outright even after graduation the podling has some learning to do under the existing method and so does its VP once it becomes TLP. Let's start that learning, day 1, and get them interacting and just call them regular projects. As Bill stated, before the Incubator, this is what you guys did anyways. I'm just saying let's go back to that in the ASF, WITH the added benefit that now the Incubator over its lifespan has delivered to us, the foundation: 1. a set of awesome guidelines, policies, procedures and documentation. Its new home will be ComDev. ComDev does that anyways like you said, and I agree with that. 2. a process, a great process that new projects coming into the ASF should follow to start operating as ASF TLPs, from the get go. 3. great knowledge and discussion forever archived fleshing out the boundary cases of many of the parts of our foundation. Thank you Incubator for this. That being said, with 1-3, some help from ComDev (which I think they
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the mentors and podling to fix their proposal before the board reconsiders it at a subsequent meeting. So yes, it is a necessary task the board is going to delegate out, whether it is framed as the IPMC, or the VP, Project incubation. It can't be left in a hundred different hands to drop. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Request to join IPMC
Hi, I'm an Apache member and committers of a few Apache projects. As one of the mentors from the Amber (incubation) project retired, I expressed my interest to mentor the project and the responses from the community seem to be positive. My understanding is that I need to join IPMC so that I can become a mentor. Can I request to join IPMC? Thanks, Raymond On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: no objections from my side, nice to see people stepping up! all the best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Raymond Feng enjoyj...@gmail.com wrote: I can help mentor the project if necessary. Thanks, Raymond On Jan 15, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Stefan Seelmann wrote: Hi, I'd like to step down as mentor for Amber. I'm not able to fulfill my duties and also failed to finish the IP clearance issue. There are two other active committers who may help mentoring: Tommaso Teofili (IPMC) and Simone Tripodi (Apache member). Also Raymond Feng (Apache member) shows interest in Amber. All the best, Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Sorry I have a big mouth :) Thanks for breaking it down. Comments below. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a small group of people maintaining that overall status and recommendation to graduate. I can see this group shepherding the initial incubating-TLP resolution to the Board. (a graduation resolution, if needed, could easily be handled by the TLP itself by graduation time) I can see what you and Bill are saying too and it's not a blocker for me, but I'd urge you to consider the extra overhead that it would add, compared to the benefit of simply saying, the incoming project is simply any other ASF project, has the notion that those 3 ASF members that MUST be on the incoming project's PMC as identified in their proposal. And that those 3 ASF members could come from a collective set of what you guys are saying is this special, reduced IPMC like entity. I'm guessing that organically that's what would happen anyways. Only a small set of ASF members will volunteer to be on these incoming projects and help shepherd them in just the way it works today. You mention also No need for the position anymore. Just another report to have to read as a board member, and someone to middle-man, when what the board ought to be doing is talking to the new project's VP, day 1. What I have tried to clearly state is; don't think of this VP as the middle man. Think of this VP as the expediter. The one who takes a whole stack of customs, duty, shipping and tarriff forms, and boils it down to Fill this in, and we'll submit these things. Yeah I could see this VP actually being of some use, if it's 1 guy who assumes that responsibility. I just cringe when I think of a VP and a committee of well intended [fill in the blank here] people who care and... blah blah blah. We don't have this extra need for the rest of our TLPs some of which include a chair that has never heard of the board@ list, nor all of the little nitty-gritty stuff that has to be done. But somehow, some way, they make it. My supposition is that they make it because there are N ASF members and some subset of those N that have done it before or seen it done before and they guide the new chair (out of Incubation) for the new project and tell him how to get it done. That's what I just did on Gora and what I regularly see done in other projects. I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. This VP would not be in the middle. They would be on the sideline. If the mentors are entirely capable, perhaps ex-PMC chairs themselves, then marvelous. If they are PMC members who have never submitted a resolution in their lives, the VP is there to assist. The VP keeps the files on process. Not the lofty PMC Bylaws and Best Practices and Nurturing Your Community documents, but the cookie cutter Your proposal should state formal documentation. Think in terms of ASF Legal, or better yet, Trademarks. They don't stand 'over' any committee. They gather, define and communicate process. That is the role of VP, Project Incubation. Individual PMCs (even incubating PMCs) assume the *responsibility* for following those processes. Not a traffic cop, but a tourist guide. Yep I agree with both paragraphs above; it's just to me you can s/Incubation VP/new Project's VP + 3 ASF PMC members that are part of it. It seems outside of the remit of ComDev to deal with this aspect, just as it's outside the remit of ComDev to do the actual logistics of retiring to and caring for the projects in the Attic. Sure, ComDev will have some good 'getting started', 'how to' docs about both incubation and retirement. But they aren't the resolution wranglers charged with following up on the board's feedback. If a new incubating PMC resolution is broken, that VP would step in to guide the
