Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-25 Thread Marvin Humphrey 
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Cory Johns  wrote:
> Marvin,
>
> We've been having some discussion and I'd just like to clarify something
> you said:
>
>> Any artifact that is being distributed through Apache channels is
>> supposed to adhere to our policies.
>
> Does this mean that as long as we are releasing the sub-packages on PyPI
> only, and not through Apache channels, that we can leave out the LICENSE
> and NOTICE files (with license headers remaining in the individual files
> and the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE file remaining in the ASF release, of
> course)?

Thanks for the thoughtful inquiry, Cory.

Downstream products are the work of the individuals who prepare them.  Apache
PMCs can't exert oversight over downstream products, we can't VOTE on them or
veto them or provide consistent quality control.

That said, I don't believe you have the option of omitting the NOTICE file
from the PyPI release, or at least the relevant portion of the NOTICE file --
the ALv2 requires propagation of any relevant notices therein to derivative
works.  See section 4d:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution

It's a little odd to have discussions on an ASF project dev list
about downstream products which deliberately diverge from ASF policy, but so
long as what's being contemplated is legally sound, it's a gray area.  To
avoid a "too many cooks" situation, I'm inclined to defer to Allura's Mentors,
who presumably have a more complete context about the motivations, costs and
benefits of various alternatives.

HTH,

Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-25 Thread Cory Johns 
Marvin,

We've been having some discussion and I'd just like to clarify something
you said:

> Any artifact that is being distributed through Apache channels is
supposed to
> adhere to our policies.

Does this mean that as long as we are releasing the sub-packages on PyPI
only, and not through Apache channels, that we can leave out the LICENSE
and NOTICE files (with license headers remaining in the individual files
and the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE file remaining in the ASF release, of
course)?


Thanks


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Cory Johns  wrote:
> > I had one question regarding the NOTICE and LICENSE files issue that you
> > mentioned on the [VOTE] thread.  We were considering, in the future,
> > potentially releasing each of the Allura and Forge sub-packages
> separately
> > on pypi to ease configuration of an Allura system, which is why were
> > providing separate NOTICE and LICENSE files for each sub-package.
>
> The key principle is that the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE must represent
> the
> exact contents of the specific distribution they reside in.
>
> *   The licensing of nested dependencies must be accounted for at the top
> level.  Consumers shouldn't have to hunt through every file in every
> directory of the source tree to discover the complete licensing of the
> product they're consuming.  Bundling dependency licensing info "as is"
> may satisfy hard-and-fast requirements for some dependency licenses,
> but
> it is ASF policy to provide "flattened" licensing info at the top
> level of
> our distros for the benefit of our users.
> *   Don't include entries in the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE for
> dependencies
> which are **not** bundled in the distribution in question.  If
> consumers
> are obtaining those bits from an outside source, they must obtain the
> licensing info for those bits from the same outside source.
> *   If you provide "convenience binaries" in addition to your canonical
> source
> release artifacts and those binaries bundle dependencies which are not
> bundled with the source release, then the LICENSE and NOTICE for the
> binary artifacts must account for the additional IP and will presumably
> differ from the LICENSE and NOTICE of the source release.
> *   If you provide a "-deps" bundle to complement the primary release
> artifacts, it should have its own LICENSE and NOTICE info which varies
> independently and represents its own exact contents.
>
> Note that since these are ASF policies which have evolved over the years
> rather than absolute legal requirements, compliance varies somewhat across
> TLPs and time.  The Incubator PMC will also sometimes let licensing
> documentation bugs go, depending on their impact on downstream consumers
> and
> assuming that they don't cause the release to violate anybody's license.
> However, it's definitely in your interest to make a best effort to adhere
> to
> the policy.
>
> > Is the separate pypi release something that the ASF release is amenable
> to,
> > and, if so, should we still stick to a single NOTICE or single NOTICE &
> > LICENSE file?
>
> Any artifact that is being distributed through Apache channels is supposed
> to
> adhere to our policies.
>
> "Convenience binaries" and derived source releases are alike in that both
> are
> "downstream" from the canonical source release, so to speak.  I infer from
> your description that in this case the PyPI-flavored release artifacts
> consist
> of subsets of files extracted from the canonical source release.  The same
> key
> principle applies: LICENSE and NOTICE must represent the exact contents of
> the
> specific distribution they reside in.  That means if there are
> dependencies in
> the canonical source release which are not present in the PyPI release, the
> PyPI distro's LICENSE and NOTICE files need to be edited down to remove any
> licensing info which does not apply.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-17 Thread Marvin Humphrey 
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Cory Johns  wrote:
> I had one question regarding the NOTICE and LICENSE files issue that you
> mentioned on the [VOTE] thread.  We were considering, in the future,
> potentially releasing each of the Allura and Forge sub-packages separately
> on pypi to ease configuration of an Allura system, which is why were
> providing separate NOTICE and LICENSE files for each sub-package.

