Re: Adding Paul Querna as committer to Traffic Server
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Leif Hedstrom l...@ogre.com wrote: On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Leif Hedstrom zw...@apache.org wrote: Hi all, the Traffic Server podling PMC has deliberated hard, and we've decided that it's best for everyone if we add Paul Querna as a committer to the Traffic Server project. There were 10 binding +1 votes, one binding -0 vote, one non-binding +1 vote, and no -1 votes. Welcome Paul! Do you have 3 +1 votes from Incubator PMC members? I see only 2 in the list below...happy to be corrected if I'm missing something. Ah, no. So, I obviously didn't get this right, I asked a number of people here what the appropriate process is, and got the impression we (the podling) could vote on it, and notify the IPMC. But, if I understand you correctly, we have to run the vote for adding Paul through the Incubator PMC? Well, you certainly got it right for after graduation :). Cheers, Sander If so, can the IPMC members please vote on adding Paul to the Traffic Server committers list? Cheers, -- Leif - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: INCUBATOR-57 aka IPMC votes to ratify PPMC committers
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, we have: [...] I'd like to make the suggestion that we alter this to: Vote on the podling's private (PPMC) list, with notice posted to the Incubator private list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's private list. Many consider this approach to be best practice. After completing the vote on the PPMC list, the proposer *sends a note to* the Incubator PMC private list, summarizing the discussion and vote, with a reference to the archived discussion and vote threads by the PPMC. *Any member of the Incubator PMC can ACK the receipt of the vote. This starts a 72-hour window for lazy consensus. After 72 hours and no requests by any Incubator PMC member for a full vote by the Incubator PMC, the committer request is approved by the Incubator PMC and the PPMC can start the committer invitation process.* --- This intentionally follows the procedure for adding a PMC member wrt full ASF board. I like the concept of expanding this for committers as well for Incubation, so there. I don't like needless 'dual voting', but I do want the IPMC to have the chance to execute oversight. WDYT?-- justin Makes a lot of sense, it's more light weight in terms of required actions from IPMC. And gives the PPMC more direct control, without losing oversight. Simple change, like it a lot. Cheers, Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP C Library, WAS: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache TSIK
Ben Laurie wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: There is a proposed PGP package being discussed in Jakarta Commons. Would there be any overlap at lower levels (not at the WS layer) between them, providing for some collaboration? This strikes me as orthogonal, but it might be of interest that I'm currently working on a to-be-BSD-licensed (or equivalent) PGP C library. BTW, its properly called OpenPGP. Ah, interesting... any chance you are going to propose that to be housed at the ASF? Are you currently developing somewhere I can follow along? Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for STDCXX
Heidi Buelow wrote: Proposal for an Apache-run version of the C++ Standard Library +1. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Proposal] Switch to SVN
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 4:02 PM Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: I propose that we switch the Incubator repository to SVN. [...] Agreed. -1 as a requirement; +1 as a recommendation. Ditto. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Personal attacks and respect
From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 8:58 PM Noel J. Bergman wrote: I'm quite confident that a good portion of the inhabitants of this list doesn't care much about who is going to win this flamefest. +1 There is a sense in which a general discussion on community building techniques and communication skills is worthwhile. I've suggested to Nicola Ken that he start work on a web page to cover ideals, techniques and scenarios. -1 Sorry but Nicola Ken is not qualified. I'm sorry Nicola but you instigated this and only you can fix it. Stephen, saying that someone is not qualified to do X isn't constructive. Furthermore, it doesn't give me warm fuzzies reading a statement like that on a list like this one. Or any list for that matter. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate SpamAssassin from Incubator, recommend TLP
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 23:55, Leo Simons wrote: Sander Striker wrote: I'd like to call for a vote to graduate SpamAssassin from the Incubator. looking at the status file ! Verify distribution rights || date || item | -..-.. | Check and make sure that for all code included with the distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute. | -..-.. | Check and make sure that all source code distributed by the project is covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms. what up? Has this not happened? Rather essential I'd say... Doh. Yes, that has happened. Not sure of the date when that was done, but certainly many a month ago. I'd like to be able to present the Board with a resolution on wednesday, which I realise is close by. ooh, yes. That'll be close ;) Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate SpamAssassin from Incubator, recommend TLP
[X] +1 - The SpamAssassin project has met the requirements for incubation and will be recommended to the board for TLP status Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Beehive Incubation
On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 02:48, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I'm changing the subject to make it clear to those skimming their mail that this is a VOTE to incubate Beehive, based upon their proposal. See: http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED] tor.apache.orgby=threadfrom=769038 +1. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regenerating the site
Hi, Can someone regenerate the site? Updates were committed to the spamassassin.cwiki and it would be nice to see those published. Thanks, Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible proposal: Catacomb joining the ASF - first steps
