Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF IMO it's not a team that's needed, just a clear and modular release checklist. By modular I mean something like our maturity model [1] where each item is atomic and numbered so one could say this release doesn't comply with RM-42 and everybody knows what it's about. And there's no inventing new checklist items unless they are approved by the PMC who owns the checklist. IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I volunteer to contribute to creating it. We do have a starting point at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html but the release checklist might need more explanations, as footnotes, and its own page to keep the noise low. Hi Bertrand, If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps turning this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings could upload a tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for compliance, go through the checklist, and report back which elements are compliant and which are not. I think that this, while not being 100% accurate, would save a lot of time and aggravation when dealing with the initial release candidates, and save us a lot of time by automating what we tend to spend quite a lot of time doing manually. This won't solve everything, but it would really cut down on the time that is, in my opinion, wasted on getting a release through the IPMC, while still retaining the policies and rules we need in order to comply with our legal requirements. With regards, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF IMO it's not a team that's needed, just a clear and modular release checklist. By modular I mean something like our maturity model [1] where each item is atomic and numbered so one could say this release doesn't comply with RM-42 and everybody knows what it's about. And there's no inventing new checklist items unless they are approved by the PMC who owns the checklist. IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I volunteer to contribute to creating it. We do have a starting point at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html but the release checklist might need more explanations, as footnotes, and its own page to keep the noise low. -Bertrand [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Mail archives (was: apache binary distributions)
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: ...Next time I will archive such mails in my mail program instead. Learned something for the future... Markmail is pretty useful here: http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=from%3ATheodorou+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general And there's also https://mail-search.apache.org/ but I'm not sure if podling PPMC members can use it. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
sorry, I really tried, but it seems google is not a suitable tool to search through the incubator general list. It shows by far not all results it should show. There is a hint that some results are not shown because of privacy protection. Searching for my own name for exmaple shows only a single result... I know for sure I had more posts than that ;) Next time I will archive such mails in my mail program instead. Learned something for the future Am 03.08.2015 17:05, schrieb Alex Harui: OK, I’ll bite. Do you have links to where you got this information? -Alex On 8/3/15, 2:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: Hi all, some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository. I seem to misunderstand something here, or why can there be apache maven artifacts in maven central and package in linux distributions for for example httpd, if this policy is followed? I mean it was even suggested to use the trademark to forbid the distribution through third parties. I am quite irritated about this. bye blackdrag -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Give me wiki write access
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Dekany ddek...@freemail.hu wrote: Please give me write access on https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/! Name: DanielDekany Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Give me wiki write access
Please give me write access on https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/! Name: DanielDekany (I'm an initial comitter at FreeMarker: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/freemarker.html) -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Am 03.08.2015 21:46, schrieb David Nalley: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: Hi all, some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository. I seem to misunderstand something here, or why can there be apache maven artifacts in maven central and package in linux distributions for for example httpd, if this policy is followed? I mean it was even suggested to use the trademark to forbid the distribution through third parties. I am quite irritated about this. bye blackdrag I am not aware of any policy that dictates that (but would love to see links.) yeah, next time I will do that better. Getting the stuff out of here, will require me reading thousands of mails through that stupid web interface and google doesn't help either. I am aware that releases MUST at least be distributed via dist.apache.org [1], but that isn't exclusive, meaning the PMC is welcome to distribute _released software_ via other means (PyPy, NPM, Maven, Docker Registry, CPAN, Bintray, carrier pigeon, etc). --David [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#where-do-releases-go The problem already starts with that what a release is on http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html I read that as anything that goes beyond the dev-list is to be handled as release. It does not say by whom. And there is no mentioning of the releasing of released software, only the distribution of releases. But anyway... le tme phrase some scenarios and question: Let us assume httpd makes the release 2.4.10, a linux distributor takes the source, adapts them (for example security patches), compiles packages out of it and releases it as http://packages.ubuntu.com/vivid-updates/apache2-bin in source and binary form. Then it means they took a release and made their own release out of it, while using the apache name. The PMC might or might not be involved in this. Of course this is no released release in the sense of