The key principle is that the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE must represent the
exact contents of the specific distribution they reside in.

*   The licensing of nested dependencies must be accounted for at the top
level.  Consumers shouldn't have to hunt through every file in every
directory of the source tree to discover the complete licensing of the
product they're consuming.  Bundling dependency licensing info "as is"
may satisfy hard-and-fast requirements for some dependency licenses, but
it is ASF policy to provide "flattened" licensing info at the top level of
our distros for the benefit of our users.
*   Don't include entries in the top-level LICENSE and NOTICE for dependencies
which are **not** bundled in the distribution in question.  If consumers
are obtaining those bits from an outside source, they must obtain the
licensing info for those bits from the same outside source.
*   If you provide "convenience binaries" in addition to your canonical source
release artifacts and those binaries bundle dependencies which are not
bundled with the source release, then the LICENSE and NOTICE for the
binary artifacts must account for the additional IP and will presumably
differ from the LICENSE and NOTICE of the source release.
*   If you provide a "-deps" bundle to complement the primary release
artifacts, it should have its own LICENSE and NOTICE info which varies
independently and represents its own exact contents.

Note that since these are ASF policies which have evolved over the years
rather than absolute legal requirements, compliance varies somewhat across
TLPs and time.  The Incubator PMC will also sometimes let licensing
documentation bugs go, depending on their impact on downstream consumers and
assuming that they don't cause the release to violate anybody's license.
However, it's definitely in your interest to make a best effort to adhere to
the policy.

> Is the separate pypi release something that the ASF release is amenable to,
> and, if so, should we still stick to a single NOTICE or single NOTICE &
> LICENSE file?

Any artifact that is being distributed through Apache channels is supposed to
adhere to our policies.

"Convenience binaries" and derived source releases are alike in that both are
"downstream" from the canonical source release, so to speak.  I infer from
your description that in this case the PyPI-flavored release artifacts consist
of subsets of files extracted from the canonical source release.  The same key
principle applies: LICENSE and NOTICE must represent the exact contents of the
specific distribution they reside in.  That means if there are dependencies in
the canonical source release which are not present in the PyPI release, the
PyPI distro's LICENSE and NOTICE files need to be edited down to remove any
licensing info which does not apply.

Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-17 Thread Cory Johns 
sebb,

Thanks for your feedback.  I have created a wiki page at
https://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura/wiki/ASF%20Release%20Notes/ to
gather all the feedback we've gotten, and I will begin correcting the
issues raised.  Once those have been addressed, I think we will do a 1.0.1
release to get the entire process correct.

I had one question regarding the NOTICE and LICENSE files issue that you
mentioned on the [VOTE] thread.  We were considering, in the future,
potentially releasing each of the Allura and Forge sub-packages separately
on pypi to ease configuration of an Allura system, which is why were
providing separate NOTICE and LICENSE files for each sub-package.  Is the
separate pypi release something that the ASF release is amenable to, and,
if so, should we still stick to a single NOTICE or single NOTICE & LICENSE
file?

