Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:34 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I see a lot of "oh no. a bad file". What is the takeaway from that? "The
> > IPMC thinks we should not release.”
>
> Has anyone voted -1? Nope. And even if they did a -1 vote is not a veto.
>

Great. Semantics. "But I didn't really say veto."

Your "not allowed" is read as a veto by any reasonably-minded person. If
you think it should NOT be read as -1, then put a +1 into your message.
That did not happen. So it is NOT read as +1 for the podling. I added my +1
as the third. Mostly to get it over with, and (honestly:) for some spite
about the whole process.

Look. Clearly this discussion is about rulesmithing to keep the status quo.
Carry on.

Maybe I should say you're being an ass about the whole process. :-)

-g

ps. per your rules [1], I put a smiley on that sentence, so it doesn't mean
anything.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201906.mbox/%3CA2A7580A-20DA-4894-9590-14D563C3D0E0%40me.com%3E

Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0

[Jan Piotrowski]

+1

I trust Justin's judgement here, and I'm sure you'll work out any
issues with further releases.

-J

Am Do., 27. Juni 2019 um 06:14 Uhr schrieb Joshua Poore
:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Another friendly reminder: please VOTE on the ReRelease of Apache Flagon 
> UserAle.js (Incubating) 1.0.0.
>
> Our ReRelease was mandated by IPMC due to build artifacts that lacked 
> “incubating” markings.
>
> At this point we have +6 votes from our community and +2 Binding. We need one 
> more VOTE from general@ to release and 2 of our mentors are AWOL. We’re 
> entering the 10th consecutive day of this VOTE on general@ and that’s a very, 
> very long time to wait on a ReRelease.
>
> Thanks to Justin for voting.
>
> Tomorrow, we’ll be pushing v2.0.0 for a VOTE on general, as its wrapping up a 
> VOTE in community. Again we’re down two mentors. Am hoping that we’re able to 
> get feedback from IPMC a little more quickly. We have users waiting on an NPM 
> packaged version of this release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joshua Poore
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:49 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I understand. Copyright attribution is misplaced in License file 
> > altogether—appendix gives instruction for how to add a copyright to 
> > derivative works. *palm-to-face*. Thanks and sorry for being thick!
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >> On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Justin,
> >>
> >> Dave Meikle and I worked to make the copyrights correct prior to this 
> >> ReRelease.
> >>
> >> Our License File reads:
> >>
> >>  © Copyright 2018 The Apache Software Foundation.
> >>
> >> Our Notice Fille reads:
> >>
> >> Copyright 2019 The Apache Software Foundation
> >>
> >> We thought that was consistent with 
> >> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html 
> >> , however, both should be 
> >> dated ‘2019’ (oversight).
> >>
> >> If not, or you see something I missed, please don’t hesitate to point it 
> >> out and I’ll make sure we get it right.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
>  From: Justin Mclean   >
>  Date: June 25, 2019 at 8:11:25 PM EDT
>  To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>  Subject: Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 
>  1.0.0
>  Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>  
> 
>  HI,
> 
> > Copyrights are 2019 in V2.0.0 under vote now in dev@. Moving forward, 
> > we’ll be more careful.
> 
>  Which would still be incorrect that line should say:
>  Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
> 
>  As it where a 3rd party put their copyright notice in their file headers.
> 
>  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
> >
>
>
> -
> 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: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Which would be a reasonable assumption give:
> > a) That only IPMC votes are binding on releases.
>

Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes. I maintain it does not
have to. The Board gave the Incubator the range/duty for incubating
projects. That allows for podlings to use our infrastructure (mailing
lists, jira, dist.apache, cwiki, etc) and to make their releases. Within
that duty assigned by the Board, it can apply alternate rules to releases.
I state that permission is already given. Others disagree, and want an
answer from Legal. Roman seems amenable, if the IPMC has the will to
formally ask.


> > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy
>

Whimsy is not canonical. Its label means absolutely nothing. Board
decisions are canonical.


> > c) The resolution that formed it uses the same language as a TLP and
> talks abut forming a PMC and assigning a VP [1]
>

That was in 2002. Establishing any PMC was a pretty new thing.