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. Nope, that VP would not be a flow-through. Not even visible when things are working optimally; I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. Exactly. When those N(=3) mentors don't have it together, this VP can step in to facilitate. Those mentors have to follow this VP's documented process flow established to expedite things for the board's benefit. When (not if) the process changes and evolves, it's on this VP to make the necessary modifications. But that VP won't be a gating factor if the mentors are experienced with the process. Responsibility for incubating projects is /not/ on the VP. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:33 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a committee/or not) to help out these projects-from-day-1-new-projects that will be coming into the ASF, and that you need information flow up from that guy and responsibility/culpability from that guy to the board, and on down from it. Nope, that VP would not be a flow-through. Not even visible when things are working optimally; OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? You might say: For when things go wrong. I'll say: - in the case that things go wrong, it's up to the committee to: - fix itself (elect a new chair, fork and tell us where to stick it; decide to attic themselves, etc.) - if it can't fix itself, it's the board's problem and they will fix it (with their bazooka and tank). - part of that committee includes N=3 ASF members (at least). If they can't fix it, and if they can't figure out how to elect a new chair, what is it a committee for anyways? Send it to the Attic; tell them to take a walk; whatever. This isn't divide and conquer. The responsibility *is* there. It's with the incoming Project's VP who like any other VP will be the eyes and ears of the board until replaced, death, resignation or whatever that long list on the resolutions consists of; I forget right now. I, on the other hand, feel that the N(=3?) ASF members that have to be part of the new project's PMC from day 1, and that that new project's VP (from day 1), are sufficient to provide that information flow up, and responsibility/culpability. And guidance. And pointers to ASF resources like ComDev (which will hold the Incubator docs), like Legal, like etc. Just like the way it works today on our projects. Exactly. When those N(=3) mentors don't have it together, this VP can step in to facilitate. If those N=3 don't have it together, then the committee will realize it, just like any other committee. Or it won't realize it and the board will when the reports start to suck or have red flags in them. This is no different than a TLP today. Those mentors have to follow this VP's documented process flow established to expedite things for the board's benefit. When (not if) the process changes and evolves, it's on this VP to make the necessary modifications. Agreed with everything above; it's just not owned by this VP. It's the process flow of the foundation; owned by its members, operated by its board of directors and shared by its community. But that VP won't be a gating factor if the mentors are experienced with the process. Responsibility for incubating projects is /not/ on the VP. +1 to that should this VP be created which would definitely be against my will :) I hold out hope I can convince us of adding another officer position instead of trying this without one like it was pre 2002. 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: Time to vote the chair?
On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes? While I know it's not a hard requirement I think that it would be a good idea for us to have a policy about regular periodic elections for the chair in place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
The way to get from here to there is with a concrete proposal followed by a vote. I don't see why this should gate the vote on a new chair- it's clear at this point that the overwhelming consensus is that we should have one. From: Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Time to vote the chair? On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes? While I know it's not a hard requirement I think that it would be a good idea for us to have a policy about regular periodic elections for the chair in place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: The way to get from here to there is with a concrete proposal followed by a vote. I don't see why this should gate the vote on a new chair- it's clear at this point that the overwhelming consensus is that we should have one. +1 From: Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 1:50 PM Subject: Re: Time to vote the chair? On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: We have discussed many things the past days, I think we need to get towards some results. Imho it was enough time to propose new incubator chair candidates. So far we have nominations for Noel, Benson and Chris M. Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes? While I know it's not a hard requirement I think that it would be a good idea for us to have a policy about regular periodic elections for the chair in place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. 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: Time to vote the chair?