ttp://www.apache.org/dev/release.html, since it was never voted on in this form and it never appeared in that form on www.apache.org/dist or repository.apache.org. The point being here, for the end-user this will be the official release, not what is found on the apache servers. Why is this ok? It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are basically to be handled as nightly builds and as such not for the general public, thus only for the dev-list. It was said, that having the SNAPSHOT appendix in the jar name as well as not being able to automatically get them via maven without having to add that tag is not enough for the end-user to know for, that this is no official release. And that if such things are going into the distribution repository, they have to be handled as release, including voting and such. For that I guess it does not matter if it is the apache repository or something else. What would happen if a third party would do this? Is the project/apache required to do something about this? I mean if you read this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CD1B01671.4EE90%25rvesse%40dotnetrdf.org%3E some even see nightly builds, not communicated beyond the dev-list on non-apache servers already as a problem. Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one of the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes maven artifacts out of it and publishes them at maven central. Is that ok? I mean that is very near the distributor case, so it should be ok, or not? Oh and by chance I found the marks violation part: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CCAGHyZ6JFqYhozYjR%3DvvGeoRMafi5cgUo7L-tfyxZGVTf%2BgvR3A%40mail.gmail.com%3E If the Docker Hub page wasn't under the control of the Geode PMC, then I'd say it was a marks violation and they'd have to seek out control of it or removal. Personal opinion mostly of course, but that is one of the problem... lot's of opinions based on a few fixed rules, that make not always sense, since their intend is not documented and thus it cannot be seen if their application is as intended. bye blackdrag -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
Hi, On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: ...It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository Do you have a concrete use case behind that? If you can describe the simplest example of what you'd like to do and think you can't, that might help focus the discussion. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Hi Daniel, On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote: On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: ... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I volunteer to contribute to creating it... If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps turning this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings could upload a tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for compliance, go through the checklist, and report back which elements are compliant and which are not... Wow, that's more ambitious than what I envisioned but I know your are able to do that ;-) Creating a release checklist in a structured text format sounds like a good start anyway, so we can start with that and if you and others want to turn it into an online analysis service that would be fantastic. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wiki access
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: For some reason I am not able to edit any pages on the incubator wiki. I could swear I used to be able to do that. Does someone have karma to fix this? Like all Apache wikis, the Incubator wiki had to implement whitelisting to counter spam. I don't see anything resembling your name on http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ContributorsGroup. Let me know your Incubator wiki login and I'll add it. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Can you provide a pointer to a specific example of what you mean? On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting up to speed on Trafodion, I have not seen micromanagement of podlings. Could you point out an example? Curious what you mean. It is worth noting that none of the IPMC members micromanage on purpose, or are even aware that their actions are being interpreted as acts of micromanagement. From their perspective, it is their responsibility to guide the podling, and that is what they are trying to do. It will unfair to bring those out as examples of micromanagement. That said, I have personally been in positions where I have seen IPMC members ask - and even demand things at times - that I feel are unreasonable requests for the podling. The reason I do not challenge those is because I feel that their asks are rooted in good intentions, and that the IPMC in its current form encourages such involvement and authority. At the same time I also worry about the state of the podling and what this does to their way of thinking about Apache and the Incubator. Regards, Arvind Prabhakar On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of I don't want to be accountable if something goes wrong in this podling. Right, but that same concern could be applied to every single TLP and yet the board seems to do the right thing with that. Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something goes wrong. My point all along has been that this is a false sense of security. In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance. But I think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need. Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Sorry, my comment was too brief.
I understand the maturity model to be something to aspire to and that Apache
Projects will always be working toward it. I mean TLPs, not podlings, although
podlings should be aware of it and also aspire to it.
I was commending the structure and clarity of the maturity model as a basis,
not about it being somehow held to podlings as a graduation yardstick or
anything else.
I was responding in the context of Bertrand's comment,
Creating a release checklist in a structured text format
sounds like a good start anyway, so we can start with that
... .
that used the maturity model format as a suggested form.
- D
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On 4 August 2015 at 18:46, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
+1 on how to start, with the maturity model as exemplar, is an outstanding
idea. Thanks.
