Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling... Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in the same way as podling proposals are. The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review. Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks, recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. - this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling. Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. If a community says, we'd like to be a pTLP, then why/how does the Incubator PMC need to be involved in that? -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling... Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in the same way as podling proposals are. The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review. Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks, recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. - this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list. -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. Fine. My primary point was: IPMC has *nothing* to do with the discussion. That happens on a mailing list, and sure: general@i.a.o is just fine. Maybe one day, it will be new-proje...@apache.org. But I want to reinforce what Ross noted: pTLP should not be conflated with Incubator bits. It has no place, and that's why I'm being vocal right now. You said, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, and I believe that is totally wrong. Cheers, -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. I'm putting all of this bits of feedback in a very formal policy document modeled after the formal Incubator policy definition. I am frustrated as hell, because a huge update I've just made seems to have been wiped out by the Confluence outage. I'll try again once it is back. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Marvin, I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are with the normal graduation resolution. So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling disappears and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates. // Niclas On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. Haha well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do about it :-P Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things would go something like this: 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution. 2. Board passes pTLP resolution. 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling. Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe... I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that most or all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable that the wider IPMC would stand in the way. Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run under the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way. The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of friction. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
RE: pTLP process amendments
+1 either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent different things. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org Sent: 3/1/2015 6:38 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments Marvin, I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are with the normal graduation resolution. So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling disappears and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates. // Niclas On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. Haha well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do about it :-P Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things would go something like this: 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution. 2. Board passes pTLP resolution. 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling. Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe... I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that most or all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable that the wider IPMC would stand in the way. Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run under the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way. The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of friction. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. Haha well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do about it :-P Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things would go something like this: 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution. 2. Board passes pTLP resolution. 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling. Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe... I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that most or all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable that the wider IPMC would stand in the way. Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run under the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way. The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of friction. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. Haha well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do about it :-P Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe... Cheers, -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the podlings that you might be referring to. I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: 3.7 -- That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to private@ 3.8 -- Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. 3.9 -- Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover these three points and can be removed. The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? rgds jan i On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org javascript:; wrote: Hi Niclas! First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195 Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to the level of details currently on Incubator pages. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org javascript:; wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. Good catch. Done. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary? Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it to the level of details of the current Incubator process documentation. Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize Incubator as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org javascript:; -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: pTLP process amendments
3.7 -- That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to private@ 3.8 -- Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. 3.9 -- Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover these three points and can be removed. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi Niclas! First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195 Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to the level of details currently on Incubator pages. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. Good catch. Done. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary? Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it to the level of details of the current Incubator process documentation. Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize Incubator as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Hi Niclas! First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195 Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to the level of details currently on Incubator pages. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. Good catch. Done. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary? Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it to the level of details of the current Incubator process documentation. Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize Incubator as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. After the two bullet points, the following text At the same time those folks are beholden to the project not an external entity (like IPMC). By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then a pTLP can groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do whatever it wants in that regard. sounds to me a bit harsh, and I would like to suggest the following instead; The initial PMC should therefor, at least in theory, have a stronger base for grooming new committers and PMC members, than the regular podling graduate. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; 3. 7. The first business for the initial PMC is to complete the pTLP checklist of tasks, primarily in coordinating with infrastructure, end ensure compliance with branding and legal policies. See http://x/; 8. The pTLP day-to-day operation is identical to a regular TLP. It is recommended that the PMC members are extra careful, to avoid confrontation and seek consensus to the greatest extent possible, and to explicitly explain all activities in greater detail to community members, as part of the learning process. Below is the beginning of tasks that should be listed, and I think a separate page for this, order not totally thought through. These tasks could exist as a set of one Jira tasks with a subtask for each, which can be cloned for each new project. Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. There might more that I can't think of this morning. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
pTLP process amendments
Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. After the two bullet points, the following text At the same time those folks are beholden to the project not an external entity (like IPMC). By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then a pTLP can groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do whatever it wants in that regard. sounds to me a bit harsh, and I would like to suggest the following instead; The initial PMC should therefor, at least in theory, have a stronger base for grooming new committers and PMC members, than the regular podling graduate. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; 3. 7. The first business for the initial PMC is to complete the pTLP checklist of tasks, primarily in coordinating with infrastructure, end ensure compliance with branding and legal policies. See http://x/; 8. The pTLP day-to-day operation is identical to a regular TLP. It is recommended that the PMC members are extra careful, to avoid confrontation and seek consensus to the greatest extent possible, and to explicitly explain all activities in greater detail to community members, as part of the learning process. Below is the beginning of tasks that should be listed, and I think a separate page for this, order not totally thought through. These tasks could exist as a set of one Jira tasks with a subtask for each, which can be cloned for each new project. Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. There might more that I can't think of this morning. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
