Re: [RESULT][IP Clearance] Flex Documentation for Apache Flex
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following text in the middle... The product field can have the values: ColdFusion, Flex, Dreamweaver, and Illustrator ... and then the following text at the bottom: Adobe and Adobe Flash are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries and are used by permission from Adobe. No other license to the Adobe trademarks are granted It looks to me that in this example Flex just needs to add ColdFusion and Dreamweaver after Adobe Flash in that latter paragraph, to properly acknowledge those trademarks. I don't see how someone would need permission to make that change, as it states a true fact which is missing from the above text. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. +1 Upayavira - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
+1 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 27, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. +1 Upayavira - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: On 04/23/2015 02:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. I have a philosophical question, to add to David's rather more practical one. Our mission is software for the public good. Whimsy is software for the ASF's good. How does the public benefit from Whimsy? I can't imagine a development path that would result in a release of Whimsy that anyone outside of the ASF could derive any benefit from. Two distinct answers. Answer 1: so... kinda like Gump[1]? Answer 2: it would surprise me if nobody else in the world had a need for meetings where minutes are taken or received documents that needed to be processed or needed an online form or like to explore STV vote results... oh, wait, the last one already is a part of an ASF project. A while back, Ross asked me if the board agenda tool could be adapted to support the incubator team. I sketched out a few idea, but both of us being busy people, the idea didn't go any further. There is a popular web framework called Ruby on Rails. It was extracted[2] from a successful project called Basecamp. I see that as the model I'd like Whimsy to follow. As a thought experiment, how many of the following brainstorming ideas are truly ASF specific: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9530 -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - Sam Ruby [1] https://gump.apache.org/ [2] http://rubyonrails.org/core/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache TinkerPop 3.0.0.M8-incubating Release (Part Deux)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 10:02 PM Marko Rodriguez okramma...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, The vote for Apache TinkerPop 3.0.0.M8-incubating is now closed with a final tally of: +1 (3) -- 0 (0) -- -1 (0) Make sure to include a voting record, not just the summary votes. It helps to point at a single result e-mail to see everyone who voted, rather than having to dig through the thread. Thank you everyone for helping to get TinkerPop 3.0.0.M8 out. We will push to Central Repo on Monday. Congratulations on the successful release. Take care, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Apr 25, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote: Signature file good Hashes file good LICENSE file good NOTICE file exists and GOOD No 3rd part executables in source package. +1 binding Good job - Henry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Marko Rodriguez okramma...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, We need one more +1 vote to release. A review would be much appreciated. Thank you, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Apr 23, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Matt Franklin m.ben.frank...@gmail.com wrote: +1 binding On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, (sending again as sent from wrong address first time) +1 binding For the source release I checked: - incubating in artifact name - signatures and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE ok - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files - Still can’t compile from source but it tells me I have wrong java version - most of the issues raised from the last release have been fixed Minor issues - please fix for next release. - No need to add normalise.css to NOTICE as it is MIT licensed (Permissive licenses only need to be added to LICENSE in most cases - the main exceptions being Apache licensed software with NOTICE files and files that have had their copyright removed). The copyright notice here should go into LICENSE. - I'm still not sure of the reason why some of the artefacts are named gremlin rather than tinkerpop Thanks, Justin - 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: [RESULT][IP Clearance] Flex Documentation for Apache Flex
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following text in the middle... The product field can have the values: ColdFusion, Flex, Dreamweaver, and Illustrator ... and then the following text at the bottom: Adobe and Adobe Flash are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries and are used by permission from Adobe. No other license to the Adobe trademarks are granted It looks to me that in this example Flex just needs to add ColdFusion and Dreamweaver after Adobe Flash in that latter paragraph, to properly acknowledge those trademarks. I don't see how someone would need permission to make that change, as it states a true fact which is missing from the above text. It's a true fact that they are trademarks of Adobe; what is less clear thanks to the incomplete whitelists and the non-standard, extra-strict attribution clause is whether we have permission to use them. However, Alex recently explained how the incomplete whitelists originated: http://s.apache.org/nEv The list of Adobe products in the text at the bottom was created by me from a template given to me by Adobe lawyers. Apparently, I missed listing a few products. So, it was an inadvertent glitch rather than the result of an incomplete usage request or a deliberate withholding of permission. I'm glad the glitch is being fixed. I don't think it has to be Alex who makes the commits; it seems reasonable for another person to act on his assurances now that all of this detail has been captured to the public record. But since Alex is willing to take on that task, all the better. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: On 04/27/2015 02:45 PM, Upayavira wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. This feels like sophistry, and a dangerous first step. If we have a *full time* employee who is working primarily on a particular project, then it's not odd to claim that they are being paid to develop Apache code. That being the case, then the ASF is doing that thing that we have asserted, for all time, that we will never do. I'll assert that infrastructure team routinely writes code. Random example: http://s.apache.org/wPQ I'm uncomfortable that much of that is special snowflake code; and some of it has a sole author capable of maintenance. I don't have personal knowledge of examples, but I do believe that from time to time the Infrastructure team has contributed patches upstream to the products they depend on (for example, FreeBSD?). One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. In this case, though, it will be the ASF paying for a developer to work on an ASF project. I hope that we're not just taking a convenient position that will bite us later. I trust that Ross, you, and David will find the right balance. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On 04/27/2015 02:45 PM, Upayavira wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. This feels like sophistry, and a dangerous first step. If we have a *full time* employee who is working primarily on a particular project, then it's not odd to claim that they are being paid to develop Apache code. That being the case, then the ASF is doing that thing that we have asserted, for all time, that we will never do. One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. In this case, though, it will be the ASF paying for a developer to work on an ASF project. I hope that we're not just taking a convenient position that will bite us later. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upstream. As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. This means the foundation never pays for development to something like the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra contractors. The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project (wherever that may be). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. Cheers, -g
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
I’ll note that the only person I see from infra that has been proposed in the current PMC is Jake Ferrel: * Acquia: Jake Farrell Someone also correct me in that I don’t think Jake is a paid infra contractor. In addition the way I see this is that it is no different e.g., than contributing upstream to FreeBSD or whatever - Infra contractors may fix something and decide it’s in the ASF’s best interests to contribute it upstream - same may happen for Whimsy. But to date, ASF infra folk that are contractors I believe are not proposed to be directly paid to contribute to Whimsy. Should they do so, great. But in the famous words of Sam Ruby let’s deal with this if there is an actual data point instead of hypotheticals. Cheers, Chris -Original Message- From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upstream. As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. This means the foundation never pays for development to something like the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra contractors. The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project (wherever that may be). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. Cheers, -g
RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upstream. As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. This means the foundation never pays for development to something like the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra contractors. Ross -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 6:11 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: On 04/27/2015 02:45 PM, Upayavira wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. This feels like sophistry, and a dangerous first step. If we have a *full time* employee who is working primarily on a particular project, then it's not odd to claim that they are being paid to develop Apache code. That being the case, then the ASF is doing that thing that we have asserted, for all time, that we will never do. I'll assert that infrastructure team routinely writes code. Random example: http://s.apache.org/wPQ I'm uncomfortable that much of that is special snowflake code; and some of it has a sole author capable of maintenance. I don't have personal knowledge of examples, but I do believe that from time to time the Infrastructure team has contributed patches upstream to the products they depend on (for example, FreeBSD?). One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. In this case, though, it will be the ASF paying for a developer to work on an ASF project. I hope that we're not just taking a convenient position that will bite us later. I trust that Ross, you, and David will find the right balance. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
+1, that's what I was trying to convey. -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upstream. As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. This means the foundation never pays for development to something like the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra contractors. The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project (wherever that may be). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project (wherever that may be). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. +1 Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
I have always been an infra volunteer -Jake On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: I’ll note that the only person I see from infra that has been proposed in the current PMC is Jake Ferrel: * Acquia: Jake Farrell Someone also correct me in that I don’t think Jake is a paid infra contractor. In addition the way I see this is that it is no different e.g., than contributing upstream to FreeBSD or whatever - Infra contractors may fix something and decide it’s in the ASF’s best interests to contribute it upstream - same may happen for Whimsy. But to date, ASF infra folk that are contractors I believe are not proposed to be directly paid to contribute to Whimsy. Should they do so, great. But in the famous words of Sam Ruby let’s deal with this if there is an actual data point instead of hypotheticals. Cheers, Chris -Original Message- From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 7:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upstream. As long as all committers are equal and earn their merit in the traditional way I don't see a problem from the projects side. IN this instance the ASF is just another contributor to the project. This means the foundation never pays for development to something like the foundation never pays for development except where the modification is made as part of our normal infrastructure operations. On these rare occasions the foundation is just another employer and the contributor is just another community member. Changes are contributed upstream through the normal contribution process. There is no special role for ASF infra contractors. The ASF pays for Infra contractors. Their job/role is to maintain our systems. Sometimes their duty *may* be to contribute software to $Project (wherever that may be). That is *very* distinct from paying a person to contribute directly to $ASFProject. Cheers, -g
Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal
I am a proposed mentor associated with Pivotal, well away from my own technology and engineering teams. I'm not good enough with darts to hit that side of the org chart from this side of the room, but really would like to see the contribution succeed, so I'm approaching this as always with my ASF hat, as a facilitator and educator. I've had enough conversations to trust that this is doable. There seem to be no further issues raised, and there have been nearly 2 weeks for more concerns, questions and other commentary. Roman, this appears to be vote-worthy. Incubation can't begin unless incubation is begun... Yours, Bill On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: +1 on what Justin said. And I am not affiliated w/ Pivotal in _any_ way. Cos On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:10AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 13 Apr 2015, at 06:39, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In To be clear, there were conversations with Jim (as VP Legal) prior to this submission. The ASF wouldn't accept the software grant until the Incubator approved the proposal. Pivotal wouldn't release it as ALv2 until the ASF accepted the grant. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - seeing the code through the click-through evaluation license is the least bad scenario that drives this proposal forward. As a mentor unaffiliated with Pivotal, I'm not worried about the provenance checks - Pivotal is ready to execute the software grant and release it as ALv2.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache TinkerPop 3.0.0.M8-incubating Release (Part Deux)
Hello, Make sure to include a voting record, not just the summary votes. It helps to point at a single result e-mail to see everyone who voted, rather than having to dig through the thread. Understood. The URL to the bottom of the [VOTE] thread is here: https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg48404.html Congratulations on the successful release. Thanks -- and to the people who reviewed and voted. We appreciate you all helping us get our pattern down which should make future releases clock work. Take care, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com Take care, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Apr 25, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Henry Saputra henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote: Signature file good Hashes file good LICENSE file good NOTICE file exists and GOOD No 3rd part executables in source package. +1 binding Good job - Henry On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Marko Rodriguez okramma...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, We need one more +1 vote to release. A review would be much appreciated. Thank you, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Apr 23, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Matt Franklin m.ben.frank...@gmail.com wrote: +1 binding On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, (sending again as sent from wrong address first time) +1 binding For the source release I checked: - incubating in artifact name - signatures and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE ok - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binary files - Still can’t compile from source but it tells me I have wrong java version - most of the issues raised from the last release have been fixed Minor issues - please fix for next release. - No need to add normalise.css to NOTICE as it is MIT licensed (Permissive licenses only need to be added to LICENSE in most cases - the main exceptions being Apache licensed software with NOTICE files and files that have had their copyright removed). The copyright notice here should go into LICENSE. - I'm still not sure of the reason why some of the artefacts are named gremlin rather than tinkerpop Thanks, Justin - 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] Accept Geode into the Apache Incubator
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Following the discussion earlier in the thread: http://s.apache.org/Oxt I would like to call a VOTE for accepting Geode as a new incubator project. The proposal is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GeodeProposal and is also included at the bottom of this email. Vote is open until at least Sunday, 26 April 2015, 23:59:00 PST [ ] +1 accept Geode in the Incubator [ ] ±0 [ ] -1 because... +1 (binding) Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Geode into the Apache Incubator
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Following the discussion earlier in the thread: http://s.apache.org/Oxt I would like to call a VOTE for accepting Geode as a new incubator project. The proposal is available at: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GeodeProposal and is also included at the bottom of this email. Vote is open until at least Sunday, 26 April 2015, 23:59:00 PST [ ] +1 accept Geode in the Incubator [ ] ±0 [ ] -1 because... With seventeen +1 binding votes, one +1 non-binding vote (eighteen +1 votes total) NO +/-0 or -1 votes, this VOTE PASSES. Thanks to all who voted! Here's a tally of +1 binding votes: Jan Iversen Chris Mattmann Suresh Marru Ted Dunning Henry Saputra James Carman Rob Vesse Chris Douglas Konstantin Boudnik Jakob Homan Chip Childers P. Taylor Goetz Justin Erenkrantz Jim Jagielski Alan Cabrera Niall Pemberton Roman Shaposhnik and an additional tally of +1 non-binding votes: Stuart Williams Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 06:50 PM, David Nalley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. - Sam Ruby So one question (and perhaps a selfish concern). Infrastructure has a significant interest in whimsy (the service and codebase). I suspect that the ASF is also likely (at least for now) the primary user. Infrastructure has spent some time and resources, and even has a contractor that is paid on working on Whimsy and the associated areas. My question (and selfish concern) is: We have generally accepted that the ASF doesn't pay for development on projects. What does that mean for the contractors? Are they effectively forbidden from doing development work on Whimsy? In particular, I have a ruby developer working as a contractor who I'd like to working on things like Whimsy, secretary workbench, etc. What a wonderful question!! My take: a contractor cannot be paid to work on Whimsy, that's fair and understandable. He is paid to work on ASF infrastructure. However, as a part of fulfilling those duties, if he needs to work on Whimsy, or to code up a patch on httpd, or whatever, so be it. As far as the *project* is concerned, he is a volunteer the same as everyone else. He's being paid to work on infrastructure, not on Whimsy. One thing that I saw during my stint as VP Fundraising is that projects and the Foundation really are distinct things. The Foundation can contract someone to work on a project that it needs in order to support the work of the Foundation. If that happens to be contributing to an ASF project, so be it. However, they are not gaining any special privilege, they are as it were paid by an external entity just like all other contributors to any other ASF project. Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC
On 04/23/2015 02:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Initial sketch placed on the wiki: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. I have a philosophical question, to add to David's rather more practical one. Our mission is software for the public good. Whimsy is software for the ASF's good. How does the public benefit from Whimsy? I can't imagine a development path that would result in a release of Whimsy that anyone outside of the ASF could derive any benefit from. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