I'm going to treat this like any other nomination process and provide a brief statement. Volunteeritis: I'm active on the CXF and Maven PMCs, and I am a bit of an uncle at Mahout and WS, and I've agreed to stick around as a PMC member on EmpireDB in transition from podling to TLP. My mentor inventory will be down to 4 after the next board meeting as far as I can tell. I leave it to all of you to judge if this is reasonable or not. Mechanics: I read my email a lot and can safely commit to being responsive to things like adding members to the PMC. Atmospherics: in spite of some of the seeming disagreement between me and Sam, as far as I can tell I agree that the way forward is for volunteers to step up put more time into reading reports and generally meta-mentoring. Once that's online we can discuss what do to about any problems that aren't solved by gentle reminders and additional reports. If elected, I will try, and perhaps fail, to focus and moderate (small, small m) discussions on general@. While the question of civility led to some disagreement, I think that there is room for some more of it, whatever it is, without treading on freedom of expression or cultural diversity. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes?.. Using the http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting tool makes sense IMO, but the current chair should drive this process. Is it a foregone conclusion that we can't reach the point where we have only one candidate, and the vote itself is merely a confirmation? -Bertrand - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
Well so far the only person who seems to have actually ACCEPTED a nomination was Benson. From: Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 3:16 PM Subject: Re: Time to vote the chair? On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Should we do the vote now? How is the process for voting a chair when having multiple candidates? Via the votetool like the board votes?.. Using the http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting tool makes sense IMO, but the current chair should drive this process. Is it a foregone conclusion that we can't reach the point where we have only one candidate, and the vote itself is merely a confirmation? -Bertrand - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
My overall thoughts on this subject is that it is interesting to see Bill participating in a discussion that more or less amounts to knocking down the cathedral we've erected here and replacing it with a bazaar. Personally I'm not willing to walk with you guys down that route just yet, but the thinking behind the experiment I've been talking about was to just tweakthe cathedral with a hybrid outdoor market model. Interesting discussion to watch tho, especially if it starts to bear fruit. From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net Cc: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation? Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. 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: [VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-sharepoint-3.0-plugin 0.1-incubating
Apparently, I'm now a member of the IPMC. +1 from me. ;-) Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: One more binding vote needed for this subpackage. Please somebody vote! Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tommaso Teofili tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
+1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
+1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
+1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more... Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tommaso Teofili tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2012/1/4 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hi Joe, On Feb 2, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: My overall thoughts on this subject is that it is interesting to see Bill participating in a discussion that more or less amounts to knocking down the cathedral we've erected here and replacing it with a bazaar. Personally I'm not willing to walk with you guys down that route just yet, but the thinking behind the experiment I've been talking about was to just tweakthe cathedral with a hybrid outdoor market model. Thanks yep that's basically it. I have found your experiment successful; need no more data points; have found the Incubator itself over its lifespan to have been successful, and am looking to focus scarce Apache attention and resources towards the future, celebrating with respect towards the past, but also recognizing where we need to go as a foundation. We don't need to ope any more outdoor markets; we already have a successful bazaar in front of us! Cheers, Chris From: Mattmann, Chris A (388J) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov To: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net Cc: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Incubator, or Incubation? Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it. The board wants to point to one individual and say 'this part is broke, fix it', and have it done. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that -- you see the process as (inevitably) evolving. I see it as basically done, with so little revision it hardly warrants the creation of an officer to oversee it. 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 ++ 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
[RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-sharepoint-3.0-plugin 0.1-incubating
Three binding +1's, 72 hours, vote passes. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently, I'm now a member of the IPMC. +1 from me. ;-) Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: One more binding vote needed for this subpackage. Please somebody vote! Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Tommaso Teofili tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
[RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-4.x-plugin 0.1-incubating
Three binding +1's, 72 hours, vote passes. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
[RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-solr-3.x-plugin 0.1-incubating
Three binding +1's, 72 hours, vote passes. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2011/12/29 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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 daddy...@gmail.com 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 jukka.zitt...@gmail.com 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
[RESULT][VOTE] Release apache-manifoldcf-0.4-incubating, RC2
Three binding +1's, 72 hours, vote passes. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: +1 from me (binding). Karl On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: With Jukka's vote, that's 2 down. We need one more... Karl On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Tommaso Teofili tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote: +1 Tommaso 2012/1/4 Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com 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
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