Thanks,
Cory


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:35 PM, sebb  wrote:

> Sorry, again forgot:
>
> It's useful to have a link to the RAT report (or equivalent) showing
> that files have the appropriate license headers.
>
> On 16 September 2013 23:33, sebb  wrote:
> > Forgot to say:
> >
> > AFAIK, Git tags are not immutable, so the vote e-mail should contain
> > the hash for the tag.
> >
> > On 16 September 2013 23:30, sebb  wrote:
> >> On 16 September 2013 14:17, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
> >>> IPMC members, hello again.  We are still waiting for your votes to be
> >>> cast for Allura's first release: see vote thread Aug portion [1] and
> >>> Sept portion [2]
> >>>
> >>> If there is anything the Allura PPMC can provide or do, to help, please
> >>> let us know.  I think we're just waiting on you all, though.
> >>
> >> I see there is a KEYS file is stored at
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/allura/KEYS
> >>
> >> which is the usual location; however it helps to include it in vote
> e-mails.
> >>
> >>> I hope some of the energy seen recently in discussing the Monitoring
> >>> proposal and welcoming Storm can also be applied to help us through our
> >>> incubation.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTfgodR_vkuKTvO6EySfRKuZQJmOm%3Dm4K0mGQhnefD2ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3C5227383D.3070401%40brondsema.net%3E
> >>>
> >>> On 09/11/2013 03:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>  On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen 
> wrote:
> >>> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
> >
> 
>  ...
> 
> 
> >>> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to
> this
> > message
> >>> or to Dave's followup?
> >>
> >> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
> >>
> >
> > I wonder this as well :(
> >
> >
>  This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is
> a long
>  way behind on non-work related activities.
> 
>  The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10
> months
>  and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I
> will have
>  chairs to sit on soon :-D
> 
>  Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.
> 
>  Ross
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
> >>> http://www.brondsema.net : personal
> >>> http://www.splike.com : programming
> >>><><
> >>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-16 Thread sebb 
Forgot to say:

AFAIK, Git tags are not immutable, so the vote e-mail should contain
the hash for the tag.

On 16 September 2013 23:30, sebb  wrote:
> On 16 September 2013 14:17, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
>> IPMC members, hello again.  We are still waiting for your votes to be
>> cast for Allura's first release: see vote thread Aug portion [1] and
>> Sept portion [2]
>>
>> If there is anything the Allura PPMC can provide or do, to help, please
>> let us know.  I think we're just waiting on you all, though.
>
> I see there is a KEYS file is stored at
>
> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/allura/KEYS
>
> which is the usual location; however it helps to include it in vote e-mails.
>
>> I hope some of the energy seen recently in discussing the Monitoring
>> proposal and welcoming Storm can also be applied to help us through our
>> incubation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTfgodR_vkuKTvO6EySfRKuZQJmOm%3Dm4K0mGQhnefD2ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [2]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3C5227383D.3070401%40brondsema.net%3E
>>
>> On 09/11/2013 03:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
>>>
 On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?

>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this
 message
>> or to Dave's followup?
>
> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
>

 I wonder this as well :(


>>> This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is a long
>>> way behind on non-work related activities.
>>>
>>> The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10 months
>>> and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I will have
>>> chairs to sit on soon :-D
>>>
>>> Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
>> http://www.brondsema.net : personal
>> http://www.splike.com : programming
>><><
>>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-16 Thread sebb 
Sorry, again forgot:

It's useful to have a link to the RAT report (or equivalent) showing
that files have the appropriate license headers.