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 12:30, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: I became involved in the last few months in the Catacomb effort (http://www.webdav.org/catacomb). For those of you who don't know this project, it's all about building a mod_dav plugin/provider that, using a RDBMS as a backend, provides some advanced WebDAV features such as DASL and DeltaV. The project started as a UCSC research project but it does have a good deal of external contributors as well. It's, community wise, still a bit in its infancy, expecially from the governance POV, but the codebase is OK, at least as a starting point. Since when I started working with it, I thought that Catacomb could be a very good addition for the httpd folks: IMHO it's the typical win-win situation, where Apache gains knowleadgeble folks in a very important area as well as a pretty robust codebase with cool features and Catacomb gets much more visibility (and outside help, and diffusion, and all the yadda-yadda...). This said, and after having reached consensus on the Catacomb mailing list, I've started to consider how to move forward, and this is why I'm requiring your assistence. The first and foremost question is understanding whether Catacomb should really undergo the incubation process: it's a small and pretty straightforward codebase (less than 13000 SLOC) which doesn't really qualify even as a module, being a module's module given the current mod_dav architecture. I'm somehow wondering, as a starting point, if this could be considered just a simple code donation or if it would be advisable, since it requires adding a fair bunch of people as committers, to approach it in the established way, as a fully fledged incubation process. Part of going through the Incubator is clearing the legalities. And this most certainly cannot be skipped. I'm open to either opportunities, and willing to help the Catacomb community enter Apache doing all the boring paperwork if there is interest on this side of the fence too. We can always use help in that dept. Chasing people for CLAs and the like ;). Mind you, I'm not an ASF member, so I would also like to know if there is someone among you willing to champion this proposal while counting on my help. Also, please note that I'm not of course part of the httpd PMC, so if you need some input keep me in CC (or just discuss it on [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Comments? I think Catacomb would be a welcome addition to the HTTP Server project. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: moving sa-talk to apache?
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 01:45, Malte S. Stretz wrote: On Thursday 29 January 2004 01:28 CET Justin Mason wrote: given the *massive* numbers of issues with this list in its current home, I suggest we may be better off moving it to Apache.org sooner rather than later. Currently, our status in Apache is that we are in the Incubator there, which means that the list has an @incubator.apache.org suffix, which would change to @apache.org later on graduation. A later move out of the Incubator would be a non-issue if (a) the incubator ezmlm would set the List-Id (currently none at all) or Mailing-List header to the final id from the get-go. This could probably be arranged. We'd have to check. (b) the incubator posting address stayed alive (as an alias) even after we're out of the Incubator. This is not a problem. I CC'd the Incubator ML as this is probably a global issue. We had been putting this off to avoid this inconvenience -- but given the slowness and general trouble with the sf.net list, I think it may be worthwhile sooner rather than later. It would require that subscribers to sa-talk resubscribe at the new address, FWIW. I think (especially with the current SF.net trouble) that would be no problem for the users if they'd do it once. But doing this twice might annoy the people (judging from some mailinglist movements I've seen recently). They wouldn't have to resubscribe for the second move. And if we can do the List-Id thing they prolly don't have to change any rules either. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SpamAssassin Status Report
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 04:13, Justin Mason wrote: --BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-- Hash: SHA1 [resend, last one was misaddressed ;). Added some more text as well, BTW, so previous mail can be ignored.] Sander -- here's our status report. Please feel free to take this and mangle it into a suitable format for submission. There's a few items that may need a little work by you before it's ready. ;) *grin* * is the STATUS file up to date? (also post link) http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/incubator/site/projects/spamassass in.cwiki Not quite -- the two 'Establish a list of active committers' items are not up to date. All active committers are now signed up, so that can be closed off. Nice. Will take care of that. The second item is 'Add all active committers in the STATUS file.' However, I'm now confused. Which is the canonical STATUS file -- /incubator/spamassassin/trunk/STATUS, or /incubator/site/projects/spamassassin.cwiki? Some signs seem to be pointing to the latter... so, if the latter, some cut and paste from the former to the latter is then required (and note, I don't think I or anyone else on the SpamAssassin PPMC have write access to it). Correct. Like I said on a mail to spamassassin-dev@ earlier, you guys have been used as ginea pigs when it comes to user accounts. The consequence is that you can't do what other committers can. I'll request that full accounts be created for you. I'm kind of taking the approach that the latter is the incubation checklist, and the former is tracking our assets and people. That may be wrong though ;) BTW the former is here: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/incubator/spamassassin/trunk/STATU S?content-type=text%2Fplainrev=6244root=Apache-SVN Also, the two tasks under 'Verify distribution rights', should be complete. All code in the trunk is covered by CLAs, and the non-covered branches have README files noting their non-Apache status and presence for historical purposes only. Good. You could consider deleting the branches that are at end of life. People will be able to access them by selecting a rev in which it existed. However, perhaps this may need to be verified by the ASF before the task can be marked as complete, I'm not sure. I'll try and get a round tuit. * any legal, cross-project or personal issues that still need to be addressed? Copyright and distribution rights still