Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/29/05, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not simply be able to kill it outright. +1. I think that's an important distinction to make. Proposals should require the advice and consent of the Incubator PMC. I agree that while the Incubator PMC shouldn't be able to kill the project, they can and should be able to say Your charter sucks. Rewrite it. We won't sign off until that happens. It's about the form than the content. Roy's comments about Tuscany proposal are what I'd characterize in this mold. The Incubator PMC should also be able to make a judgment (certification?) of the process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form. I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 12/29/05, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not simply be able to kill it outright. +1. I think that's an important distinction to make. Proposals should require the advice and consent of the Incubator PMC. I agree that while the Incubator PMC shouldn't be able to kill the project, they can and should be able to say Your charter sucks. Rewrite it. We won't sign off until that happens. It's about the form than the content. Roy's comments about Tuscany proposal are what I'd characterize in this mold. Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not sponsored (at the time) by any PMC. The Incubator PMC should also be able to make a judgment (certification?) of the process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form. I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned. Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a problem anyway... geir -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not sponsored (at the time) by any PMC. Dims mentioned that they had planned to approve that proposal through the WS PMC - so if it had been sponsored by them, there would have been no change permitted by the Incubator PMC to address concerns like Roy's. The Incubator PMC should also be able to make a judgment (certification?) of the process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form. I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned. Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a problem anyway... As Greg said, that's for the board to deal with. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Yes, I agree with Justin. More eyes the better. Especially ones with outsider perspective will help. -- dims On 12/30/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not sponsored (at the time) by any PMC. Dims mentioned that they had planned to approve that proposal through the WS PMC - so if it had been sponsored by them, there would have been no change permitted by the Incubator PMC to address concerns like Roy's. The Incubator PMC should also be able to make a judgment (certification?) of the process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form. I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned. Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a problem anyway... As Greg said, that's for the board to deal with. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:16:42PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: ... - the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they otherwise meet the guidelines. Yup. And that's the way that I think it should be. The Incubator is not close enough to the problem to make a determination *against* another PMCs rightful decision that a project would be beneficial for the ASF. Recognize that other PMCs are *also* operating within the best interests of the Foundation. That should be a given, and if you think a PMC is *not* operating that way, then you bring it to the Board. You don't exercise your displeasure by interfering with the work that they are trying to accomplish [to benefit the Foundation]. If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not simply be able to kill it outright. Go to the Board for that because the implication is that the PMC is not acting in the Foundation's best interests, and THAT is for the Board to handle. Not the Incubator. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC ? approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie. (In the future, the PRC is almost certainly going to reject any releases before this happens.) Then we have a different policy to put into place: NO PR WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE PRC. And that should be applied to ALL ASF PROJECTS, not just those in the Incubator. That puts more work on the PRC, which will need to grow to scale, but I'd go for such an ASF-wide policy. We would have to document that broadly, and make it clear to donors. That probably won't help with the We're planning to donate type announcements, but ... after those steps occur (which should be relatively quickly in the order of a few weeks), removing the Apache brand from podlings would be incredibly harmful. +1 The only reason that these projects can have the 'Apache' brand is because a member of the Foundation is willing to act as mentor *and* the Incubator PMC approves each interim release. If the mentor isn't keeping the project in line with respect to our values, then the Incubator or the 'destination' PMC needs to step in and provide guidance or terminate it. Hopefully, a 3 active mentor policy will help with this issue. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and the members. As Geir noted, I can see the potential for the former, but of the latter, I would hope not. The Members are the Incubator in many real ways, and the Incubator exists to directly serve the interests of the ASF Membership. I would see such as thing (denying acceptance) as something that would require as much reason and rationale as a code-based veto would; much more so, in fact. Are you suggesting that graduation from the Incubator should be vetoable, i.e., treated as a vote on code rather than treated as policy? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) - then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that decision. When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing the Incubator PMC can decide is whether the project can leave the Incubator. A fair summation, although there are people who believe that the Incubator PMC should have more of a say in the entry of a project for Incubation. Jim and Geir both raise the hypothetical of what would have happened if Tuscany were submitted as a fait accompli by the WS PMC, rather than being critiqued here. Following up on some comments and other examples from Dims, I'd say that this raises a separate issue, which is something to address Foundation-wide: how to push for more synergy and cooperation where appropriate between our projects, without excluding cooperation with external ones. To date, that has only been something promoted by individuals, such as myself, who want to see ASF projects collaborating. Even without a PMC, if *one* of our members out there thinks a project is worth doing and they can write something mildly resembling a charter down on paper, that's all I need to hear for a +1. That has been my policy, too, although if we adopt the notion that there must be 3 Members/Officers as project mentors, it would take more than one such mentor for a project to start. I don't know whether or not that would satisfy Geir, unless we did something about not having all of those mentors from the same PMC. There seem to be concerns that some other PMC could become out of control, and game the rules in the absence of some balance. Personally, I would hope for better from an ASF Member, and will consider whether future candidates would make good Incubator Mentors. That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what basis? Agreed. We must plan for scale, and ensure that AS WE SCALE, that the proper processes are in place. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Erik Abele wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: What you do have is the right to vote against their graduation if you so desire. The second sentence does exactly what the first sentence forbids, no? It tells people what they cannot do at the ASF. It is established that the Incubator is the sole authority on new entry into the ASF. The talking point is the barrier into the vestibule, if you will. Roy wants an open policy, others are concerned that there is too much chaos and confusion in the antechambers. Worse, they are concerned that projects under the Incubator may be causing confusion about what is and is not under the imprimatur of the ASF. We can revisit branding, but I don't believe that a totally non-ASF brand is at all warranted, as explained by Justin. --- Noel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Steven Noels wrote: The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah, thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse stuff. Not true. If there is community development, the Incubator PMC had better be involved. We're going to have to adjust things, such as Mentorship and votes to leave the Incubator, e.g., - a minimum of 3 ASF Members and/or Officers who have differing corporate affiliations as Mentors per project. The sponsoring PMC must identify those ASF Members. Projects who lose one or more sponsors -- even if they just go quiet -- must make sure that they regain the minimum of 3. Existing projects that are not meeting the quorum will not be permitted to release any code, regardless of otherwise meeting Incubator release guidelines. - the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they otherwise meet the guidelines. There are still guidelines regarding candidacy, and the Board will be encouraged to take a dim view of any PMC trying to game the system. - the Incubator PMC having the sole vote on all graduations from the Incubator. The target PMC votes to accept first, and then notifies us that they are ready for our vote. It is a talking point, but we may have to perform that vote even on simpler IP imports, just to prevent gaming the system, e.g., well, it's not really a new project. Actually, all of those are talking points. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
+1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors +1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects +1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports thanks, dims On 12/28/05, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven Noels wrote: The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah, thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse stuff. Not true. If there is community development, the Incubator PMC had better be involved. We're going to have to adjust things, such as Mentorship and votes to leave the Incubator, e.g., - a minimum of 3 ASF Members and/or Officers who have differing corporate affiliations as Mentors per project. The sponsoring PMC must identify those ASF Members. Projects who lose one or more sponsors -- even if they just go quiet -- must make sure that they regain the minimum of 3. Existing projects that are not meeting the quorum will not be permitted to release any code, regardless of otherwise meeting Incubator release guidelines. - the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they otherwise meet the guidelines. There are still guidelines regarding candidacy, and the Board will be encouraged to take a dim view of any PMC trying to game the system. - the Incubator PMC having the sole vote on all graduations from the Incubator. The target PMC votes to accept first, and then notifies us that they are ready for our vote. It is a talking point, but we may have to perform that vote even on simpler IP imports, just to prevent gaming the system, e.g., well, it's not really a new project. Actually, all of those are talking points. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: +1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors +1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects +1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports yeah, sounds good to me. More mentors / oversight is likely to help quite a bit. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie. So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the project to ASF?? It means, IMHO, that they don't yet get it. Since the purpose of the Incubator is to ensure that folks do indeed get it, it would be unfortunate to disqualify for entrance anyone who has demonstrated that they don't in fact already get it. So, no, I'd say that this does not disqualify them for entrance. It does mean, however, that someone must approach them and instruct them on the ways in which their actions demonstrate a lack of getting it. It seems that this process is already underway, via Ted. -- Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:45, Rich Bowen wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie. So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the project to ASF?? It means, IMHO, that they don't yet get it. Since the purpose of the Incubator is to ensure that folks do indeed get it, it would be unfortunate to disqualify for entrance anyone who has demonstrated that they don't in fact already get it. So, no, I'd say that this does not disqualify them for entrance. It does mean, however, that someone must approach them and instruct them on the ways in which their actions demonstrate a lack of getting it. IMVHO, Justin's in favour of enforcing a strict embargo doesn't sound like hit their fingers and say 'Bad boy!', followed by a hug. A simple matrix of act/consequence can be published on Incubator website, but isn't it necessary to have some significant deterents? Otherwise, flat-out lie will be accompanied with a flat-out defiance. It seems that this process is already underway, via Ted. I thought we were speaking in general and pro-actively, since retro-active measures are not really serving ASF either. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Jochen Wiedmann wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the podling. When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a +1 to mean something different? Yes, i reckon that you are onto something there, Robert. In my book, a +1 vote means yes i want it to happen and i will help to make it happen. Otherwise vote +0 to mean i don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with it. Reading between the lines of the definitions at http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html seems to support that. I have never helped mentor a project, but imagine that it would hard without more old-hands helping to lead the way for the community and procedural side of things. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin I reckon that the way to handle it is to document our processes properly. If each new podling got involved in fine-tuning the content of the Incubator site docs then we would quickly streamline the process for those that follow. Everything would organically get easier. A lot of time seems to be wasted in confusion about what it means to be in the Incubator, how to get in, how to exit, what needs to be learned before getting out, operating principles, etc. We need some dot points. The existing website content is a start, but it is in dire need of attention. Thanks to Jean for the new energy. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/23/05, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: ... I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a way they disagreed with. And the board has to answer to the membership. I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC second-guess the decisions of other PMCs. +1. If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks. People who don't like what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly. If they don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their grievances directly, they can go to the Board. +1. requiring a vote by the incubator pmc would not be about second guessing the wishes of a pmc but applying a second set of criteria. these would be a subset of the criteria that the incubator pmc applies to graduation. in most cases, this should be a formality but i believe that these is sufficient concern amongst the membership to justify adding this additional bit of ceremony. (and yes, i do know that this sucks in many ways and this extra ceremony will hamper community based proposals but i think that our hand has been forced. we should deal with the problems surrounding innovation and ceremony separately.) IMO given that podlings are being aggressively publicised (unfortunately now sometimes even before they are born) and strongly associated with the ASF in the minds of the public, there is now a certain level of due diligence which can no longer be left to be sorted out once the podling has been accepted for incubation. in particular: 1 project names (it's no longer good enough to enter the incubator with a legally suspect name) 2 lack of oversight energy 3 that the initial legal paperwork is in order 4 any other issues which would give the podling no hope of graduating including a formal vote from the incubator pmc would have (i believe) additional process advantages: it will give a clear line for evangelists - no talking about a potential podlings as if it were an apache project until this vote is passed. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:43:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that not contributing to infra reduces Ted's or my contributions to the foundation or the incubator. I believe that misses Roy's point: it's not about infra - it's about dictating an individual's effort towards or against a particular project. The ASF has never been about telling someone else what to do. The comments that are being made in this thread are along the lines of I know better than you and you shouldn't work on this project because I think it's bad or XYZ is better. That is not who we are or are about: you can not make that value decision for anyone else. If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) - then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that decision. When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing the Incubator PMC can decide is whether the project can leave the Incubator. Even without a PMC, if *one* of our members out there thinks a project is worth doing and they can write something mildly resembling a charter down on paper, that's all I need to hear for a +1. The project *they* believe in deserves the institutional support of the Foundation. We can not be second-guessing people's motives as to why they believe it's a good idea. Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and what's not. That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what basis? To do so is to bang our collective heads on the wall: closing our borders is to forget where we came from and why we're here at all. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) - then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that decision. When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing the Incubator PMC can decide is whether the project can leave the Incubator. IMO this highlights one of the problems: ATM pmc's do not need to commit to anything other than a vague promise that they'll consider accepting the podling after graduation. if they decide that they don't want the podling then they can just ask that it becomes a TLP. so, voting +1 has no cost to the pmc. IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the podling. - robert
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
robert burrell donkin wrote: IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the podling. When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a +1 to mean something different? Jochen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed. A bunch of hypotheticals in there. If the WS-PMC had voted to approve a proposal that was empty of significant content, then I would question the viability of that PMC. But as it is, that never happened. A draft proposal was created, it was reviewed by others, updated, and the objection based on lack of content was dropped. That could very well have happened in the WS PMC as well as here. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Sam, it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS PMC) may be biased. Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input). Thanks, dims On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed. A bunch of hypotheticals in there. If the WS-PMC had voted to approve a proposal that was empty of significant content, then I would question the viability of that PMC. But as it is, that never happened. A draft proposal was created, it was reviewed by others, updated, and the objection based on lack of content was dropped. That could very well have happened in the WS PMC as well as here. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on, because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration. As the sponsor/champion of Tuscany, I'll be the first to admit that Roy was actually right on with his criticism. The proposal didn't reflect what the proposers were actually thinking, and it forced the team to review and rewrite, and the result is IMO a stronger, clearer proposal and statement of intent. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation. Everything done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are organized better than others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our license. And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in the incubator or not. To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF. To the majority of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly) is branding stamp. You might not like it, but that's how many people treat it. And that's why one of the first things a company wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release. There are lots of bad reasons to come to the ASF and high on my list is to take advantage of the brand. Maybe then we address that issue head-on, and simply ask that a contributing company doesn't do a press release for n months after entering incubation? And when the project graduates, we do a good job assisting them with a joint release or something as the reward. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what basis? In my mind, there are 2 considerations: What is in the best interest of the PMC, and what is in the best interest of the ASF. For the vast majority of the time, the 2 dovetail v. nicely, and there are no problems. However, it is possible for things to conflict, and something that a PMC wants to not coincide with the best interests of the ASF. Again, I would remind people of the origin problems with Jakarta as an example. I feel that the board has the responsibility to look after what is in the best interests of the ASF. I also feel that they have delegated this responsibility, as far as monitoring and regulating new projects to the Incubator. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sam, it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS PMC) may be biased. I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board. Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input). Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope. Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process, not the end of it. There should be adequate opportunity for people to provide input during the course of incubation. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the resolution that creates them. How they interpret that and change with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them geir On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!). -- dims On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sam, it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS PMC) may be biased. I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board. Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input). Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope. Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process, not the end of it. There should be adequate opportunity for people to provide input during the course of incubation. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from others interested in this aspect of ASF life. It prevents one individual or one PMC from being able to make significant social or technological change, or at least ensure that there is a theoretically impartial observer keeping track. It allows interested members and other community members to put their money where their mouth is on this topic, and join the Incubator PMC to help out. I don't think that can scale appropriately. Why would the Incubator PMC know more about whether mod_ftp is a good fit for the Foundation than the entire HTTP Server PMC? I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a way they disagreed with. And the board has to answer to the membership. I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC second-guess the decisions of other PMCs. If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks. People who don't like what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly. If they don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their grievances directly, they can go to the Board. Although, the Board is rightly wary of interposing itself in technical decisions. We have no idea what makes technical sense or not either. Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and what's not. That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what basis? I agree here - I would never want to exclude based on technology. I do the thought experiment from time to time and ask myself which projects I would have excluded if ordered to limit growth at the ASF, and I never have a good answer. Maybe not let those toaster language bytecode people in? I think our current java communities are a *huge* asset. How about the pointy-bracket folks? We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity, and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run. That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right? You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines... -- dims On 12/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the resolution that creates them. How they interpret that and change with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them geir On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!). -- dims On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sam, it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS PMC) may be biased. I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board. Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input). Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope. Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process, not the end of it. There should be adequate opportunity for people to provide input during the course of incubation. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from others interested in this aspect of ASF life. It prevents one individual or one PMC from being able to make significant social or technological change, or at least ensure that there is a theoretically impartial observer keeping track. It allows interested members and other community members to put their money where their mouth is on this topic, and join the Incubator PMC to help out. I don't think that can scale appropriately. Why would the Incubator PMC know more about whether mod_ftp is a good fit for the Foundation than the entire HTTP Server PMC? I certainly agree that in 99% of the cases, this would be the case, and I would never expect the Incubator PMC to ever stand in the way of any proposal unless there is good reason of broader scope. Healthy PMCs will IMO always do the right thing. I was thinking more along the lines of the Incubator having to vote and therefore do some due-diligence. It also does give the Incubator PMC some control over rate of growth. I'm worried about growth, but not anti-, but certainly worry about the incubator being stretched too thin to effectively provide the legal oversight and community shaping. Our incoming rate is faster than the outgoing rate - at what point do we have more than we can handle? Imagine if every PMC did what the Geronimo PMC just did, and invited in say 5 new projects (as is their right). That's about 150 new podlings at once. How would we deal with that? I don't expect this to happen, but maybe you can see my point. I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a way they disagreed with. And the board has to answer to the membership. I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC second-guess the decisions of other PMCs. If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks. People who don't like what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly. If they don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their grievances directly, they can go to the Board. I'm assuming a healthy Incubator PMC here - not one in which one person can leverage to attack a PMC. Although, the Board is rightly wary of interposing itself in technical decisions. We have no idea what makes technical sense or not either. Right - I wouldn't think that the Incubator PMC would want to make decisions based on technical merit either. That's a non-starter - we have to assume that each PMC is the most clueful in their technology domain. But code sources, committer diversity, availability of volunteer resources in and around the incubator all are things we can consider. Like it or not, the INcubator PMC is the locus of these efforts, and it's real resources that are needed for each podling. Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and what's not. That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what basis? I agree here - I would never want to exclude based on technology. I do the thought experiment from time to time and ask myself which projects I would have excluded if ordered to limit growth at the ASF, and I never have a good answer. Maybe not let those toaster language bytecode people in? I think our current java communities are a *huge* asset. How about the pointy-bracket folks? We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity, and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run. That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin It's dangerous, but it's also a consideration of a vocal and active part of the membership. It can't be ignored. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 23, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right? You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines... There's lots of places to go with this :) I guess we need to clarify if we are talking about the charter as from the baord Thou shalt do webservices which I do think is up to the board to change (in conjunction with the PMC) or the project bylaws/guidlines setup entirely by the PMC We shalt to webservices in this manner I believe that many projects do not conform precisely to their project charter but still work in healthy and collaborative ways... geir -- dims On 12/23/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the resolution that creates them. How they interpret that and change with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them geir On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sounds good to me (hopefully all our TLP's will have charters soon!!). -- dims On 12/23/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: Sam, it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS PMC) may be biased. I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to watch to make sure that existing projects stay to their charters - that's the job of the board. Another thing i can think of is, for example, when HTTPComponents (by internal people) was being set up there was resistance from tomcat folks. But the scope got resolved by active participation by folks from tomcat and jakarta pmcs. IMHO, this will not happen if a PMC already voted to accept something even before Incubator PMC knows about it (not to mention the other PMC's who may significant input). Again, I don't believe that it is the incubator's job to enforce scope. Furthermore, acceptance by the incubator is the start of a process, not the end of it. There should be adequate opportunity for people to provide input during the course of incubation. - Sam Ruby --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:38AM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right? You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines... I'd have no problem saying that any podling seeking TLP status from the Board must have a charter and project bylaws written up before graduation. We've learned our lesson in that projects without these go iffy. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: ... I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a way they disagreed with. And the board has to answer to the membership. I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC second-guess the decisions of other PMCs. +1. If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be able to use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks. People who don't like what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly. If they don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their grievances directly, they can go to the Board. +1. ... We need to actually increase our technical diversity here - we have no real Ruby-oriented communities, nor any coherent .NET identity, and I think that's going to hurt us in the long run. That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin I agree that it is very dangerous talking about limits ab initio - but on the other hand I think it is very important to talk about growth. I'm not sure what the outcome of this discussion will bring, but I think we have seen enough concerns that it at least warrants a discussion (not conclusions!). Maybe we find out it is enough to more efficently control PR activities or to require two or more mentors or ... I don't know but I'd like to explore the possibilities. (I've written about all the mentioned concerns on members@ but unfortunately nobody picked up the list so far.) Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed. Yes, and I trust the other PMCs to be responsible for their own actions. I think people forget that the Incubator is just a place where people incubate their own projects. The PMC doesn't incubate them. The PMC is just the collective dude with a finger on the good egg/bad egg reject button. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are created. Â Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie. So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the project to ASF?? Just curious. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 21 Dec 2005, at 10:50, Ted Leung wrote: Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Corporations see the value of the brand name, that's why they want to come here and are willing to put up with all our overhead. I agree but i believe we're picking the wrong example. For me, the low bar is because many code donations are happening in the folds of other-than-the-Incubator PMC: The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah, thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse stuff. Combine this with mentors preferring to read and use the system as it has been designed and drafted literally, rather than according to what the (somewhat intangible) Apache Way dictates, and this is bound to create tension. Quite frankly, I don't have the slightest idea anymore what is happening in the WebServices and Geronimo corner of Apache. That's either an indication of the fact that I should read more mail (yeah right), or something slightly more worrying. Too much, too fast, too eager, too soon. That way, we'll burn out rather than fade away. :) /Steven -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought Open Source Java XML stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be it further There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's the Incubator which granted that power to the PMCs, and we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us more control over that which we are charged with in the first place :) PS: IMO, in response to the actual subject line, I certainly don't feel that the Incubator is out of control, or on a certain path for disaster, or anything like that. I simply think that, knowing the currently growth plan, some changes may be a Good Idea to *prevent* any future problems or concerns. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be it further There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's the Incubator which granted that power to the PMCs, and we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us more control over that which we are charged with in the first place :) the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to a failure of oversight has personal consequences. i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. - robert