On 16 September 2013 23:33, sebb  wrote:
> Forgot to say:
>
> AFAIK, Git tags are not immutable, so the vote e-mail should contain
> the hash for the tag.
>
> On 16 September 2013 23:30, sebb  wrote:
>> On 16 September 2013 14:17, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
>>> IPMC members, hello again.  We are still waiting for your votes to be
>>> cast for Allura's first release: see vote thread Aug portion [1] and
>>> Sept portion [2]
>>>
>>> If there is anything the Allura PPMC can provide or do, to help, please
>>> let us know.  I think we're just waiting on you all, though.
>>
>> I see there is a KEYS file is stored at
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/allura/KEYS
>>
>> which is the usual location; however it helps to include it in vote e-mails.
>>
>>> I hope some of the energy seen recently in discussing the Monitoring
>>> proposal and welcoming Storm can also be applied to help us through our
>>> incubation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTfgodR_vkuKTvO6EySfRKuZQJmOm%3Dm4K0mGQhnefD2ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>> [2]
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3C5227383D.3070401%40brondsema.net%3E
>>>
>>> On 09/11/2013 03:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
 On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema  wrote:

> On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
>

 ...


>>> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this
> message
>>> or to Dave's followup?
>>
>> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
>>
>
> I wonder this as well :(
>
>
 This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is a long
 way behind on non-work related activities.

 The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10 months
 and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I will have
 chairs to sit on soon :-D

 Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.

 Ross

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
>>> http://www.brondsema.net : personal
>>> http://www.splike.com : programming
>>><><
>>>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-16 Thread sebb 
On 16 September 2013 14:17, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
> IPMC members, hello again.  We are still waiting for your votes to be
> cast for Allura's first release: see vote thread Aug portion [1] and
> Sept portion [2]
>
> If there is anything the Allura PPMC can provide or do, to help, please
> let us know.  I think we're just waiting on you all, though.

I see there is a KEYS file is stored at

http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/allura/KEYS

which is the usual location; however it helps to include it in vote e-mails.

> I hope some of the energy seen recently in discussing the Monitoring
> proposal and welcoming Storm can also be applied to help us through our
> incubation.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTfgodR_vkuKTvO6EySfRKuZQJmOm%3Dm4K0mGQhnefD2ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3C5227383D.3070401%40brondsema.net%3E
>
> On 09/11/2013 03:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this
>>> message
> or to Dave's followup?

 Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?

>>>
>>> I wonder this as well :(
>>>
>>>
>> This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is a long
>> way behind on non-work related activities.
>>
>> The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10 months
>> and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I will have
>> chairs to sit on soon :-D
>>
>> Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
> http://www.brondsema.net : personal
> http://www.splike.com : programming
><><
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-16 Thread Dave Brondsema 
IPMC members, hello again.  We are still waiting for your votes to be
cast for Allura's first release: see vote thread Aug portion [1] and
Sept portion [2]

If there is anything the Allura PPMC can provide or do, to help, please
let us know.  I think we're just waiting on you all, though.

I hope some of the energy seen recently in discussing the Monitoring
proposal and welcoming Storm can also be applied to help us through our
incubation.

Thanks,
Dave

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTfgodR_vkuKTvO6EySfRKuZQJmOm%3Dm4K0mGQhnefD2ng%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201309.mbox/%3C5227383D.3070401%40brondsema.net%3E

On 09/11/2013 03:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema  wrote:
> 
>> On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
 Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
>>
> 
> ...
> 
> 
 Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this
>> message
 or to Dave's followup?
>>>
>>> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
>>>
>>
>> I wonder this as well :(
>>
>>
> This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is a long
> way behind on non-work related activities.
> 
> The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10 months
> and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I will have
> chairs to sit on soon :-D
> 
> Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.
> 
> Ross
> 


-- 
Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
   <><



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-11 Thread Ross Gardler 
On 10 September 2013 10:31, Dave Brondsema  wrote:

> On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> >> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
>

...


> >> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this
> message
> >> or to Dave's followup?
> >
> > Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
> >
>
> I wonder this as well :(
>
>
This one has been relocating his family from the UK to the US and is a long
way behind on non-work related activities.

The good news is that I'm now in a permanent home for the next 10 months
and my furniture is clearing customs as we speak. My family and I will have
chairs to sit on soon :-D

Apologies for not being present for your first release vote.