But even if you ignore the age, a PMC was constructed by the Board with the
*duty* to onboard new groups. It says nothing about holding releases to any
specific policy.

-g

Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0

[Joshua Poore]

Thanks, Jan. 

We’ll make good on comment, and have been watching issues IPMC has been raising 
with other podlings. We’ve integrated a lot of  into our next release.

Joshua Poore


> On Jun 27, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Jan Piotrowski  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> I trust Justin's judgement here, and I'm sure you'll work out any
> issues with further releases.
> 
> -J
> 
> Am Do., 27. Juni 2019 um 06:14 Uhr schrieb Joshua Poore
> :
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> Another friendly reminder: please VOTE on the ReRelease of Apache Flagon 
>> UserAle.js (Incubating) 1.0.0.
>> 
>> Our ReRelease was mandated by IPMC due to build artifacts that lacked 
>> “incubating” markings.
>> 
>> At this point we have +6 votes from our community and +2 Binding. We need 
>> one more VOTE from general@ to release and 2 of our mentors are AWOL. We’re 
>> entering the 10th consecutive day of this VOTE on general@ and that’s a 
>> very, very long time to wait on a ReRelease.
>> 
>> Thanks to Justin for voting.
>> 
>> Tomorrow, we’ll be pushing v2.0.0 for a VOTE on general, as its wrapping up 
>> a VOTE in community. Again we’re down two mentors. Am hoping that we’re able 
>> to get feedback from IPMC a little more quickly. We have users waiting on an 
>> NPM packaged version of this release.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Joshua Poore
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:49 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ah, I understand. Copyright attribution is misplaced in License file 
>>> altogether—appendix gives instruction for how to add a copyright to 
>>> derivative works. *palm-to-face*. Thanks and sorry for being thick!
>>> 
>>> Josh
>>> 
 On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
 
 Hi Justin,
 
 Dave Meikle and I worked to make the copyrights correct prior to this 
 ReRelease.
 
 Our License File reads:
 
 © Copyright 2018 The Apache Software Foundation.
 
 Our Notice Fille reads:
 
 Copyright 2019 The Apache Software Foundation
 
 We thought that was consistent with 
 https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html 
 , however, both should be 
 dated ‘2019’ (oversight).
 
 If not, or you see something I missed, please don’t hesitate to point it 
 out and I’ll make sure we get it right.
 
 Thanks!
 
>> From: Justin Mclean > >
>> Date: June 25, 2019 at 8:11:25 PM EDT
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 
>> 1.0.0
>> Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>> 
>> 
>> HI,
>> 
>>> Copyrights are 2019 in V2.0.0 under vote now in dev@. Moving forward, 
>>> we’ll be more careful.
>> 
>> Which would still be incorrect that line should say:
>> Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
>> 
>> As it where a 3rd party put their copyright notice in their file headers.
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:49 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/24/19, 9:12 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik"  wrote:
> 
>> What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the 
>> non-compliance:
> 
>You're asking the wrong question. You're still asking the TLP question.
> 
> I'm asking the TLP question to understand how big the difference is between 
> TLP and Podlings.

Please note that the only legal structure in this discussion is a PMC. The 
Bylaws have no concept of a podling nor a "top level project", although we tend 
to use the terms TLP and PMC interchangeably.

Now a podling is NOT a PMC because, again, the bylaws are clear on what 
constitutes a PMC and how one is created.

The Incubator itself is a PMC.

Now let's talk about podling releases... When the IPMC votes on accepting a 
podling release, and it passes, my opinion is that the Incubator takes on the 
resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release. Now the 
podling releases themselves are noted and described as "not GA" and "not 
official", et.al. but this is, again IMO, simply to make it clear to anyone who 
is downloading and using the software that the expectations normally associated 
with "regular" Apache releases do not apply, such that there could be some 
licensing issues, etc, that would be verboten in "official" releases, but may 
exist here. In other words: this is a podling release; expect issues and 
mistakes and churn.

The IPMC vote is not, and should not be, some sort of secondary QA test, some 
sort of verification of validity: it exists, IMO, simply so that the podling 
(and its contributors) can enjoy the legal protection under the Incubator 
"umbrella" when they do a release.