remain to be verified, although all CLAs should now be in, assuming Matt Sergeant finally got around to it ;) -- so it's up to ASF legal now. Matt's CLA isn't recorded as received (yet). The trademark issue on the SpamAssassin name is still in progress; as far as I know, NAI legal still need to provide some documentation to DW, Jim Jagielski et al. We'll have to figure out what the status on this is. * what has been done for incubation since the last report? Lots! - - all committer accounts are set up; - - source code is now running from the Apache Incubator SVN repository; - - all of the developer-oriented mailing lists are now at the Incubator - although some user-oriented lists are still external, to avoid user confusion; - - all code has been vetted for CLA coverage, and removed or clean-roomed if a CLA could not be provided, and this is now awaiting verification by the ASF; I'll go see if I can find some code-vetters... - - and all major code or rules files in SVN are tagged with the ASL 1.1. * plans and expectations for the next period? We need to transition more infrastructure, including our main website, Wiki and Bugzilla. Bugzilla uses some custom code to track CLAs, which would be nice to bring over. This could take some time. I wonder if you would consider Jira a viable alternative (given that Infra would take care of the conversion for you). You can view the Jira installation at http://issues.apache.org/jira/. Alternatively, leave it where it is until we can allocate the resources to move BZ over. The Wiki is running on MoinMoin, so this fits nicely with wiki.apache.org. This should really be a breeze. We also plan to finish up the legal situation, by getting the CLA coverage verified by the ASF, then the trademark. Also we have several cron scripts that are used to perform distributed rule QA, and a very large rsync server contain 2.7Gb of data, which will need to be migrated. What to do with these is still a topic of discussion, since they're *big* in terms of disk space usage, and there may not be room at the ASF infrastructure for this! 2.7GB shouldn't be a problem. As for the cron scripts, we'd need to analyze those. It sounds like the QA system requires somekind of automated build systems. SA wouldn't be alone in requiring that and we are working on getting a dedicated location for that. There's also a spamtrap server which almost definitely should *not* come along -- it handles approx 1
Re: SpamAssassin Status Report
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 14:04, Matt Sergeant wrote: On 22 Jan 2004, at 9:56, Sander Striker wrote: Copyright and distribution rights still remain to be verified, although all CLAs should now be in, assuming Matt Sergeant finally got around to it ;) -- so it's up to ASF legal now. Matt's CLA isn't recorded as received (yet). It's definitely sent. But I can send again as many times as you need. No need. It not being recorded doesn't neccessarily mean it wasn't received. I'll prod you when we haven't received it for sure. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [REPORTS DUE] Status reports of Incubating Projects
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 19:01, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: The Incubator project board report is due in a bit more than a week, as the board meeting should take place on Wed, 21 Jan 2004, 10am Pacific [1]. Thus all Mentors should ensure that every Incubating Project sends in their project report during this week, so that we have time to review it and see if anything has to be presented to the board. Just a final reminder before I send in the Incubator board report next morning CET. Actually, that is supposed to be in a couple of days in advance. That said, I'm late with the SpamAssassin status report. In short, incubation of the project is progressing nicely. The only thing of the board's concern is probably the status of the trademark, which is in progress of being transfered. The ball on that is not in our court, although it could need a prod. I'll forward Justin Mason's STATUS report. The policy of migration of resources seems to have changed (given the discussions on this list), so the final point Jason makes is now only applicable to SA. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for graduation
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 01:15, Malte S. Stretz wrote: On Thursday 22 January 2004 00:34 CET Erik Abele wrote: Indeed and if someone is really interested in meeting other German/Austrian/Swiss/etc. ASF fellows, he/she should have a look at /docs/de-meeting in the committers CVS module. (only 2003 stuff there right now but this will change...) Where do I find that module? At least via anoncvs I can't find it and (I think) I have only SVN and no CVS access. Crap. Ok, just for the record, the SA guys have been ginea pigs with respect to SVN only accounts. It looks like it's too early in the game for that, so I propose we create the matching unix accounts aswell. We'll repeat the experiment when we have more services in place and more projects in SVN (and at least the committers module). This will allow them to update the status file in Incubator, aswell as access the committer CVS module. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Committership in specified duration
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 04:10, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Hello folks, This is what i have been thinking about. For long. Committership in specified duration. For example, Log4XXX (New Project) needs some committers in order to improve the quality of the codebases rapidly and reliably, it seems. (Patching, patching ... would dampen developers/contributors spirits, especially in early stages) In such a case, how about allowing people to ask Mr. XYZ -- Committership privilege for *three* months only... Infrastructure overhead... Clear declaration of the *termination* period would bring nice results in the incubation process (going out), codebase, etc. How so? If incubation might succeed, Mr.XYZ would be able to obtain formal committership lawfully. :) ... Even though fail, ZOMBIE committers (and zombie projects?) would never be increased. :) If a project fails incubation, committers that aren't on any other ASF projects loose their accounts (after a grace period) IMO. I am sure that this can solve most of the problems in incubator project... :) If you would be so kind to identify the actual problems first. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toning it down...