Ross

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-10 Thread Dave Brondsema 
On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
> 
> Perhaps not this one, though the voting on allura-dev@incubator was somewhat
> irregular.
> 
> *   No "[VOTE]" in the subject.
> *   Spread out over multiple threads.
> *   No time specification.  (I recommend the phrase "at least 72 hours".)
> *   PPMC votes claimed as "binding", which is ambiguous.

Are they not binding for the PPMC vote?  Can you suggest what would be correct
and unambiguous?

> 
> So long as the IPMC VOTE clears, though, those irregularities don't block the
> release IMO.
> 
> I'd also like to note that the dev list archives for Allura are time-consuming
> and tedious to plow through -- the signal-to-noise ratio is poor due to the
> large number of auto-generated messages with trivial content.
> 
>> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this message
>> or to Dave's followup?
> 
> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?
> 

I wonder this as well :(

> 
> In today's Incubator, the most effective strategy for an individual podling to
> take is for its core contributors to become serious experts about Apache IP
> and release policy and to present squeaky clean release candidates which make
> a best effort to follow all known rules and guidelines.  In Allura's case, not
> only would it help to run the dev list VOTEs more cleanly, but it would help
> if PPMC members who vote +1 document exactly what steps they took to validate
> the release candidate.

Some of the PPMC have educated ourselves quite a bit on Apache IP & release
policy.  We now need IPMC members to validate our work.

> 
> It's nice to see a list like this accompanying a +1 vote:
> 

If it helps, here's what I validated when I +1'd on the podling vote:

* tarball name includes "incubating"
* PGP sig and checksums validate
* tarball builds and runs on OSX
* Jenkins CI build is green (thus tests pass on Ubuntu)
* tarball matches git checkout
* LICENSE headers on all files (as validated by RAT)
* NOTICE files, RAT exclusion list created correctly and incompatible
dependencies removed:
* https://sourceforge.net/p/allura/tickets/4647/
* https://sourceforge.net/p/allura/tickets/4648/
* https://sourceforge.net/p/allura/tickets/4655/
* https://sourceforge.net/p/allura/tickets/5942/
* initial CHANGES file created (no details since its first release)


> *   Sums and sigs OK (log below).
> *   Build from source tarball succeeds and passes tests on [list
> platforms].
> *   Extended tests pass on [list platforms].
> *   RAT build target passes.
> *   Tarball name contains "incubating".
> *   Incubation DISCLAIMER included.
> *   Expanded tarball matches version control tag exactly (diff log below).
> *   LICENSE and NOTICE assembled according to
>  per discussion at
> [link].
> *   LICENSE and NOTICE up-to-date, as no dependencies have been added
> since initial assembly.
> *   All copyleft dependencies purged as documented at [issue].
> *   Copyright date in NOTICE is current.
> *   CHANGES entry is current.
> *   Issue tracker clean (no open issues for this release).
> ...
> 
> Documented diligence by podling contributors lowers the cost of reviewing and
> voting for Mentors and other IPMC members, and may help to persuade those
> hanging back to participate.
> 

Thanks for the suggestions.  We will try to hold our votes more cleanly and
provide supporting documentation, for our future releases.

I'm hopeful some IPMC members can step up now and help with this current release
vote, or provide further guidance if we're missing anything.


-- 
Dave Brondsema : d...@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
  <><

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

[DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-09 Thread Marvin Humphrey 
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?

Perhaps not this one, though the voting on allura-dev@incubator was somewhat
irregular.

*   No "[VOTE]" in the subject.
*   Spread out over multiple threads.
*   No time specification.  (I recommend the phrase "at least 72 hours".)
*   PPMC votes claimed as "binding", which is ambiguous.

So long as the IPMC VOTE clears, though, those irregularities don't block the
release IMO.