Cheers!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[jira] [Created] (INCUBATOR-240) Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org

[Lee Rhodes (JIRA)]

Lee Rhodes created INCUBATOR-240:


 Summary: Setup initial redirect landing page at 
datasketches.apache.org
 Key: INCUBATOR-240
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240
 Project: Incubator
  Issue Type: Task
  Components: site
Reporter: Lee Rhodes


We need at least a simple landing page at datasketches.apache.org that 
redirects to our current website at datasketches.github.io.  Once it exists and 
I have permission to edit it I can set up the notice that our project is in 
incubation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-240) Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org

[Dave Fisher (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16874279#comment-16874279
 ] 

Dave Fisher commented on INCUBATOR-240:
---

Lee, This should be an INFRA JIRA issue. Also, there ought to be some 
discussion about the website plans on the d...@datasketches.apache.org mailing 
list.

> Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org
> --
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-240
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240
> Project: Incubator
>  Issue Type: Task
>  Components: site
>Reporter: Lee Rhodes
>Priority: Major
>
> We need at least a simple landing page at datasketches.apache.org that 
> redirects to our current website at datasketches.github.io.  Once it exists 
> and I have permission to edit it I can set up the notice that our project is 
> in incubation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 released

[Jihoon Son]

The Apache Druid team is proud to announce the release of Apache Druid
(incubating) 0.15.0.

Apache Druid 0.15.0-incubating contains over 250 new features,
performance/stability/documentation improvements, and bug fixes from 39
contributors. Major new features and improvements include:

- New Data Loader UI
- Support transactional Kafka topic
- New Moving Average query
- Time ordering for Scan query
- New Moments Sketch aggregator
- SQL enhancements
- Light lookup module for routers
- Core ORC extension
- Core GCP extension
- Document improvements

Source and binary distributions can be downloaded from:
https://druid.apache.org/downloads.html

Release notes are at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/releases/tag/druid-0.15.0-incubating

A big thank you to all the contributors in this milestone release!



Disclaimer: Apache Druid is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache
Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. Incubation is
required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates
that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have
stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While
incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or
stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be
fully endorsed by the ASF.

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Paul King]

My +1 to the 2nd camp. For me it's about transparency.

I don't see an issue if a podling release has some significant flaws. For
me, the ideal would be if it is easy for podling members, reviewers, and
downstream users to easily determine whether such flaws are known and what
they are. It can be as simple as a line in the release notes or release
email and/or an easily findable issue or two.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:01 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> ++1. I agree w/ Rich and Roman
>
> > On Jun 23, 2019, at 11:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen  rbo...@rcbowen.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> A couple of thoughts:
> >
> > And a couple of thoughts on top of that.
> >
> >> Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they
> are
> >> not yet full Apache projects.
> >
> > Correct. The I way I see this thread is this: *when it comes to
> > releases*, there's
> > always been two camps in Incubator. One thinks that Incubator is a TLP
> just
> > like Apache Commons that happens to produce release artifacts that have
> > nothing in common (just like Apache Commons'  JXPath has very little to
> do
> > with Compress and). A second camp thinks that Incubator is actually a
> special
> > construct within a foundation (after all, if it was just like Apache
> Commons why
> > would we make them put DISCLAIMER into release tarballs?).
> >
> > It seems that David is closer to the 1st camp, and Rich and I are
> > closer to the 2nd.
> >
> > Looking at the community benefits, I really think we should acknowledge
> that
> > Incubator is a special construct and optimize that special construct
> > for a particular
> > outcome: which is effectiveness of the graduation process.
> >
> >> While in the incubator we should expect podlibgs to fail at the rules.
> >> They're new to them and many of them feel arbitrary, even capricious, to
> >> those coming in from outside. We should make it safe to fail until they
> are
> >> ready to graduate. We should nurture them as long as they are moving
> >> towards that goal.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >> I cannot disagree with your reading of our resolutions. But I wonder if
> >> that reality is producing good citizen projects or a bunch of resentful
> >> people following rules they don't understand or embrace because they
> know
> >> they have to.
> >>
> >> Zipkin is only the latest project which clearly didn't get it and has
> left
> >> angry. I would rather a project realize that they don't fit and be able
> to
> >> leave with their dignity without having also to leave hating what we
> stand
> >> for.
> >>
> >> I want our new graduates to love and understand the ASF not merely
> tolerate
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I want the incubator to respond to failure with gentle correction rather
> >> than scoldings.
> >>
> >> Specifically I think podlings should be able to produce releases that
> are
> >> not asf complient and have them clearly labeled as such. Because they
> are
> >> not TLPs yet and so cannot be held to the same standard. This must be
> >> accompanied by a movement towards being a TLP, not some eternal
> incubation.
> >
> > With my IPMC member hat on -- huge +1 to the above.
> >
> > With my VP Legal hat on: I have no dog in this race. The IPMC needs to
> make
> > a *business* (well, community in this case) decision and then we can work
> > with a risk profile of that decision.
> >
> > Like I said -- the decision to make is: 1st vs. 2nd camp.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[Antoine Toulme]