Hey folks, I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state before starting to debate the details, or the process by which to get there. 1) There are people who produce guides, rules and policy that describe the incubation process. These rules are then imposed on other groups at apache by board decree. 2) At any point in time, there shall be many groups of people following the incubation process. 3) There is a mechanism in place to provide oversight over all the different ongoing incubations. 4) The differences between communities going through incubation and those that aren't is clear and understood by all (including end users, press, etc). I think the above invariants describe both incubation as of yesterday and incubation as of tomorrow. But, we have some issues with the current incubator. a) The volume of incubation activity has grown such that oversight is difficult. b) Large group sizes (particularly general@ and IPMC roster) make accountability and consensus-building difficult. c) meritocracy is hampered by having the people doing the work not having binding votes on their own work. d) ... add your own similar issues ... The basic realization is that combining all the people from 1) and 2) into effectively one big group [1] is no longer the best idea. So, we want to redesign how we organize into groups, and associated with that we want to tune our oversight mechanisms. The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? The next steps then involve deciding just how to split things up. Since I'm off to go skiing tomorrow I won't be around next week to participate in the details of all that. Have fun :-) cheerio, Leo [1] the choice of the vague term 'group' is intentional: give us some degrees of freedom to design the structure, in a formal *and* an informal sense. One kind of group is a PMC, but there's also another kind of group which is people subscribed to a mailing list and another one people that read the stuff that's on the mailing list and another which is people who feel responsible for what's going on on that mailing list, etc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and has devolved into an umbrella project of the type that we are looking to get rid of at the Foundation. I agree with Bill on the perspective that I'm sure at some point (and it's probably already
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
I like this general direction as well; seems much more manageable. +1. Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote: Hey folks, I just wanted to chime in with a +1 for the general direction. I think there's actually a lot of work to do to iron out how to reorganize things. Before digging in, I suggest we abstract out a little bit to see if we have consensus on the overall goals and desired end state before starting to debate the details, or the process by which to get there. 1) There are people who produce guides, rules and policy that describe the incubation process. These rules are then imposed on other groups at apache by board decree. 2) At any point in time, there shall be many groups of people following the incubation process. 3) There is a mechanism in place to provide oversight over all the different ongoing incubations. 4) The differences between communities going through incubation and those that aren't is clear and understood by all (including end users, press, etc). I think the above invariants describe both incubation as of yesterday and incubation as of tomorrow. But, we have some issues with the current incubator. a) The volume of incubation activity has grown such that oversight is difficult. b) Large group sizes (particularly general@ and IPMC roster) make accountability and consensus-building difficult. c) meritocracy is hampered by having the people doing the work not having binding votes on their own work. d) ... add your own similar issues ... The basic realization is that combining all the people from 1) and 2) into effectively one big group [1] is no longer the best idea. So, we want to redesign how we organize into groups, and associated with that we want to tune our oversight mechanisms. The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? The next steps then involve deciding just how to split things up. Since I'm off to go skiing tomorrow I won't be around next week to participate in the details of all that. Have fun :-) cheerio, Leo [1] the choice of the vague term 'group' is intentional: give us some degrees of freedom to design the structure, in a formal *and* an informal sense. One kind of group is a PMC, but there's also another kind of group which is people subscribed to a mailing list and another one people that read the stuff that's on the mailing list and another which is people who feel responsible for what's going on on that mailing list, etc. On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org wrote: On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. Isn't that the problem right now though? Like it or not, the Incubator PMC has evolved into a mini-board, in the worse sense of the word. You guys have a monthly meeting via telecon; an agenda; a set of action items, and you still don't get everything that you want to get done, done. A very small percentage of folks within the IPMC actually maintain that type of board-like oversight over its podlings. And thus, because of that, the more I think about it, quite honestly, I don't know what the Incubator PMC is doing other than delay the inveitable eventuality that many of these projects will graduate and become TLPs and thus the board's problem; whereas many of them will not graduate, and become not Apache's problem. We have an Attic for projects that make it to TLP for that. Heck, we have SVN and could even reboot Incubator dead projects if a group of individuals came along and wanted to maintain the code. My conclusion from all the ruckus recently has been that the Incubator PMC is nothing more than an Incubator mailing list where many ASF veterans and those that care about the foundation discuss (and sometimes argue) about the foundation's policies and interpretations of law that not even lawyers are perfect at -- we're all human yet we try and get on our high horse here and act like we speak in absolutes and the will of one or a small subset is the will of the many when we all know that in the end, if it's not fun anymore, we wouldn't be here. What would be so bad about saying that the Incubator, over its existence, has served its purpose and
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote: The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications and disagreements lie ahead? We have an incremental solution in front of us which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of Joe Schaefer's successful experiment to add PPMC Members who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC. I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious reforms. An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for weeks is unacceptable. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)
Hi, Just clarifying: this release candidate, RC5, has not yet received any votes from anyone? Marvin Humphrey On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:51:41PM +0100, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: Hello, While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1 in the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE and license files.Also the source distribution contained the sources of modules that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate fixes these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules not in the release profile. This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the modules in the release profile. A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher are available with their signatures at: http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/ In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating. Cheers, Reto - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator, or Incubation?