I'd also like to note that the dev list archives for Allura are time-consuming
and tedious to plow through -- the signal-to-noise ratio is poor due to the
large number of auto-generated messages with trivial content.

> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this message
> or to Dave's followup?

Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?

Mentors must lead the way, particularly for the first release.  "Freelance"
reviews of release artifacts, by IPMC members who are not following the
podling's development, are by their nature superficial.  For instance, a
freelancer can run RAT and see whether there are files with missing ALv2
headers, but can't see whether files with ALv2 headers had them installed
appropriately.  We count on Mentors to endorse the podling's initial IP
handling, from supervising the code grant to monitoring the dev list and
commits list day-by-day and ensuring that everything is proper.

After the first release, we are voting on a delta, and all new changes have
happened within Apache channels which are comparatively more auditable.
However, for the initial incubating release, we are voting on development
which took place elsewhere, and Mentors have better insight than the rest of
the IPMC into the importation and assimilation of that dark matter into
Apache.

> Can some of the old hands around here give us some insight into what we need
> to do to get things moving?

Getting enough IPMC votes for incubating releases is an age-old issue for the
Incubator.  Many long-term remedies have been discussed, but none of that will
help the acute problem faced by Allura.

In today's Incubator, the most effective strategy for an individual podling to
take is for its core contributors to become serious experts about Apache IP
and release policy and to present squeaky clean release candidates which make
a best effort to follow all known rules and guidelines.  In Allura's case, not
only would it help to run the dev list VOTEs more cleanly, but it would help
if PPMC members who vote +1 document exactly what steps they took to validate
the release candidate.

It's nice to see a list like this accompanying a +1 vote:

*   Sums and sigs OK (log below).
*   Build from source tarball succeeds and passes tests on [list
platforms].
*   Extended tests pass on [list platforms].
*   RAT build target passes.
*   Tarball name contains "incubating".
*   Incubation DISCLAIMER included.
*   Expanded tarball matches version control tag exactly (diff log below).
*   LICENSE and NOTICE assembled according to
 per discussion at
[link].
*   LICENSE and NOTICE up-to-date, as no dependencies have been added
since initial assembly.
*   All copyleft dependencies purged as documented at [issue].
*   Copyright date in NOTICE is current.
*   CHANGES entry is current.
*   Issue tracker clean (no open issues for this release).
...

Documented diligence by podling contributors lowers the cost of reviewing and
voting for Mentors and other IPMC members, and may help to persuade those
hanging back to participate.

Marvin Humphrey

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-09 Thread Cory Johns 
Thanks, Marvin.  I can't believe I left those out.  For reference they are
given below, and I will reply on the [VOTE] thread with them as well.

[1] VOTE thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-allura-dev/201308.mbox/%3CCAEMb8zUbH2ZyuQOAA1OWf%2BwVXaK_q_GAc%3DN4BzyVG2E8OtprNw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

[2] DISCUSS thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-allura-dev/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaTwCHgmyYtd1t%2BgELru7mD0_%3DE5%3D4YDtvXUsXeS2aabPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

[3] RESULT thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-allura-dev/201308.mbox/%3CCAGN0FaRRkT-SUmBTFQh9D0NCUp_CNae5ne51oDn0g3i2hFHDdA%40mail.gmail.com%3E


On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Cory Johns  wrote:
>
> > A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed with 9 +1's, and
> 0
> > -1's or +0's (vote thread [1], discussion thread [2] which some of the
> > votes were cast on, due to some confusion, and result thread [3]), and
> now
> > requires  a vote on general@incubator.apache.org.
>
> Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 are missing.  Please provide these links.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0

2013-09-09 Thread Marvin Humphrey 
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Cory Johns  wrote:

> A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed with 9 +1's, and 0
> -1's or +0's (vote thread [1], discussion thread [2] which some of the
> votes were cast on, due to some confusion, and result thread [3]), and now
> requires  a vote on general@incubator.apache.org.

Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 are missing.  Please provide these links.

Marvin Humphrey

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