I’m not quite sure what to do. If I don’t hear by tomorrow I’ll close this vote 
as passing.

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:34 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> I see a lot of "oh no. a bad file". What is the takeaway from that? "The
>>> IPMC thinks we should not release.”
>> 
>> Has anyone voted -1? Nope. And even if they did a -1 vote is not a veto.
>> 
> 
> Great. Semantics. "But I didn't really say veto."
> 
> Your "not allowed" is read as a veto by any reasonably-minded person. If
> you think it should NOT be read as -1, then put a +1 into your message.
> That did not happen. So it is NOT read as +1 for the podling. I added my +1
> as the third. Mostly to get it over with, and (honestly:) for some spite
> about the whole process.
> 
> Look. Clearly this discussion is about rulesmithing to keep the status quo.
> Carry on.
> 
> Maybe I should say you're being an ass about the whole process. :-)
> 
> -g
> 
> ps. per your rules [1], I put a smiley on that sentence, so it doesn't mean
> anything.
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201906.mbox/%3CA2A7580A-20DA-4894-9590-14D563C3D0E0%40me.com%3E


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[Dave Fisher]

You have your 3 +1 Votes!

We can discuss messaging on dev@tuweni

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Antoine Toulme  wrote:
> 
> I’m not quite sure what to do. If I don’t hear by tomorrow I’ll close this 
> vote as passing.
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:34 AM Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
 I see a lot of "oh no. a bad file". What is the takeaway from that? "The
 IPMC thinks we should not release.”
>>> 
>>> Has anyone voted -1? Nope. And even if they did a -1 vote is not a veto.
>>> 
>> 
>> Great. Semantics. "But I didn't really say veto."
>> 
>> Your "not allowed" is read as a veto by any reasonably-minded person. If
>> you think it should NOT be read as -1, then put a +1 into your message.
>> That did not happen. So it is NOT read as +1 for the podling. I added my +1
>> as the third. Mostly to get it over with, and (honestly:) for some spite
>> about the whole process.
>> 
>> Look. Clearly this discussion is about rulesmithing to keep the status quo.
>> Carry on.
>> 
>> Maybe I should say you're being an ass about the whole process. :-)
>> 
>> -g
>> 
>> ps. per your rules [1], I put a smiley on that sentence, so it doesn't mean
>> anything.
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201906.mbox/%3CA2A7580A-20DA-4894-9590-14D563C3D0E0%40me.com%3E
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Sam Ruby]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM Greg Stein  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy
>
> Whimsy is not canonical. Its label means absolutely nothing. Board
> decisions are canonical.

The canonical source is:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-info.txt

This source is nearly always updated via Whimsy roster tool as that
keeps LDAP in sync.  The sectary also uses the Whimsy agenda tool to
update this information.

The Whimsy roster tool also provides a convenient mechanism to query
this information.

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[Craig Russell]

Hi Greg,

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 1:42 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> 
> Maybe I should say you're being an ass about the whole process. :-)

No. Smiley face doesn't count.

Stop.