Hi guys, Can we go back to friendly replies again? The thread 'Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers' is starting to sound a lot more hostile that it has to be. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [STATUS] (incubator) Wed Jan 7 23:45:22 EST 2004
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 06:34, Justin Mason wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rodent of Unusual Size writes: o All projects under incubation must use a STATUS file (or a status.xml file if the project prefers XML) that contains information the PMC needs about the project. This file must live at the root of the project cvs module (http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=504543) o Projects under incubation should display appropriate disclaimers so that it is clear that they are, indeed, under incubation (http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=504543) BTW, I'm curious, but these links no longer seem to work :( Works for me. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: Where to fix the stable branch]
Interesting enough to seek some feedback. My initial reaction is: - you can't maintain code which isn't covered by CLAs - 'unconvered' code may sit in our repo for code history purposes* - The 2.6x branch should be svn rm'd - No release may ever be done from the 2.6x branch Given that SpamAssassin was already a high profile project before it came here, which has to maintain continueity, I'm inclined to say that they should do a last 2.6x release (which will not be ASL, and not be endorsed by the ASF). Thoughts? Sander *) Not so sure about this one. ---BeginMessage--- On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:33:17PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote: Hm. Can't we just develop in the 2.6x branch in SVN? That's what I meant when I said being picky about that stuff: The non-CLA'd stuff is in the Apache SVN anyway because we imported the whole history. So to me it doesn't really make a difference where we work as long as we don't touch the non-CLA'd stuff. The only difference it should make is that we can't switch licenses yet and don't have the ASF protection for that code. Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The repo was moved, we should just stick with SVN. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Euler's Identity ... the Sine/Cosine thing... - Instructor Dean pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature ---End Message--- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: MerlinDeveloper incubation query
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 02:23, Niclas Hedhman wrote: Incubator not interested in providing advice? Yes, it is. But, considering the holidays, cut everyone some slack. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 13:42, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Apart from the general agreement on PPMCs, for this particular vote instance there has been a +1 from me, one from Noel, on with changes from Aaron and a positive comment from Leo. Thus, and also given the rule we have tacitly agreed upon on the pmc list that the votes of this PMC are considered valid of there are not objections regardless the number of votes, I consider this vote passed. You can also take the lack of objections when the Geronimo PPMC was created as no objections to the PPMC concept in general. Below is what I think is a sufficient summary of what PPMCs are. I'll be fixing the site with this info soon. If there are still things to change-fix, feel free to say so, they won't invalidate this vote but are just fixes that can be done as normal. = PPMCs = == Description == To make Incubating project learn to govern themselves and govern themselves at the same time, each project has a PPMC (a place where to practice having a PMC) that works similarly to a PMC but reports to the Incubator PMC instead of the board. Include rationale maybe. Explain that PMC = Project Management Committee == Members of the PPMC == * project developers-committers * landing PMC members that want to help (if there is a landing PPMC) s/PPMC/PMC/ * Incubator PMC members that want to help The Mentors are the only ones /required/ to participate on the -dev list. The other Incubator members would have to catch up to the extent that PPMC discussion requires external context. Incubator PMC members not engaged in active development or discussion on a project are still able to eventually intervene in quality of observers. They should refrain from voting on project decisions unless really necessary, thus acting as vetoers of last resort. == Reporting the the main Incubator PMC == s/main// There is only one Incubator PMC, no need to qualify that. Development and discussions go on the dev lists, where the Mentors are the ones doing active oversight. The status updates are posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED], prior ACK from any Incubator PMC member. Does this need an ACK? == FAQ == Joe Developer: So, how does this 'incubation' thing work then? Website: Well, we want to do our best to make new projects feel welcome at the ASF, and we want the ASF to feel comfortable bringing the new project under its hood. This requires a get-to-know-the-ropes period, which we call incubation. We establish something dubbed a PPMC, which is a mailing list where a project's core group learns how to deal with all those 'serious' intricacies that come with being a part of the ASF, like quarterly reports, voting in committers, STATUS file management, voting procedures, etc etc. Also, we'll take a good look at any IP/licensing/copyright/trademark issues that may exist during the incubation process. As soon as it is clear that a project has truely captured the ASF spirit and all legal issues are sorted out, the project leaves incubation and lives on on its own. s/all legal issues are sorted out/there are no legal issues/ Or should we say: there are no obvious potential liabilities? Joe Developer: So, what is this PPMC