(I even have a poddling in mind for stress-testing it.)
It is clear to me, that incubator offer many advantages...but our current
overweight to control everything is seen (and are) a negative effect,
anything
that can reduce that is good.
I think the maturity model is good, but to used with care. If I think of
the same podling as Dennis, that would clearly be a test done too early.
rgds
jan i.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57
To: Incubator General general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
volunteer to contribute to creating it...
If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps turning
this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings could
upload a
tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for compliance, go
through the checklist, and report back which elements are compliant and
which are not...
Wow, that's more ambitious than what I envisioned but I know your are
able to do that ;-)
Creating a release checklist in a structured text format sounds like a
good start anyway, so we can start with that and if you and others
want to turn it into an online analysis service that would be
fantastic.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Who are the village spinsters?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
On 03.08.2015 21:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
In my experience incubating Calcite, the “overhead” was mostly the
infrastructure and process, not politics. (If you think the incubator is
political, you haven’t seen politics…) The process is necessary (mostly) to
ensure clean IP. The infrastructure, less so. So, if we’re talking about
how to reduce the burden on podlings, those are the areas I would focus on.
Roman’s proposed reform places more responsibility on podling PMCs and,
by implication, the mentors embedded in those PMCs.
At the end of the day, it *is* the mentors' responsibility. The IPMC
mostly gets involved after the fact.
I am not sure how well that would work in practice given the ongoing
problem of absentee mentors. The IPMC epitomizes the “it takes a village to
raise a child”, in particular with village elders stepping in with
help/advice from time to time. It would be a shame to lose that.
There's no need to lose that. But it would be a really good idea to lose
the village spinster who makes the child afraid of the dark and monsters
under the bed ...
-- Brane
On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation.
Which is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be
very true at IPMC level today.
+1000
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Roman Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite
from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it
seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago:
what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC
an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make
sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a
change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs
and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for
the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint)
but and extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a
stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add
more policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like
crowd.
The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the
foundation is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs.
The bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types
of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime
soon.
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation.
Which is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be
very true at IPMC level today.
It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from
within IPMC.
Thanks,
Roman.
-
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
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Mail archives (was: apache binary distributions)
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: ...Next time I will archive such mails in my mail program instead. Learned something for the future... Markmail is pretty useful here: http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=from%3ATheodorou+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general And there's also https://mail-search.apache.org/ but I'm not sure if podling PPMC members can use it. I find using the site: annotation on google searches quite handy. It allows me to be pretty specific about what I want to search. For instance [site:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox jochen theodorou https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instantion=1espv=2ie=UTF-8#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox+jochen+theodorou ] gives me lots of emails from Jochen while [site:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/groovy-dev/201504.mbox jochen theodorou https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instantion=1espv=2ie=UTF-8#q=site:http:%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fgroovy-dev%2F201504.mbox+jochen+theodorou ] gives me only postings from April 2015 on the groovy-dev mailing list that reference Jochen.
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Hi, Just catching up on this thread. Going back a bit. #2 The #1 goal is achieved via mentorship. In fact mentorship is not even required as the case of Zest (and hopeful Yetus soon) demonstrated. Not to pick on Zest but a casual glance at the current source release shows it contains a couple of jars and the Apache LICENSE is incomplete. I know nothing about Zest and these are probably (easily fixed) minor issues, but it does show that having someone outside your project reviewing releases can be useful. If we as some people seem to be suggesting just announce podling releases on this list and not have an IPMC vote it seems to me we would be more likely to have releases with issues in them. Some of these would be minor and probably not matter but it does increase the risk. And if an issue is found what do we do about the previous releases? It seems( that checking often and early gives better results. Automated tools can certainly find some issues but they IMO are never going to find every issue. How can an automated tool easily know that cat image is under copyright? Or that the original license header has been replaced with an Apache one on a file? Tools like this do exists but are probably prohibitive cost wise and time wise to implement across Apache. I certainly think having clearer policy documentation would help and like Bertrands release checklist idea, but even having clear documentation (e.g. [1]) doesn’t seem to solve all issues. I can only assume that it comes down to we’re a bunch of volunteers and our time and focus is sometimes a little scattered so stuff sometimes gets missed. Thanks, Justin 1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Wiki access
For some reason I am not able to edit any pages on the incubator wiki. I could swear I used to be able to do that. Does someone have karma to fix this? Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
+1 on how to start, with the maturity model as exemplar, is an outstanding
idea. Thanks.