Craig
> 
> -g

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-240) Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org

[Lee Rhodes (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16874525#comment-16874525
 ] 

Lee Rhodes commented on INCUBATOR-240:
--

Sorry, I thought I was setting it up as an INFRA issue.  I didn't realize the 
significance of the top box.  

> Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org
> --
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-240
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240
> Project: Incubator
>  Issue Type: Task
>  Components: site
>Reporter: Lee Rhodes
>Priority: Major
>
> We need at least a simple landing page at datasketches.apache.org that 
> redirects to our current website at datasketches.github.io.  Once it exists 
> and I have permission to edit it I can set up the notice that our project is 
> in incubation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[jira] [Closed] (INCUBATOR-240) Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org

[Lee Rhodes (JIRA)]

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Lee Rhodes closed INCUBATOR-240.

Resolution: Fixed

Wrong target, should have been INFRA.  (my mistake)

> Setup initial redirect landing page at datasketches.apache.org
> --
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-240
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-240
> Project: Incubator
>  Issue Type: Task
>  Components: site
>Reporter: Lee Rhodes
>Priority: Major
>
> We need at least a simple landing page at datasketches.apache.org that 
> redirects to our current website at datasketches.github.io.  Once it exists 
> and I have permission to edit it I can set up the notice that our project is 
> in incubation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:29 PM Craig Russell  wrote:
>...

> No. Smiley face doesn't count.
>

Apparently you missed the point when Justin did that to me. Hmm?

Of course it doesn't count. Why don't you go police th VP Incubator, okay?

-g

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:24 PM Sam Ruby  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:57 AM Greg Stein  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:13 AM Justin Mclean  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > b) It listed as a TLP in Whimsy
> >
> > Whimsy is not canonical. Its label means absolutely nothing. Board
> > decisions are canonical.
>
> The canonical source is:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/board/committee-info.txt


Sure. The label "TLP" (aka "PMC") comes from the Board resolution, and
maintained on an ongoing basis in that file.

Just trying to answer Justin's 3 questions.

-g

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Only because IPMC said it must provide such votes.
 
Can you provide a reference to that? I realise that may be hard to do so given 
it was so long ago.

I searched and was unable to find where that happened in the the list history. 
The earliest reference I could find was this [1] (in 2004), and this a little 
later [3] refers to the incubator release process. It certainly seems that the 
current situation is not new e.g. [3] (2004) and [4] (2003). The Wayback 
Machine is a little more helpful and gives this in 2002 [5] which states 
incubating communities need to follow Apache voting rules, and this page [6] 
says that 3 +1 binding votes are required for releases. It seems that PPMC 
concept comes in a little later [4] (which is quite an interesting thread). 
From what I can see, 3+1 binding votes was either a community norm when the 
IPMC was founded (in 2002) or was introduced very shortly after (in 2003) and 
has continued to be used since then.

A lot of people have not been around that long and don’t know the history of 
this (including me).

The current voting process is the same as what any other TLP does and follows 
the foundation policy on voting on releases [4]

> Others disagree, and want an answer from Legal. Roman seems amenable, if the 
> IPMC has the will to
> formally ask.

The question has already been asked and an answer given deepening on how you 
view podling releases. It might need some further discussion.

> But even if you ignore the age, a PMC was constructed by the Board with the
> *duty* to onboard new groups.

Consider seriously for a moment if another TLP project just announced that 
anyone's vote was binding, not only PMC members. How would the Board view that? 
Do the ASF bylaws even allow that?

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e56c6b37c1cace4689e92f7d7c3d53aadb1d57e01325883baf16af63@1098344049@%3Cpmc.incubator.apache.org%3E
2. 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/04a010f79694079c5ed555e98944770f0df9fae1684a526b5c5e7b9c@1134067119@%3Cpmc.incubator.apache.org%3E
3. 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/490ab2392c21843d941e1ccee03982f533cc512cd3356608333c549a@1074121745@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
4. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
5. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20030205015159/http://incubator.apache.org/process.html
6. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20030205072727/http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Tuweni 0.8.0

[larry mccay]

Antoine -

Thank you for your work getting the initial release done and patience here.
As Dave said, we have our 3 +1's.

thanks,

--larry


On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 6:15 PM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 4:29 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > No. Smiley face doesn't count.
> >
>
> Apparently you missed the point when Justin did that to me. Hmm?
>
> Of course it doesn't count. Why don't you go police th VP Incubator, okay?
>
> -g
>

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> The Incubator itself is a PMC.