thing? Website: A mailing list where the project's core group learns what it means to be part of the ASF. To help them do that, there's a group of ASF people called the Incubator PMC. Also, there will often be other interested ASF members to help out and answer questions. Joe PPMC Member: So how do I...? Website: We don't have clean answers to most of those questions (yet). Just post an e-mail about the question/issue/problem, and we'll figure things out together. Joe PPMC Member: I don't have any more questions! Website: Well, good! Go on then, out of the womb, go and manage things on your own. By the way, would you be interested in a position on the Incubator PMC to help out new projects? Hmmm, the 'position on the Incubator PMC' candy can be toned down IMO. Yes, we do need people to help Incubator, but to be honest I wonder if people who are fresh at the ASF will be able to find there way and are comfortable enough helping others. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 18:49, Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: First of all, we are in the process of deciding and clearly documenting that only TLPs are to be incubated. Why? Because in Apache there are only TLPs. Thus, Ruper is incubated on the premises that it wants to become a TLP for artifact handling. Are you in the process of deciding, or is this a decision? Where is the decision being made? I don't feel strongly pro or con, but if this is the case, then don't be surprised if the amount of confusion about when should some non-trivial amount of code coming into the ASF go through the incubator? increases. Many of the edge cases I've seen discussed (such as Wagon) have been natural extensions of or adjuncts to products released by an existing TLP. There was a discussion on the board list at the end of 2002. What was basically the point was that every external codebase would come through Incubator. No exceptions (for obvious reasons). IIRC the conclusion was that no PMC was to accept new projects on their own anymore. There is ofcourse always the question between when a trivial patch becomes non-trivial enough to warrant going through incubator. I personally think that when you have to ask, you've got a incubator candidate. Often it'll even be a proposal for a next-dot-oh of an existing release. Or another module for Apache httpd written by a company interested in donating it to the httpd project for inclusion into the core or as part of a contrib-modules release by the httpd project. So this could have a chilling effect on existing TLPs when confronted with the question, has this contribution surpassed a threshold and should be sent through the incubator?. The reason to get Incubator involved is to be sure the paperwork is in order. If a new mod_whatever is to be donated we need a software grant, for instance. To not have to put the burden of knowing what paperwork is needed on each TLP, this knowledge is bundled in Incubator (at least, that's the idea). I don't think you're going to see the board mandate that each TLP have only one product. A single community can easily manage/oversee the release of multiple products. Even semingly single project TLPs have multiple projects. HTTP Server has httpd, httpd-test, flood, apreq, just to name a few. I agree that we don't want every project to be a TLP. But maybe Nicola meant that from a legal standpoint there are only TLPs. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: projects incubated by the incubator PMC
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 09:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote: You speak as if there was no possible way to get into Apache before the Incubator. That is not what I said. Clearly it could not be true, since the Incubator was not created until October 2002. Neither one of us was present when the Board created the Incubator, but you can ask and you can read the archives. You will see that the Incubator was created to address various concerns. I suggest that you read the e-mail exchange from October 19 through 21, since it applies directly to questions regarding how new codebases can enter the ASF. I am insisting that the incubation process include the specification of a final destination whether as a TLP or within an existing TLP to prevent the Incubator from becoming ApacheForge which is something I would prefer not to see. I understood your opinion, but I disagree with the requirement for an a priori designation of a final destination. I agree regarding ApacheForge, however. I don't. There is a simple reason why 'ApacheForge' can't happen: our resources are limited, and there will not be enough sponsoring members/ officers to accumulate an unlimited set of projects in the Incubator. Earlier, you made an comment that test coverage, clarity of documentation, and established user base are far easier to pinpoint than the vague term 'community'. Although those are good things, they are not indicative of what makes a good ASF project, in my opinion. In my mind, key differences include oversight and collaborative communities. We emphasize Community over code because we believe that in the long run a healthy Community is better than an sick one, regardless of how their code compares at any given point in time. Our rules are intended to support and codify those principles. In that light, the Incubator helps to prevent ApacheForge, rather than cause it. And there is that. The reason why I asked you how you see the ASF was to see why we might differ in our opinions, and why you think that something as vitally important where others do not. How is what I personally see Apache as relevant to my requesting a very simple thing of requiring a desired destination within Apache as part of the Incubation process. Surely you have heard the cliche: easier said than done. :-) Fulfilling the requirement may not be as simple asking for it. Generally, there is some idea, and that is part of the project's STATUS. And that should be enough. Note that for some projects there might be a final destination known, as for others have to become a TLP. There may also be projects that need a new TLP to move into. At first I thought it was a good thing to specify where a project should end up at the start of incubation. The simple fact of the matter is that projects coming here that, simply don't know the complete structure of the ASF and can impossible know where to end up. IMHO, part of incubation is to help understand the structure of the ASF. In that light, we shouldn't put this extra burden of specifying destination on projects entering the Incubator. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 11:10, Leo Simons wrote: The only one who can change a charter is the board, or the collective members, right? Given the responses given here by some of the board members already, I doubt the board feels like it. What usually happens is that a project produces an amended charter and presents that to the board for acceptance. This ofcourse means that the project has to agree on a new charter first. And that is where I think this will fizzle. I don't think the Incubator wants to change this aspect at all. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Official Name for Geronimo Project
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 09:29, Bruce Snyder wrote: This one time, at band camp, Berin Lautenbach said: BL 2) Identify the PPMC who gets to name this project - and hold them BL accountable for their decision. BL BL+1. I think the Incubator PMC is in a kind of unique position. We are BLtrying to ensure that new projects/new committers in new projects are BLworking in The Apache Way. So for me, the Incubator PMC shouldn't BLactually be voting to make the decision for the incubating project. It BLshould simply be checking that the decision has been made appropriately. BL If anyone in the PMC vetoes a PPMC decision it should be on the basis BLthat the decision does not meet the ASF requirements, not on the basis BLthat we do/don't like a name (for example). BL BLAnything else takes the decision away from the project in inubation, and BLI'm not sure I see how that is fostering the Apache way. IMO, Berin's comments are exactly what I was thinking. Do note that there were votes from the members, not neccessarily (only) from the Incubator PMC. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Official Name for Geronimo Project
On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 22:25, Aaron Bannert wrote: The Geronimo folks are talking about making logos and there seems to be a desire to have official signoff on the name. Please vote on one of the following choices: [ ] - Let them keep Geronimo as the official name. [ ] - Punt the decision to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [X] - Disallow Geronimo but allow the committers to come up with any other name they want (barring anything inappropriate). And to clarify: Native American Indian tribe names are inappropiate. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forwarding sf.net email to Apache Directory
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 01:32, Alex Karasulu wrote: Guys, I there are no objections I would like to forward mail from the sf.net ldapd project to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This is obviously a short term thing until the community has switched over completely to the Apache infrastructure. Since this is for migration purposes, I see no problem in this. Alternatively, harvest a list of all subscribers and send a mail to the sf.net list, indicating that all subscribers will be subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], after which the sf.net list will be shut down. If you are inclined to go for the latter, send the list of subscribers to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forwarding sf.net email to Apache Directory
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 04:30, Alex Karasulu wrote: We've already made announcements. If this is the way you want us to proceed I can recall the infrastructure request. Should we do that? You already did the announcements, and I personally have less of a problem subscribing the list of people you sent in, since they were already notified. I do hope you included some unsubscribe instructions? :) Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Common naming accross policy/process/roles
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:51 AM Cannot open /home/cvs/CVSROOT/commitlogs/incubator: Permission denied The group permissions on that file are wrong -- I've asked root to fix it. Fixed. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exit Criteria
From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:33 PM Stephen McConnell wrote: I think the real reason is that I have a lot of scepticism about the successful functioning of the Incubator. I imaging future scenarios where candidates are keep waiting with little or no feedback while the Incubator PMC debates some highly important and engaging topic, ignoring operational responsibilities. I imagine a future where a project is left to its own devices because a Shepherd has wondered off into the mountains and the Sponsor is preoccupied with greater things. And when this happens, we have to stop and ask ourselves if the ASF is trying to grow too fast IMHO. I can see that growth is normal. I'd like to see us keep growing controlled and for the right reasons, instead of growing because of growth. This will mean that there is going to be fallout, which is unfortunate, but not necessarily bad for the ASF. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: proposal: eliminate unix group incubator