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs? I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a problem for the project community. regards, Martin On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be it further There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's the Incubator which granted that power to the PMCs, and we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us more control over that which we are charged with in the first place :) the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to a failure of oversight has personal consequences. i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator: RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example, that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's the Incubator which granted that power to the PMCs I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Going under the assumption that there should be some sort of entity which regulates the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/2005 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Going under the assumption that there should be some sort of entity which regulates the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
(for the benefit of those joining the thread, here's the context) On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to a failure of oversight has personal consequences. i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run. On 12/22/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs? ATM the sponsoring pmc votes and then the incubator pmc and the mentors do the work :) I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a problem for the project community. how much that is true probably depends on the particular pmc in question. problems with TLPs are ASF problems. if it were generally true that every pmc cared so much about every podling, then i suspect that fewer people would be worried. ATM though (unlike most ASF votes) each +1 is only a recommendation rather than an active promise to help. it's committing someone else's time and reputation... - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? On 30.11.2005, at 21:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote: As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles. Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has some constraints -- does anyone know what they are? I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly don't need more than one WS/SOA federation. Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release. That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague relationships. So why don't you get involved instead or vote against their graduation if you so desire? Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? Not at all. No one (afaik) denies the fact that the Incubator is the final arbiter of who graduates or not. Instead, the question is whether it also has the authority (and responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not. Deciding who graduates ensures that new projects have the required IP clearance and community health to (hopefully) grow and prosper, and to ensure the ASF stays on an even keel. This is good and worthwhile. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification needs further explanation? ;-) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. And so on that basis, an interpretation that permits PMCs to submit projects for Incubation, and still provides for the Incubator PMC to arbitrate on exit, makes sense. it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Agreed. And that is only one of the concerns that we need to be aware of. Going under the assumption that there should be some sort of entity which regulates the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) Agreed, and we are the authority on what leaves the Incubator. And since we have traditionally held that any ASF Member can join the Incubator PMC, that provides the ASF Membership with a lot of say in what happens, should they choose to become active here. But this still leaves open WHEN that authority comes into play: on entrance to the Incubator, or on exit. On the other hand, since exit may include Incubation failure ... hmmm ... I suppose that the Incubator PMC could vote to fail a project, even if it can't vote on whether or not to accept it. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? No, that is clearly an authority delegated by the Board exclusively to the Incubator. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Instead, the question is whether it also has the authority (and responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not. FWIW, I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and the members. I would see such as thing (denying acceptance) as something that would require as much reason and rationale as a code-based veto would; much more so, in fact. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification needs further explanation? ;-) None ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on, because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration. Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Pay attention to the details. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 23.12.2005, at 00:23, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote: On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the Tuscany proposal be interpreted? Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC) and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on, because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration. That's all fine and to be honest I didn't expect a detailed answer to my exaggerated question - what I wanted to show is that your authoritative sounding reply to Ted did contain a very conflictive view and I think that might confuse a lot of people: You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. vs. What you do have is the right to vote against their graduation if you so desire. The second sentence does exactly what the first sentence forbids, no? It tells people what they cannot do at the ASF. Maybe I'm too picky or this is a language thing, not sure - just wanted to point that out. Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive IMHO... Pay attention to the details. I do. Cheers, Erik smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. I understand how the rules currently work. I don't agree that they are working well for us. I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name Methinks you have forgotten that there was no bar before incubator existed -- the code was just copied to cvs. No, I remember, and I wouldn't choose to go back to those days. And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation. Everything done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are organized better than others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our license. And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in the incubator or not. To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF. To the majority of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly) is branding stamp. You might not like it, but that's how many people treat it. And that's why one of the first things a company wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release. If people believe that the Incubator should not accept any new projects, then they should convince the board to make it so. The incubator is the place where people wanting to work on new projects can do so within a neutral environment with limited risk to the foundation. If you think that such things should be done at SourceForge instead, and that the ASF should only accept fully-formed communities after they have a questionable track-record of IP contributions, then go ahead and ask the board to shut down the incubator. Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure, so have little basis to complain about anything. I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from the incubator, after being there for about a year.As member of the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask whether what we have is working for the foundation or not. Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 21:19 -0800, Ted Leung wrote: Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure, so have little basis to complain about anything. I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from the incubator, after being there for about a year.As member of the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask whether what we have is working for the foundation or not. +1. I too am on the incubator PMC and am mentoring 2 projects: Woden and Synapse. With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that not contributing to infra reduces Ted's or my contributions to the foundation or the incubator. I care a lot about the future of ASF and I have lots of concerns about the incubation process and what it means to the ASF. I will pick up that discussion on the members list. Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:50 AM, Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: Personally, I am less than happy at seeing yet another large project proposed from a corporate source (and IBM at that), along with a dozen new committers who have not earned their merit at the ASF as most committers have. I feel the ASF is losing its way, and becoming a repository for corporate open-sourcing along with taking on responsibility for building communities around corporate code bases. I suspect I'm in the minority at the ASF, and I'm undoubtedly in the minority here in the incubator. But there doesn't seem to be a way for the incubator to say no thanks, other than by a podling failing the incubation process, and that seems wrong to me. The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too quickly. I know that are some people who believe that the growth that we are experiencing is indicative of our success. Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Corporations see the value of the brand name, that's why they want to come here and are willing to put up with all our overhead. Unless we are very careful, Incubator will become a much larger mess than the Jakarta project ever was... Which would be quite ironic. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: Corporations see the value of the brand name, that's why they want to come here and are willing to put up with all our overhead. I can't speak for all corporations, but I can speak to the proposals that I have dealt with at my corporation. IBM is fully aware that places like DeveloperWorks and SourceForge exist. The prevalent view is that such places tend to end up being fishbowls whereby developers can work and be observed. By contrast, the ASF is viewed as a place to build a diverse and sustainable community. This discussion, the attendant angst and so called overhead, are recognized as part of the package, i.e., necessary to establish the desired diversity and community involvement. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote: The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too quickly. I know that are some people who believe that the growth that we are experiencing is indicative of our success. Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Very much agreed - I've been worried about the same for quite a while. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
I Also share these concerns - is there currently a process to have continuous reviews throughout the entire life-cycle of all new and existing projects - to ensure that everything under the 'apache' brand is and will continue to be 'worthy' ? Sorry if there's already a process in place - I'm new :) cheers, Rob On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:18, Mads Toftum wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote: The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too quickly. I know that are some people who believe that the growth that we are experiencing is indicative of our success. Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Very much agreed - I've been worried about the same for quite a while. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
The merits of the particular proposal aside We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing to do so might well be part of the problem. I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Unless we are very careful, Incubator will become a much larger mess than the Jakarta project Unlike, Jakarta, the Incubator scales better --- at least in theory --- since we require at least one Member or Officer to be providing active oversight of each project, and the Incubator PMC consists of all of those mentors, plus others. If that fails, we need to review the situation. If we cannot find a Member or Officer willing to provide that active oversight, we won't be able to incubate that project. This means that when some other PMC votes for the ASF to Incubate a project, they must provide such a person to perform the oversight. Else we will not accept the project. Voting for us to accept a project, without providing that oversight, would be irresponsible and won't be accepted. We should also make sure that our projects understand the importance of oversight, and notify the Incubator PMC if those providing oversight go AWOL. The PPMC should be a vital part of Incubation. And we require quarterly reports from all of our projects to keep track of what is happening, which addresses Rob's question. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:38:52AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. Absolutely! I'm surprised that this isn't the case already. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. It was presented to the Incubator PMC that when another PMC has voted, we don't have that option. I'd like to see a determination from the Board if that is to change. I will still say that if another PMC has voted, that unless they also provide a Member or Officer to provide oversight (not necessarily from that PMC), that the request is invalid. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Let's put htis to the board today -- dims On 12/21/05, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. It was presented to the Incubator PMC that when another PMC has voted, we don't have that option. I'd like to see a determination from the Board if that is to change. I will still say that if another PMC has voted, that unless they also provide a Member or Officer to provide oversight (not necessarily from that PMC), that the request is invalid. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. It was presented to the Incubator PMC that when another PMC has voted, we don't have that option. I'd like to see a determination from the Board if that is to change. I will still say that if another PMC has voted, that unless they also provide a Member or Officer to provide oversight (not necessarily from that PMC), that the request is invalid. I see the Incubator as a gatekeeper almost. PMCs, in general, don't have an idea of the number of podlings within the Incubator, the load that the Incubator (and Infrastructure) is currently handling, etc. They have no need to. I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