OK that's sorted.

> Now let's talk about podling releases... When the IPMC votes on accepting a 
> podling release, and it passes, my opinion is that the Incubator takes on the 
> resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release. Now the 
> podling releases themselves are noted and described as "not GA" and "not 
> official", et.al. but this is, again IMO, simply to make it clear to anyone 
> who is downloading and using the software that the expectations normally 
> associated with "regular" Apache releases do not apply, such that there could 
> be some licensing issues, etc, that would be verboten in "official" releases, 
> but may exist here. In other words: this is a podling release; expect issues 
> and mistakes and churn.

Except it's not, as it seems the IPMC doesn’t need to abide by what other PMCs 
need to abide by when making releases :-) (Which is ironic given the IPMC is 
tasked with teaching and passing that knowledge on.) And that policy exception 
is not documented anywhere. :-) Nor has the board, to my knowledge, approved 
such an exception. Yay! So how is a voted on PMC release, an act which make it 
official, is not an official release? Do you see how this might be confusing or 
open to a board range of interpretations?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[RELEASE] WAS: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0

[Joshua Poore]

Hi Everyone,

The VOTE to (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0 has closed. 
 The RESULT is:

[9] +1, let’s get it released!!
Joshua Poore
Rob Foley
Laura Mariano
Michelle Beard (voted in private@)
Michael Schrieber
Arthi Vezhavendan
Dave Meikle*
Justin McLean*
Jan Piotrowski*

[0] +/-0, fine, but consider to fix few issues before...
[0] -1, nope, because... (and please explain why)

Thanks to all for VOTING!

I will work with mentors for the remainder of release procedures.

Thanks,

Josh


> On Jun 27, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Jan. 
> 
> We’ll make good on comment, and have been watching issues IPMC has been 
> raising with other podlings. We’ve integrated a lot of  into our next release.
> 
> Joshua Poore
> 
> 
>> On Jun 27, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Jan Piotrowski  wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I trust Justin's judgement here, and I'm sure you'll work out any
>> issues with further releases.
>> 
>> -J
>> 
>> Am Do., 27. Juni 2019 um 06:14 Uhr schrieb Joshua Poore
>> :
>>> 
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> 
>>> Another friendly reminder: please VOTE on the ReRelease of Apache Flagon 
>>> UserAle.js (Incubating) 1.0.0.
>>> 
>>> Our ReRelease was mandated by IPMC due to build artifacts that lacked 
>>> “incubating” markings.
>>> 
>>> At this point we have +6 votes from our community and +2 Binding. We need 
>>> one more VOTE from general@ to release and 2 of our mentors are AWOL. We’re 
>>> entering the 10th consecutive day of this VOTE on general@ and that’s a 
>>> very, very long time to wait on a ReRelease.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Justin for voting.
>>> 
>>> Tomorrow, we’ll be pushing v2.0.0 for a VOTE on general, as its wrapping up 
>>> a VOTE in community. Again we’re down two mentors. Am hoping that we’re 
>>> able to get feedback from IPMC a little more quickly. We have users waiting 
>>> on an NPM packaged version of this release.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Joshua Poore
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:49 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
 
 Ah, I understand. Copyright attribution is misplaced in License file 
 altogether—appendix gives instruction for how to add a copyright to 
 derivative works. *palm-to-face*. Thanks and sorry for being thick!
 