From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:06 PM There have been no objections, so I would appreciate it if we could get rid of the incubator unix group in favor of apcvs for everything except the incubator-core repository: Done. I'll cleanup the incubator unix group to contain only the pmc members shortly. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:49 AM Meritocracy? Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Roy T. Fielding posts very infrequently in my experience, but each of his messages is worth reading. He has a way of cutting through reams of BS with a single message, and getting others back on track. Not to mention that we avoid posting these kinds of stats since they can be misinterpreted and damaging to the community. No numbers on how many commits a person does or mails a person posts will tell the full image. It may even present a blurred image (someone needing one commit to get things right versus someone needing ten). Same for posts; it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM I see. but here's one question. Does this meritocracy encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status or hibernation status? This is something for the ASF membership to worry about. IMO, inactiveness deserves a definition. Also, I assume that all the ASF members have signed the new CLA as a matter of course ... is this true? Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. : Hope this helps :-) not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point you're trying to make.. Eheh, I should have put that on the threads of [VOTE] dims for incubator PMC or [VOTE] New Chair (Re: cvs commit : incubator STATUS) ... :-) No, you shouldn't have. Stats are considered more damaging than doing good. Please do not post stats. Also, I will make use of this stats in Please make me a committer of Incubator Project: incubator-site campaign :-) I advise you not to do that. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:47 PM On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise. ;) By the way, Same for posts; it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. How can you measure the quantity? Do you guys have nice *scientific* tools? To tell the truth, I have already posted to apache.org mailing lists (including jakarta/xml/ws/http...) around 1,000 (I've counted it up... today :-). Yes, I have a nice *tool* for these kind of things, however, I am afraid you do not have. Personally, I don't measure quantity at all. I'm not sure who does. In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? Participation is subjective. There is no science involved to be honest. For the rest, we don't use stats. If someone does something in your project and you think hey, that's really nice, that's what sticks. A few of those usually buys commit access. Sustained contributions over a longer period usually lead to addition to the PMC*. All pretty subjective. The test is really if the group is of the same mind. ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the *ASF members* are parcitipating only http.apache.org mailing lists, AFAICS. Because half of the ASF members are working on the HTTP Server project. I'm sure you'll see a lot of members on the APR project aswell. Both PMC's have few people who aren't members. Please tell me. Gentlemen. Sander *) with APR and HTTP Server. Can't really speak for other projects. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:04 AM On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:25:35 -0400 Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the foundation *as a whole*. presumably you care about the welfare of japan, but don't know what's going in in kita-kyushu unless you live there. that doesn't invalidate your concern about the country overall, nor make you non-japanese. Nice analogy :) .. Well, as a japanese, of course I am caring for what is happening in Kita-Kyushu City, Sapporo City, Nagoya City, as well as the capital of Japan, Tokyo. People in Kita-Kyushu are our Amigos. No prejudice. So you know about every little village in Japan aswell? We are often watching Television, Newspaper, Internet. .. Newspaper .. very nice. I am trying to gather the news from various projects in the foundation, including httpd/apr, etc. as newsletter the other day. In the Issue #1, I could not hear any words from the guys in httpd (Only, Sander made a slight change .. WebServer - Server :), so I had to write by myself. You didn't need to write anything, you wanted to write something. The reason the HTTP Server crowd didn't submit a story is probably simple: they are focussing on other things. Furthermore, the HTTP Server gets coverage via http://www.apacheweek.com/. In this situation, can we say, The ASF members are caring for the whole benefits of foundation?? I don't see how not contributing to a new initiative in the form of a newsletter is equivalent to not caring for the foundation. I find that implication quite insulting. The Apache Newsletter is a good community process and gives the whole benefits to the foundation. Why did not they cooperate with me? (Thanx those who cooperated with me) I'd like to say, Those who would write articles in the newsletter draft, are worthy to become members, because they really care for the foundation as a whole. Bah. This really gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Without the efforts people put in, there would be _no_ news to report. Also, it's the members which nominate new members. Having someone decide on worthiness out of the blue doesn't sound right. Also, I'll give an announcement (=call) at members@ not community@ in the next time. Please no. That would probably be the only list I was on that you had missed in your prodding for contributions to the newsletter. Believe me, if there were people with reporting aspirations within the ASF, you've reached them. I personally think there are not that many around. Not surprising, since when you look at projects, the majority does not like writing documentation either. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] PMC Vote to incubate Directory Project
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:11 AM My understanding from discussion with Sam and Ken was that creation of a new TLP or migrating to an existing one would be an exit, not entry, issue. That's correct. However, it wouldn't make much sense to let a project enter when there is no notion of where it would exit too. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] create a new geronimo@incubator.apache.org mail list