I don't think one approach precludes the other. Agreed that incubator needs to keep going in the interim. Perhaps we can spin off groups one at a time, starting with just one to get the bugs worked out? Karl On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote: The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and whatnot, but are accountable and overseen separately. These smaller groups become their own committees with their own VPs that report to the Board. Is that a reasonable re-statement of the abstract idea? Is that something we can all get behind? Completing such a task will be a lot of work, and who knows what complications and disagreements lie ahead? We have an incremental solution in front of us which mitigates some of our most pressing problems: the measured expansion of Joe Schaefer's successful experiment to add PPMC Members who have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the Apache Way to the IPMC. I don't support this boil-the-ocean revamp if it blocks the less ambitious reforms. An indefinite period where release votes continue to drag on for weeks is unacceptable. Marvin Humphrey - 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: Time to vote the chair?
I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic assistance, etc. Having two will improve coverage. A variation on this theme would be to call one of us Chair and the other Vice-Chair, with the Vice-Chair empowered to pitch in on acks and karma, and the chair responsible for the reports. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
For me the question is one of direction. I think Chris is making clear the kind of course he'd like to pursue down the road. Where do you stand on that discussion? From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 8:56 PM Subject: Re: Time to vote the chair? I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic assistance, etc. Having two will improve coverage. A variation on this theme would be to call one of us Chair and the other Vice-Chair, with the Vice-Chair empowered to pitch in on acks and karma, and the chair responsible for the reports. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Time to vote the chair?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: For me the question is one of direction. I think Chris is making clear the kind of course he'd like to pursue down the road. Where do you stand on that discussion? I support your direction of delegating more authority to podlings by identifying qualified contributors and adding them to the IPMC. I also support the general direction of Bill's proposal to demolish the incubator; however, I think that we're a long, long, way from a consensus on a derivative of that. Bill's scheme does cut the gordian knot of the argument over who should be an IPMC member. To expand, given the current structure and function of this PMC, you can count me in the group of people who feel that an IPMC member needs to be qualified and prepared to mentor a podling. Not to be the chair, not to review reports. The fact that the PMC needs some people to do these tasks does not, to me, imply that every member must be qualified and interesting to do so. I see a conflict in the role of the chair with respect to these question. On the one hand, we have the idea that the chair is the servant of the community, and a proposed chair should be aiming to foster consensus and then abide by it. So, whatever my opinion, I should be planning to put it aside and focus on facilitating a constructive discussion. On the other hand, the chair is the person to whom the board delegates authority, and you're entitled to ask us what we plan to do if presented with more voting scenarios like the recent ones, or at least what we think about the questions. I still feel under-informed about the current voting rules and the meta-voting rules, so I honestly can't tell you at this instance what I'd do if called upon to play referee, except to make it my business to find out the rules promptly. As for what I think, I've written it. From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 8:56 PM Subject: Re: Time to vote the chair? I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic assistance, etc. Having two will improve coverage. A variation on this theme would be to call one of us Chair and the other Vice-Chair, with the Vice-Chair empowered to pitch in on acks and karma, and the chair responsible for the reports. - 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: Time to vote the chair?
On 2/2/2012 8:15 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I support your direction of delegating more authority to podlings by identifying qualified contributors and adding them to the IPMC. I also support the general direction of Bill's proposal to demolish the incubator Credit where credit is due, this is not my brainchild. Although I did believe that, yes, putting an assortment of individuals into the very complex IPMC to represent their very narrow interest in a podling was counterproductive, I totally support the idea, and I've tried to offer a few refinements gleaned from serving on the ASF board in the past. All credit belongs to Chris Mattmann, I simply retitled the thread when responding to his post Message-ID: 25c5ae77-6949-493e-bbd5-eb20869a2...@jpl.nasa.gov - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Lucy (incubating) 0.3.0 RC 1
Peter Karman wrote on 1/30/12 8:51 PM: Apache Lucy PPMC vote thread: http://s.apache.org/uot +1 Marvin Humphrey *+ +1 Chris Mattman *+ +1 Chris Hostetter *+ +1 David E. Wheeler * +1 Nick Wellnhofer * +1 Logan Bell * * indicates Lucy PPMC member + indicates Incubator PMC member Please vote on releasing this candidate as Apache Lucy (incubating) version 0.3.0. The vote will be held open for at least the next 72 hours. The VOTE has passed with 3 binding +1 votes from IPMC members. -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . pe...@peknet.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair
I intend to nominate Noel J. Bergman I will leave my hat in the ring, but also note that a number of people have expressed that not only is it time to vote for the Incubator PMC Chair, but also that it is time for new, different, energy and ideas in that role. So those people would certainly prefer to see someone other than me in the role. In my view, the Incubator PMC Chair is a largely administrative role, but also charged with protecting the ASF and the Incubator as the ultimate oversight. If I am not re-elected, I will not reminisce about the days of having to do the monthly reports. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[ANNOUNCE] Apache Lucy (incubating) 0.3.0 released
Greetings, The Apache Lucy team is pleased to announce the release of version 0.3.0 from the Apache Incubator! Apache Lucy is full-text search engine library written in C and targeted at dynamic languages. For a list of issues resolved in this version, please see the full changelog below: 0.3.0 2012-01-15 New features: * [LUCY-173] - Bundle Lemon parser generator * [LUCY-189] - Bundle utf8proc * [LUCY-191] - Unicode normalization The new analyzer Lucy::Analysis::Normalizer provides Unicode normalization, case folding and stripping of accents. * [LUCY-196] - UAX #29 tokenizer The new analyzer Lucy::Analysis::StandardTokenizer tokenizes according to the UAX #29 word break rules. * [LUCY-203] - Implement EasyAnalyzer EasyAnalyzer is simple analysis chain using the StandardTokenizer, the Normalizer, and the SnowballStemmer. Bugfixes: * [LUCY-175] - Missing stdarg.h breaks build * [LUCY-176] - More INCREF/DECREF symbol collisions under Windows * [LUCY-178] - Discriminate between stdio and POSIX in large file support probing. * [LUCY-180] - ORQuery, ANDQuery, RequiredOptionalQuery optimizations affect scoring * [LUCY-181] - Perl Documentation fix - Remove links to classes within docs, that are not exposed to Perl * [LUCY-182] - highlighter bug when searching for duplicate terms [wordX wordX] * [LUCY-183] - Eliminate spurious extra query normalization * [LUCY-185] - Improve error handling when required params not supplied * [LUCY-186] - Terminate connection from SearchClient properly * [LUCY-187] - Adapt to GC changes in Perl 5.15 * [LUCY-188] - Highlighter should accept weighted Queries (Compilers) * [LUCY-193] - Occasional schema file name collision under 'truncate' * [LUCY-195] - Revisit pthreads linking on OpenBSD. * [LUCY-206] - Work around broken export in Perl 5.15.6 Improvements: * [LUCY-142] - Port Clownfish compiler to C * [LUCY-143] - Convert Clownfish::Parser to Lemon * [LUCY-179] - Tighten UTF-8 validity checks. * [LUCY-197] - Clean whitespace for 0.3.0 * [LUCY-204] - Process ClusterSearcher RPCs in parallel * [LUCY-205] - Parallel processing for SearchServer This introduces an incompatible API change: The port argument has moved from the constructor to the serve method and the password argument has been removed. Tasks: * [LUCY-133] - Eliminate JSON::XS dependency * [LUCY-134] - Eliminate Parse::RecDescent dependency * [LUCY-137] - Dependency licensing in grant code The most recent release can be obtained from our download page: http://incubator.apache.org/lucy/download.html For general information on Apache Lucy, please visit the project website: http://incubator.apache.org/lucy/ Disclaimer: Apache Lucy is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. Regards, Peter Karman, on behalf of the Apache Lucy development team and community -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . pe...@peknet.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair
Based on the current discussions for radically redefining the Incubator, I propose William A Rowe, Jr. for the new Incubator PMC Chair. Between Bill and Chris Mattman, they are the leading forces behind the proposed re-org, and I feel that, Bill would be the more experienced choice, and hope that he he would take the role at least long enough to see the new re-org structure put into place and up-and-running. Bill, what say you? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair
Noel J. Bergman wrote: I intend to nominate Noel J. Bergman I will leave my hat in the ring ... But as others will have noted, if the proposed re-organization is to move forward, I personally recommend Bill Rowe for the role, or Chris Mattman if Bill won't take it. That new Incubator will be different from the one we have known, and those two are the driving forces behind its new structure. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Thanks Christian. I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and Joe, and the comments from Benson and others. I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist much longer. Should I be elected I will immediately move to a proposal/resolution phase and recommendation to the board to dissolve the Incubator PMC, and to ratify the elements of my proposal. I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but I'm optimistic that it can be built not longer after that. Cheers, Chris On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson. I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my feelings in many ways. In addition he is a damn nice guy with many ideas. Cheers Christian On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: This belongs on general@ ... A call for nominations for Incubator PMC Chair was started on the private@ list. The nomination process should be open to the Incubator community. --- Noel -Original Message- Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:30 To: priv...@incubator.apache.org Subject: NOMINATIONS for IPMC Chair I nominate __, assuming he is willing and able to handle the workload - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- 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 ++ 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: Time to vote the chair?