(I even have a poddling in mind for stress-testing it.)
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57
To: Incubator General general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
volunteer to contribute to creating it...
If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps turning
this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings could upload a
tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for compliance, go
through the checklist, and report back which elements are compliant and
which are not...
Wow, that's more ambitious than what I envisioned but I know your are
able to do that ;-)
Creating a release checklist in a structured text format sounds like a
good start anyway, so we can start with that and if you and others
want to turn it into an online analysis service that would be
fantastic.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
As an immediate start to having a tool to support mentors and TLPs you might
want to consider providing a Rat service. Rat is already very useful.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Daniel Grunomailto:humbed...@apache.org
Sent: 8/4/2015 4:15 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I
were
discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of
ASF
IMO it's not a team that's needed, just a clear and modular release
checklist.
By modular I mean something like our maturity model [1] where each
item is atomic and numbered so one could say this release doesn't
comply with RM-42 and everybody knows what it's about.
And there's no inventing new checklist items unless they are approved
by the PMC who owns the checklist.
IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
volunteer to contribute to creating it.
We do have a starting point at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html but the release
checklist might need more explanations, as footnotes, and its own page
to keep the noise low.
Hi Bertrand,
If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps
turning this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings
could upload a tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for
compliance, go through the checklist, and report back which elements are
compliant and which are not. I think that this, while not being 100%
accurate, would save a lot of time and aggravation when dealing with the
initial release candidates, and save us a lot of time by automating what
we tend to spend quite a lot of time doing manually.
This won't solve everything, but it would really cut down on the time
that is, in my opinion, wasted on getting a release through the IPMC,
while still retaining the policies and rules we need in order to comply
with our legal requirements.
With regards,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Since I +1d Romans comment I also want to draw attention to your valuable
observation on the topic:
A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. actually complying
with policies that put community over code) as political overhead
that makes joining the foundation undesirable.
+1 to that also.
I think it becomes a problem when people come out of the woodwork at a critical
point in a puddings
Podlings lifecycle (e.g. Releases, graduation) with minutia and/or an on the
fly reinterpretation of policy.
It's hard to get the balance right between appropriate oversight and unwanted
meddling.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Joe Brockmeiermailto:j...@zonker.net
Sent: 8/4/2015 9:16 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 03:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the
status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually
make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess
I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering
PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the
idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint)
but and extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a
stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just
add more policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more
board like crowd.
If I had to identify one problem that the IPMC/Incubator suffers from at
the moment it would not be a need for a small and more board like
structure. The biggest problem (and perhaps I view it this way because
I'm suffering from it / am part of the problem) is a lack of time /
attention from mentors. I'm really not sure that the proposal here
solves that in any meaningful way.
The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation
is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The
bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types
of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime
soon.
What about the Ignite thread was unfortunate? That it was a bit heated
at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement?
I fear that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks
have legitimate concerns.
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which
is
grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very
true at IPMC level today.
A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. actually complying
with policies that put community over code) as political overhead
that makes joining the foundation undesirable.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 4 August 2015 at 18:46, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
+1 on how to start, with the maturity model as exemplar, is an outstanding
idea. Thanks.
(I even have a poddling in mind for stress-testing it.)
It is clear to me, that incubator offer many advantages...but our current
overweight to control everything is seen (and are) a negative effect,
anything
that can reduce that is good.
I think the maturity model is good, but to used with care. If I think of
the same podling as Dennis, that would clearly be a test done too early.
rgds
jan i.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57
To: Incubator General general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
volunteer to contribute to creating it...
If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps turning
this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings could
upload a
tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for compliance, go
through the checklist, and report back which elements are compliant and
which are not...