From: Richard Monson-Haefel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 10:18 AM Well, I'm pretty ignorant about Apache's ways, but it was my understanding that the original committers would vote in the PMC. Is that correct? Not at this point no. This project starts in the Incubator and is currently the responsibility of the Incubator PMC. No board resolution has been drafted, nor voted upon, to create a new top level 'Geronimo' PMC as of yet. This will most probably happen when the project is about ready to leave incubation. Did a vote occur? Not AFAIK. I think its important to have representatives from each contributing project on PMC. The general idea is to have the project contributors on the PMC. I would like to represent the OpenEJB contingent. If OpenEJB is not represented on the PMC, why are we here? I'm not sure how to respond to this. Maybe I am reading something in those 2 lines that isn't there. In time a PMC will be formed. It will be representative of the contributors to 'Geronimo'. Samder - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Updating the incubator site
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:39 AM On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:01:53PM +0100, Paul Hammant wrote: Greg, Paul -- please set your umask [on login] to enable group-write on the files in /www/incubator.apache.org. It is making it very difficult for others to update the site :-) I've 755'd all in my name. I think that is enough.. Yup. Looks good, thanks. Altho... I just discovered that Nicola Ken has got some bad files down in there, too. He just needs to toss projects/DELETE-ME-ftpserver. Perms should be fixed there. IOW, anyone in 'incubator' is able to whack it. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CLA v1, WAS: RE: cvs commit: incubator-site/src/documentation/content/forms ASF_Contributor_License_1_form.pdf ASF_Contributor_License_2.pdf ASF_Contributor_License_2.txt ASF_Contributor_License_2_form.pdf
Hi, From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:14 PM jefft 2003/08/07 06:13:39 Added: src/documentation/content/forms ASF_Contributor_License_1_form.pdf ASF_Contributor_License_2.pdf ASF_Contributor_License_2.txt ASF_Contributor_License_2_form.pdf Could be that my memory is playing tricks on me, but don't we require the CLA v2 at all times nowadays? When would we use v1? Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Policy for incubating project resources (was Re: xmlbeans project )
From: Ted Leung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:10 AM You do realize that I'm neither a member of the Incubator PMC nor do I support its existence. Create the mail list. The name shouldn't be up to the Incubator, it should be up to the XML PMC. Its you're baby, you're birthing it. Right now you're forced to do it here. I already asked infrastructure@ for this. I'm clearing my stack tonight on infrastructure requests. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: XMLBean project creation request
From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 4:08 PM On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:58:51 +0200 (Subject: RE: XMLBean project creation request) Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 if it is outside of apache.org. How about PHP's case? PHP is an historical exception. We do not promote this for new projects. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Policy for incubating project resources (was Re: xmlbeans project )
From: Erik Abele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:18 PM [...] Okay, I'm fine with this for now, but without an explicitly stated policy this discussion will come up every time a project arrives at the incubator. We definitely need a policy here, IMHO! I agree. I just didn't want it to be the bottleneck. Is someone already preparing account requests, mailinglist requests, cvs module requests etc, for the Infrastructure team to handle? Ted already requested the creation of the relevant mailing lists and CVS modules and exactly this request brought up this discussion another time :) see below... Ah, dear root and all ;). It may be wise to reissue the request, this time to infrastructure@, with the appropiate CC's, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. There's only a handful of roots, and only a subset of those have a black belt in ezmlm-fu. infrastructure@ reaches a slightly wider audience improving the chances of swift handling of the request. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Fwd: [vote] XMLBeans to enter XML incubation [was: Re: Vote for XMLBeans proposal in the XML Project (was RE: Vote for XMLBeans proposal)]]
From: Ted Leung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:07 AM [...] You should definitely document what you think is important to exit the incubation process. I suggest committing something to the incubator CVS (see the other projects' STATUS files for a template). May I have commit access to the CVS to maintain this? Ted +1 Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Report
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:39 PM smoothly as anticipated. Nevertheless, the following projects are being incubated as we speak: [...] o Tapestry: A complete framework offering an alternative to JSP Velocity scripting environments. Tapestry has left the incubator already. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[TALLY] Promotion of Tapestry to Jakarta SubProject
Hi, +1: Jim Jagielski, B.W. Fitzpatrick, Sander Striker, Nicola Ken Barozzi, Ken Coar, Paul Hammant No negative votes. Tapestry exit Incubator... Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Sam Ruby to join Incubator (was re: Website update)
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:48 PM +1 Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