Hi Benson, I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards proposal/resolution and board recommendation to dissolve the Incubator and the VP Incubator position, and to implement my proposal. I realize there are INFRA impacts to this; and other nitty gritty details -- I'm willing to help where I can with those and to facilitate the others. Cheers, Chris On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic assistance, etc. Having two will improve coverage. A variation on this theme would be to call one of us Chair and the other Vice-Chair, with the Vice-Chair empowered to pitch in on acks and karma, and the chair responsible for the reports. - 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: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür r...@apache.org wrote: Hello, While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1 in the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE and license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of modules that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate fixes these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules not in the release profile. This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the modules in the release profile. A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher are available with their signatures at: http://people.apache.org/~reto/clerezza-release-201202/ In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating. Cheers, Reto I've had a look and the LICENSE file in the binary distribution looks good now. The binary distribution is missing the NOTICE file though. The source distribution has a README.txt which says This is a source distribution containing different modules to which different notices from copyright holders apply, see the NOTICE files in the root folders of the individual modules. That might be better to also mention licensing, perhaps ...different licenses and notices...see the LICENSE and NOTICE files..., i'd probably still vote for it with the text as it is though. Also remember still my comment from the previous thread - not everyone here will be happy with source license doc like this and not all in the top LICENSE file so pester people like your mentors to make sure you'll get the necessary votes. ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Chris, I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist much longer. I spoke with Bill this evening, and have indicated to him that I'd like for you and he to already start working on the re-org proposal. We'll need to vote on it, but there seems to be interest in that direction. However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-) --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
On 2/2/2012 10:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Thanks Christian. I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and Joe, and the comments from Benson and others. I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist much longer. Should I be elected I will immediately move to a proposal/resolution phase and recommendation to the board to dissolve the Incubator PMC, and to ratify the elements of my proposal. I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but I'm optimistic that it can be built not longer after that. I'm happy to support you in that effort, even as an assistant chair (and I'd decline Noel's nomination, thanks though for the thought). I think once it's proposed the board will make clear why the position still needs to be filled, even if they accept such a radical rethinking of the process. I think you would make a good choice on both sides of the transition, once there is a clear scope for the other side of the tunnel. I'm happy to help with some of the structure of the incubating-project resolutions, but my time is a bit too limited to handle the copy and paste between situations. Thinking that the gist of the transition be considered and nominally approved or denied by the board in February, and that in the succeeding three months, those project up for reporting with three+ accountable mentors be put forward as incubating projects (unless ready for graduation). Between now and the consideration of those first projects in March, the structure of incubator.a.o would need to be altered slighly. By June, we are left with a handful of projects which simply don't have mentors or participants to propel them even to the stage of being a TLP under incubation. And that month would be the logical point to refer them to the Attic if their IP is clean, or discard them altogether if resources can't be mustered. It's a long ways off, so lots of time to intervene between now and then. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Hi Noel, On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Chris, I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist much longer. I spoke with Bill this evening, and have indicated to him that I'd like for you and he to already start working on the re-org proposal. We'll need to vote on it, but there seems to be interest in that direction. Yep, I saw it. There's nothing much more to be re-worked, and it's not just between me and Bill. Greg Stein commented too. So did others today, including Joe, Leo, Karl, Marvin and Benson. If you find something incomplete about my proposal, please be specific, and let's discuss it. But it's not for this committee to VOTE on. This committee is unfortunately not functional and has served its purpose to the foundation. I am working on a proposal not for this committee, but for the board itself, to dissolve the Incubator, period, and the Incubator VP role. If I am elected as Incubator VP chair in the interim, fine, but it will only be to facilitiate what I believe to be in the best interests of the foundation: to move towards the proposal, resolution, and implementation of my proposal. Thank you for your great service to the Incubator community and to the ASF. And thanks to the Incubator PMC over the years, and to all the folks who made the Incubator what it is today. It's served its purpose and IMHO time to call the Incubator delivered, and the need for the role of Incubator VP, complete. However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-) :) Nope, it doesn't actually. Please read the thread carefully. That is what is being suggested by Bill and by Greg, but I see room to convince them otherwise. I think they'll see the light. 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: Time to vote the chair?