Wow, that's more ambitious than what I envisioned but I know your are
able to do that ;-)
Creating a release checklist in a structured text format sounds like a
good start anyway, so we can start with that and if you and others
want to turn it into an online analysis service that would be
fantastic.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 07:06 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: That said, I have personally been in positions where I have seen IPMC members ask - and even demand things at times - that I feel are unreasonable requests for the podling. The reason I do not challenge those is because I feel that their asks are rooted in good intentions, and that the IPMC in its current form encourages such involvement and authority. At the same time I also worry about the state of the podling and what this does to their way of thinking about Apache and the Incubator. Can you give an example (possibly abstracted to protect the guilty)? I'm very aware that I don't have as much experience as other folks mentoring, and would be grateful if podlings (politely) pushed back if I am in fact asking for / demanding anything that is not reasonable. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 03:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC an make it more board like? Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross' point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense? I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor. Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but and extremely fair observation. As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd. If I had to identify one problem that the IPMC/Incubator suffers from at the moment it would not be a need for a small and more board like structure. The biggest problem (and perhaps I view it this way because I'm suffering from it / am part of the problem) is a lack of time / attention from mentors. I'm really not sure that the proposal here solves that in any meaningful way. The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon. What about the Ignite thread was unfortunate? That it was a bit heated at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? I fear that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks have legitimate concerns. This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at IPMC level today. A lot of companies seem to view any friction (e.g. actually complying with policies that put community over code) as political overhead that makes joining the foundation undesirable. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: It's hard to get the balance right between appropriate oversight and unwanted meddling. No argument there. I'm unconvinced that a restructuring of the IPMC/PPMC/Mentorship structure as it is today will solve that, though it might push it around a little. I do think negotiating/communicating with mentors is a skill that helps folks deal with building community and running a project - which is often new to folks coming to the Incubator. So if there's unwanted meddling I hope that folks are able to push back a little bit and resolve that without having to throw out (a potentially) reasonable structure just to get around it. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator
On 08/04/2015 02:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are unclear, people interpret them based on their own understanding of unwritten Apache ethos. As Brane called it earlier - confusing opinions and policies. You see where I am going with this, right? Perhaps I'm unclear on the proposal - but how would that be mitigated by this proposal? I understand that it might expose podlings to less of this when directed towards the full IPMC for graduation, but how would it prevent this if a mentor confuses personal expectations for graduation requirements? Isn't that still a potential issue? I may misunderstand or have lost track of how that's handled in all the discussion. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator
Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are unclear, people interpret them based on their own understanding of unwritten Apache ethos. As Brane called it earlier - confusing opinions and policies. You see where I am going with this, right? Cos On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:56AM, Julian Hyde wrote: Cos, There is no bureaucratism outbreak. People are not express[ing] their expectations as a law-of-the-land. People are trying, in good faith, to make sure that decisions are made consistent with the Apache ethos. And before you ask, no, that ethos cannot be written down; it has to be interpreted via debate. This is what debate sounds like. Julian On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:36AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? I think it is more of a bias issue. IOW, today it seems that the default bias of IPMC is to consider itself a final authority (or a gatekeeper) on podling releases. We need to break that bias and make it so that it is truly a safety net, rather than a gatekeeper. IOW, I'd like the release traffic on general@ to ONLY consist of [NOTICE] emails, not [VOTE]. We perhaps are observing the well known phenomena called self-selection bias [1] And it seems to me that the simplification and better clarification of the incubation guidelines might be exactly what's needed to prevent a bureaucratism outbreak. As well as the situation when ppl express their expectations as a law-of-the-land (even from best intentions). Cos - 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: apache binary distributions
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are basically to be handled as nightly builds and as such not for the general public, thus only for the dev-list. It was said, that having the SNAPSHOT appendix in the jar name as well as not being able to automatically get them via maven without having to add that tag is not enough for the end-user to know for, that this is no official release. And that if such things are going into the distribution repository, they have to be handled as release, including voting and such. For that I guess it does not matter if it is the apache repository or something else. What would happen if a third party would do this? Is the project/apache required to do something about this? I mean if you read this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201506.mbox/%3CD1B01671.4EE90%25rvesse%40dotnetrdf.org%3E some even see nightly builds, not communicated beyond the dev-list on non-apache servers already as a problem. Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one of the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes maven artifacts out of it and publishes them at maven central. Is that ok? I mean that is very near the distributor case, so it should be ok, or not? That is fine. Just make sure that the published org is NOT org.apache.foo Apache software is wide open for anybody to use. If you want to take responsibility for nightly binary artifacts that *you* create and which are clearly not from Apache, you are good to go. The key is to be clear on what people are getting.