In theory, the sponsor and mentors are doing that continuously. geir On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Rob Davies wrote: I Also share these concerns - is there currently a process to have continuous reviews throughout the entire life-cycle of all new and existing projects - to ensure that everything under the 'apache' brand is and will continue to be 'worthy' ? Sorry if there's already a process in place - I'm new :) cheers, Rob On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:18, Mads Toftum wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote: The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too quickly. I know that are some people who believe that the growth that we are experiencing is indicative of our success. Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Very much agreed - I've been worried about the same for quite a while. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: There is one thing that I think would be useful in helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled by the board, the Incubator should vote. It was presented to the Incubator PMC that when another PMC has voted, we don't have that option. I'd like to see a determination from the Board if that is to change. I'm in favor of such a change. Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: The merits of the particular proposal aside We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing to do so might well be part of the problem. How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name Methinks you have forgotten that there was no bar before incubator existed -- the code was just copied to cvs. And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation. Everything done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are organized better than others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our license. And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in the incubator or not. If people believe that the Incubator should not accept any new projects, then they should convince the board to make it so. The incubator is the place where people wanting to work on new projects can do so within a neutral environment with limited risk to the foundation. If you think that such things should be done at SourceForge instead, and that the ASF should only accept fully-formed communities after they have a questionable track-record of IP contributions, then go ahead and ask the board to shut down the incubator. Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure, so have little basis to complain about anything. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Ted Leung wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: The merits of the particular proposal aside We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing to do so might well be part of the problem. How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. When I say We, above, I meant the ASF. All of the PMCs have a responsibility to the Foundation. But are you going to say that the Incubator PMC should be judging the performance of the other PMCs in living up to their obligations? And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. And we have to correct that lack of awareness. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. I wouldn't take Roy's comment out of context. I don't believe that he means it the way that you imply above. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote: I see the Incubator as a gatekeeper almost. See Roy's comments for an alternative view. As I understand his view, the gatekeeper role is limited to projects leaving the Incubator, not entering. PMCs, in general, don't have an idea of the number of podlings within the Incubator, the load that the Incubator (and Infrastructure) is currently handling, etc. They have no need to. Actually, I disagree. I think that the PMCs should be far more aware of the overall events within the Foundation, and far less cloistered and parochial. I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a proposed project, acceptance. You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:57:59PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote: How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits. The only thing I can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation. Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do. You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at the ASF. You don't have the right to say that one project is more deserving of our resources than some other project. What you do have is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and to vote against their graduation if you so desire. Exactly. The other PMCs are authorized to perform actions on the ASF's behalf, in the interests of the ASF. If they determine that bringing Project FOO to the ASF is the best choice, then it is a done deal unless overridden by the Board. And I will note that the Board will give extreme prejudice to the authorizing PMC, so any appeal to the Board better have some good reasoning :-) The Incubator *is* charged with ensuring that the legal needs have been met, and that there has been appropriate teaching about how Apache projects are run. The Board *has* authorized them with performing those actions. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. that can be easily resolved. you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no project or PR firm can mention apache there. projects of sufficient stature/passed the test of manhood get initiated into the apache.org. ie... it only starts becoming a apache project once it has finished the incubation... I know technically this sounds identical to what is going on, and to be honest it is. but for non-tech folks the non-association is a big thing, and it will be harder for PR folk to say look.. it's an apache think and make t-shirts for it etc etc Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. that can be easily resolved. you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no project or PR firm can mention apache there. Although I'm not sure we should take that step right now, I don't think that's such a crazy suggestion. I do believe we should rethink the branding of incubating project: Today, we complain that corporations working on incubating projects are taking advantage of the Apache brand. We wonder why the press and public aren't aware of the distinction of incubating projects, and yet we *require* these projects always preface their name with the same master brand we use on fully endorse projects, Apache. We can't keep a low bar for incoming incubating projects and allow for this confusion. We may indeed need a multibrand strategy when it comes to incubating projects. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