On 2/2/2012 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic assistance, etc. Having two will improve coverage. A variation on this theme would be to call one of us Chair and the other Vice-Chair, with the Vice-Chair empowered to pitch in on acks and karma, and the chair responsible for the reports. The board has, as a rule, not approved co-chairs, but will entertain an assistant chair, which really isn't a logistical headache. If there is a problem, they are still chasing or replacing the chair. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
On 2/2/2012 11:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-) :) Nope, it doesn't actually. Please read the thread carefully. That is what is being suggested by Bill and by Greg, but I see room to convince them otherwise. I think they'll see the light. You don't need to convince me :) You would need to convince the board, and I don't expect them to be receptive. I would rather go forward with a VP, Project Incubation than to have the board dismiss the proposal out of hand, if that's how they would have it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Hey Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 11:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-) :) Nope, it doesn't actually. Please read the thread carefully. That is what is being suggested by Bill and by Greg, but I see room to convince them otherwise. I think they'll see the light. You don't need to convince me :) You would need to convince the board, and I don't expect them to be receptive. I would rather go forward with a VP, Project Incubation than to have the board dismiss the proposal out of hand, if that's how they would have it. Well that's a good question isn't it. A quick check of the current board: http://apache.org/foundation/board/ • Shane Curcuru • Doug Cutting (chairman) • Bertrand Delacretaz • Roy T. Fielding • Jim Jagielski • Brett Porter • Lawrence Rosen • Sam Ruby • Greg Stein A quick check of the Incubator PMC against current board membership: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc Shane [check] Doug [check] Roy [no] Jim [check] Brett [check] Larry [no] Sam [check] Greg [check] So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and a good chance they are here now, and reading this. What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now rather than have to wait. And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role in 6 months (or sooner, if required?) IOW, we accept my proposal asi-is. Then in 6 months, we'll see how it's working out, and I'll tell you what, if we need an Incubation VP then, I'll be all for it, and even willing to sign up for it. 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: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)
Hi Bill, On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:32 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 10:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Thanks Christian. I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and Joe, and the comments from Benson and others. I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it very long as I don't intend for it to exist much longer. Should I be elected I will immediately move to a proposal/resolution phase and recommendation to the board to dissolve the Incubator PMC, and to ratify the elements of my proposal. I realize that Rome wasn't built in a day, but I'm optimistic that it can be built not longer after that. I'm happy to support you in that effort, even as an assistant chair (and I'd decline Noel's nomination, thanks though for the thought). +1 thanks you have been really helping to lead a great discussion and I would welcome your support. I think once it's proposed the board will make clear why the position still needs to be filled, even if they accept such a radical rethinking of the process. I think you would make a good choice on both sides of the transition, once there is a clear scope for the other side of the tunnel. Yep no worries. If they do, great. I realize that I'm proposing some pretty radical stuff here. But I think it's actionable and will improve the foundation and that the board will see that. I'm happy to help with some of the structure of the incubating-project resolutions, but my time is a bit too limited to handle the copy and paste between situations. Thinking that the gist of the transition be considered and nominally approved or denied by the board in February, and that in the succeeding three months, those project up for reporting with three+ accountable mentors be put forward as incubating projects (unless ready for graduation). Between now and the consideration of those first projects in March, the structure of incubator.a.o would need to be altered slighly. Yep, agreed. I'm hoping that each of the podling committees that would transition to TLP during this time could pick up a shovel and help dig the hole(s). I will also help. By June, we are left with a handful of projects which simply don't have mentors or participants to propel them even to the stage of being a TLP under incubation. And that month would be the logical point to refer them to the Attic if their IP is clean, or discard them altogether if resources can't be mustered. It's a long ways off, so lots of time to intervene between now and then. +1. Bingo. Precisely. 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: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator
Hi gents, Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of first Open Source projects in this field? Moreover, is there any ASF committer wanting to contribute as initial committer? TIA. Regards. On 31/01/2012 10:14, Simone Tripodi wrote: Hi all guys, I would like to propose Syncope, an Open Source system for managing identities in enterprise environments, implemented in JEE technology, originally developed by Tirasa, an Italian IT company, to be an Apache Incubator project. The goal for Syncope is to become the reference implementation for Open Source Identity Management, a middleware area in which there are very few and not yet mature Open Source solutions available. Here's a link to the proposal in the Incubator wiki[1] where we started collecting all needed info. As you will note, the list of mentors is in need of some volunteers, so if you find this interesting, feel free to sign up or let us know you are interested :). Hope to read from you soon, thanks in advance and have a nice day! All the best, Simo [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SyncopeProposal http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ -- Francesco Chicchiriccò Apache Cocoon Committer and PMC Member http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