Re: Reform of Incubator
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:50PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On 08/04/2015 02:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are unclear, people interpret them based on their own understanding of unwritten Apache ethos. As Brane called it earlier - confusing opinions and policies. You see where I am going with this, right? Perhaps I'm unclear on the proposal - but how would that be mitigated by this proposal? I understand that it might expose podlings to less of this when directed towards the full IPMC for graduation, but how would it prevent this if a mentor confuses personal expectations for graduation requirements? Isn't that still a potential issue? You're right, it still might be an issue. My vision was that with a reduced involvement of the IPMC namely - IPMC delegating more day-to-day oversight of the podlings to the mentors - release votes just Cc'ed to general@ instead of an explicit IPMC vote. It doesn't contradict the requirement of the binding votes, but the primarily would be coming from mentors, I believe - more precise graduation guidelines, eg w/o moot 'diversity'-like points the environment will be less accommodating for such confusions and would cause lesser number of complex debates. This, in turn, will make the incubation process more transparent and less counter-intuitive for newcomers. Hopefully it clarifies my point a bit better. What do you think? Cos I may misunderstand or have lost track of how that's handled in all the discussion. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Along these lines, also consider using DRAT:
http://github.com/chrismattmann/drat/
Think of it as RAT at scale with progress logs, Tika-based MIME
file identification. Presentations, videos, and docs are on the
page.
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
As an immediate start to having a tool to support mentors and TLPs you
might want to consider providing a Rat service. Rat is already very
useful.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Daniel Grunomailto:humbed...@apache.org
Sent: 8/4/2015 4:15 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org
wrote:
...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel
and I were
discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part
of ASF
IMO it's not a team that's needed, just a clear and modular release
checklist.
By modular I mean something like our maturity model [1] where each
item is atomic and numbered so one could say this release doesn't
comply with RM-42 and everybody knows what it's about.
And there's no inventing new checklist items unless they are approved
by the PMC who owns the checklist.
IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
volunteer to contribute to creating it.
We do have a starting point at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html but the release
checklist might need more explanations, as footnotes, and its own page
to keep the noise low.
Hi Bertrand,
If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps
turning this into a sort of 'online compliance check' where podlings
could upload a tarball or some such, and the service would scan it for
compliance, go through the checklist, and report back which elements are
compliant and which are not. I think that this, while not being 100%
accurate, would save a lot of time and aggravation when dealing with the
initial release candidates, and save us a lot of time by automating what
we tend to spend quite a lot of time doing manually.
This won't solve everything, but it would really cut down on the time
that is, in my opinion, wasted on getting a release through the IPMC,
while still retaining the policies and rules we need in order to comply
with our legal requirements.
With regards,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator
Cos, There is no bureaucratism outbreak. People are not express[ing] their expectations as a law-of-the-land. People are trying, in good faith, to make sure that decisions are made consistent with the Apache ethos. And before you ask, no, that ethos cannot be written down; it has to be interpreted via debate. This is what debate sounds like. Julian On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:36AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? I think it is more of a bias issue. IOW, today it seems that the default bias of IPMC is to consider itself a final authority (or a gatekeeper) on podling releases. We need to break that bias and make it so that it is truly a safety net, rather than a gatekeeper. IOW, I'd like the release traffic on general@ to ONLY consist of [NOTICE] emails, not [VOTE]. We perhaps are observing the well known phenomena called self-selection bias [1] And it seems to me that the simplification and better clarification of the incubation guidelines might be exactly what's needed to prevent a bureaucratism outbreak. As well as the situation when ppl express their expectations as a law-of-the-land (even from best intentions). Cos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