 Josh
 
> On Jun 25, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Joshua Poore  wrote:
> 
> Hi Justin,
> 
> Dave Meikle and I worked to make the copyrights correct prior to this 
> ReRelease.
> 
> Our License File reads:
> 
> © Copyright 2018 The Apache Software Foundation.
> 
> Our Notice Fille reads:
> 
> Copyright 2019 The Apache Software Foundation
> 
> We thought that was consistent with 
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html 
> , however, both should be 
> dated ‘2019’ (oversight).
> 
> If not, or you see something I missed, please don’t hesitate to point it 
> out and I’ll make sure we get it right.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>> From: Justin Mclean >> >
>>> Date: June 25, 2019 at 8:11:25 PM EDT
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 
>>> 1.0.0
>>> Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> HI,
>>> 
 Copyrights are 2019 in V2.0.0 under vote now in dev@. Moving forward, 
 we’ll be more careful.
>>> 
>>> Which would still be incorrect that line should say:
>>> Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
>>> 
>>> As it where a 3rd party put their copyright notice in their file 
>>> headers.
>>> 
>>> 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
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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..

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Alex Harui]

While you've been going through the history and other docs:  Does it actually 
say somewhere that a true ASF release MUST NOT contain any non-compliance of 
policy?  Or is it possible that the communities must fix some non-compliance 
issues right away and can fix others later?  Then it isn't about relaxing 
policy or exceptions to policy, it is just acceptance that not all policy 
non-compliance issues are "must fix now".

Sebb just reported that something like 3 TLPs have releases that are not 
compliant with the NOTICE file policy.  I don't think the legal shield has been 
damaged nor will the board shut down those projects.  I imagine they will 
simply take note and fix it in their next release.  They may not even have to 
drop everything there are currently working on and push out a release with the 
fix.

Again, the restaurant food handling codes allow the restaurant owners to fix 
some non-compliance issues over time.

HTH,
-Alex

On 6/27/19, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

Hi,

> The Incubator itself is a PMC.

OK that's sorted.

> Now let's talk about podling releases... When the IPMC votes on accepting 
a podling release, and it passes, my opinion is that the Incubator takes on the 
resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release. Now the 
podling releases themselves are noted and described as "not GA" and "not 
official", et.al. but this is, again IMO, simply to make it clear to anyone who 
is downloading and using the software that the expectations normally associated 
with "regular" Apache releases do not apply, such that there could be some 
licensing issues, etc, that would be verboten in "official" releases, but may 
exist here. In other words: this is a podling release; expect issues and 
mistakes and churn.

Except it's not, as it seems the IPMC doesn’t need to abide by what other 
PMCs need to abide by when making releases :-) (Which is ironic given the IPMC 
is tasked with teaching and passing that knowledge on.) And that policy 
exception is not documented anywhere. :-) Nor has the board, to my knowledge, 
approved such an exception. Yay! So how is a voted on PMC release, an act which 
make it official, is not an official release? Do you see how this might be 
confusing or open to a board range of interpretations?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> While you've been going through the history and other docs:  Does it actually 
> say somewhere that a true ASF release MUST NOT contain any non-compliance of 
> policy?

Again I’m not sure why you’re talking about TLP policy on the incubator general 
list. But VP legal said as much the other day. "we can NOT allow any relaxation 
of the ASF release policy for a TLP.”

I would probably alter the above to say "known non-compliance without 
approval”.  Exceptions have been made and mistakes will happen and things will 
be missed. IMO as long as the project is willing to correct a previously 
unknown issue before the next release all is generally fine.

Looking at the history the incubator, I didn’t see anything with explicitly 
those exact words, but that doesn’t mean it has not been stated in another 
form, as there a lot of conversions in that history. What I did see is that the 
incubator has been much stricter on policy in the past.

> Sebb just reported that something like 3 TLPs have releases that are not 
> compliant with the NOTICE file policy.

Issues in TLP project NOTICE are reasonably common e.g. I saw this the other 
day [1]. Hadoop (and a couple of other TLPs) have had a long history of not 
being the best examples to copy from. Podlings often do and then are surprised 
when it’s not correct, in the last year I’ve contacted several TLP and asked 
(politely) for some NOTICE issues to be fixed as they are causing podling 
project issues, they usually have been fixed. This has been mentioned in the 
IPMC board report if you want more details.

Give the NOTICE is for informational purposes only, these are probably not 
serious issues.  Even it’s not in line with ASF policy it would probably still 
tick all the legal boxes. (I’ve not looked at the details so that’s an 
assumption on my part.)

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://github.com/apache/hive/blob/master/NOTICE
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org