Re: Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Sander Striker wrote: 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. Maven is in the process of adding Wagon and other codebases, and they are not passing by the Incubator. Hence in my proposal all PMC chairs are to be in the Incubator automatically to be able to do IP clearance. How does that help? Where is the oversight? "They are not passing the incubator" is not part of the proposal but what is actually happening. The proposal is that all Project Chairs are automatically under this PMC, and are responsible for telling us that the code is coming in, documenting it in our CVS with a simple checklist (a stripped-down version of the one we use for community incubation), and thus leave an audit trail and have us possibly help in checking. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - 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)
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Sander Striker wrote: > > 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. > Maven is in the process of adding Wagon and other codebases, and they > are not passing by the Incubator. Hence in my proposal all PMC chairs > are to be in the Incubator automatically to be able to do IP clearance. How does that help? Where is the oversight? --- Noel - 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)
Sander Striker wrote: 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'm happy you asked :-) There was a discussion on the thread '[RT] Incubator Reorg', and then I posted a proposal as '[PROPOSAL] Incubator Reorg', to which only Sam replied. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=2867 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. Maven is in the process of adding Wagon and other codebases, and they are not passing by the Incubator. Hence in my proposal all PMC chairs are to be in the Incubator automatically to be able to do IP clearance. 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. Seems good enough for me, as checking things that other PMCs are doing is IIUC only a board prerogative. 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). Then we have a process and policy issue, as we currently don't cater for this scenario. @see the '[PROPOSAL] Incubator Reorg' thread. 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. I mean that the legal and actual *responsibility* of the well being of a community (not product) is of TLPs, which are the only ones legally recognized. I'm talking of recognized communities here, not products. A community can make more than one product. In essence, I could say that all *products* entering Apache have to pass by the Incubator, but only *communities* that want to go top level must enter the Incubator. If the PMC requires community incubation, we may as well help them, but it's not compulsory. 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. I don't agree. The Incubator has a dual role. One is the building of new Projects, but the other is vetting all incoming codebases. Some confusion comes from applying the term "incubation" to both aspects of its role. Exactly. Since currently we only incubate communities, I use this meaning here. Please review the thread in the Board archives that I pointed out to Jason. As Sander noted as well, it was clearly stated that the Incubator is responsible for all incoming codebases developed outside of the Foundation. No, patches don't need to come through the incubator, and yes, there are grey areas, but the clearly stated intent was that the Board had designated the Incubator as the sole place through which an externally developed codebase could enter the ASF. Where the confusion comes from is related to the Community building usage of the term "incubation." The other PMCs have expressed that they want to do the Community Building when a codebase and a community is merging into their larger community. That is fine, but it does not change the Board's mandate regarding oversight of externally developed code
RE: Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
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. I don't agree. The Incubator has a dual role. One is the building of new Projects, but the other is vetting all incoming codebases. Some confusion comes from applying the term "incubation" to both aspects of its role. Please review the thread in the Board archives that I pointed out to Jason. As Sander noted as well, it was clearly stated that the Incubator is responsible for all incoming codebases developed outside of the Foundation. No, patches don't need to come through the incubator, and yes, there are grey areas, but the clearly stated intent was that the Board had designated the Incubator as the sole place through which an externally developed codebase could enter the ASF. Where the confusion comes from is related to the Community building usage of the term "incubation." The other PMCs have expressed that they want to do the Community Building when a codebase and a community is merging into their larger community. That is fine, but it does not change the Board's mandate regarding oversight of externally developed code. If the incoming code has a designated place to go, we should facilitate the PMC being able to start their Community Building, both we are responsible for ensuring that the IP issues are cleared, adn they are responsible for working with us to make sure it happens. --- Noel - 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: Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
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. 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?". 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. Brian - 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 05:08, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > There is some confusion here, I'll try to be clear. > > 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. That was not clear at all in the proposal and that's all I was asking be provided. Anything to do with replication was never part of my argument. My arguments are going elsewhere now that I have piece of information. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clearing the air round Incubator and Ruper (was Re: projects incubated by the incubator PMC)
There is some confusion here, I'll try to be clear. 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. This means that Ruper is being incubated to become a TLP, but not that it will necessarily become a TLP (nor even that it will exit incubation successfully). It depends on the Ruper team, on the cooperation with other teams, and on the board's decision to ratify the project becoming TL upon incubation exit. It has been said that Incubator Ruper is duplicating things that Maven is doing and that Maven should lead instead. While I don't negate that Ruper could go into Maven (as Jason and Jack have talked about), I'd like to remember that Maven itself has "duplicated" efforts with Ant, Gump, and other projects. This has been touted as a sane thing, and I don't see why it does not hold for Ruper. If Maven can live alongside Ant, then Ruper can live alongside Maven. I'd like to remember that cooperation goes both ways per definition. Jason at least knew that Ruper was coming, said +1 to it, said that competition was good, and then imported Wagon in Maven. I cannot see how this can be seen as will to cooperate. Not that I'm against this, but please don't blame Ruper for it (if there is anything and anyone to blame at all). Finally, there are projects in the Incubator that are in a limbo and that need their status reassessed, and projects that need to exit incubation. @see the "[PROPOSAL] Incubator Reorg", as I will ask a vote on it very soon. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
