Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Henri Yandell

On 12/18/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Sleep Martinsleep.  All will be answered, resolved...but not today.
Right now I'm going to help my 2 year old draw dinosaurs with his
Hanukkah present (he is obsessed with dinosaurs).


My 2 year old is obsessed with trains. We let the family know this and
his hoard of 16 trains is going to double this christmas. I'm looking
forward to seeing his reaction as he sits and opens presents on
Saturday (yeah, I'm declaring Christmas on the 23rd because I want 3
days of playing with toys and not 1 day followed by 4 days of work :)
).

+1 to this thread (the Jakarta parts - not the let's all talk about
our kids, but if anyone wants to I'm as talkative as any other father
:) ).

Hen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
Sleep Martinsleep.  All will be answered, resolved...but not today.  
Right now I'm going to help my 2 year old draw dinosaurs with his 
Hanukkah present (he is obsessed with dinosaurs).


-andy


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Need to add here that for the TLP Proposal you also need a vote from Jakarta..
I'll try to shut up now :)

Mvgr,
Martin

Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> See inline.
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Is this just your proposal or do other POI committers back this up ? (probably 
in the text, but not
as clear as I like it to be).
If poi committers agree with this proposal, I like to "hear" them :)

Mvgr,
Martin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt
See inline.

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
> It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta. 
> However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we
> joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is
> fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do
> however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has
> been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will
> have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since
> they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover,
> Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last
> official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to
> be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key
> signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect. 
> Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely
> frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in
> order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in
> Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with
> no effect).  So much that he's given up!

First of all : Nick is not the one that got blamed and was given credit for the 
good work he is
doing at POI. The real point here was oversight, which sparked the idea of 
mentoring.

I didn't have a clue about Marc Johnson to be honest. And POI shouldn't jerk 
the right chain the VP
of Jakarta should do that, only this VP didn't know about Marc Johnson :) 
(maybe just bad reading on
my part though). I prefer to restart a vote to get him aboard, or you can do 
the honors yourself
(meaning POI) when POI is TLP (although if you take that path that process will 
take even longer)

> 
> In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but
> 

Let's leave that aside for the moment.

> I therefore propose this:
> 
> * Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on
> restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)

We need to set a date on this (see below about the board). BTW this was the 
only vote that was in my
  planning to be called, so no other votes will be called :) The steps after 
this vote was passed,
wouldn't need any votes (as far as I can oversee now).

> 
> * POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight
> procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months

That is what every project does / should do. The problem was that this was not 
happening. As Stephen
already said, the Jarkarta PMC (and me personally) are responsible for whatever 
you do at POI  as
long you are at Jakarta. So with vote results, the actual release, new 
committers and other issues,
you need to inform the PMC, so they have the ability to check that everything 
is ok.
(just want to add this specifically, although I don't think you meant to 
specifically exclude this)

> 
> * POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal
> and working out a consensus.

Agreed. Maybe we should poll the board if they have any conditions, since they 
are the actual body
that needs to approve the establishment of the POI Project. I'll ping them and 
see if they have time
to talk about this on Wednesday.

I'll let everyone know if there is anything to report from that front.


Mvgr,
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[Jakarta Wiki] Trivial Update of "JakartaBoardReport-March2007" by RolandWeber

2006-12-18 Thread Apache Wiki
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta Wiki" for 
change notification.

The following page has been changed by RolandWeber:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaBoardReport-March2007

The comment on the change is:
removed section "Commons HttpClient", added reminder to "HttpComponents"

--
  
  ''!FileUpload''
  
- ''!HttpClient'' - see !HttpComponents project below
- 
  ''IO''
  
  ''Jelly''
@@ -106, +104 @@

  
   HttpComponents 
  
+  ''including Commons !HttpClient''
+ 
   JCD 
  
   JMeter 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[site] Changes

2006-12-18 Thread Rahul Akolkar

Reminder: Please svn up /www/jao/ after committing site updates. I
seemed to drag in a few more changes than expected after my update
minutes ago.

-Rahul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Roland Weber
Hi Andrew,

thanks a lot for that mail.

> It is
> fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do
> however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.

See my reply to Avik's mail. I didn't mean to focus.
(That pun was unintentional, but I'll leave it in.)

> I really don't want POI to really merge into
> Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I
> don't think the majority of the committers do either.

That answers the question I was asking myself since shortly
after the vote thread started. Is POI going to go independent,
or is it going to merge into Jakarta? If it's going independent
within a few months, there is no point in opening SVN access.

> On the other
> hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is
> too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that
> parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats

I was told that vinyl is dead in the early 90s. "Starting next year,
nothing will be released on vinyl anymore." I built a collection of
well over 1000 records since, and there are still new releases. It's
not mainstream anymore, but it exists and has it's followers.

> era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI,
> Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format
> then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a
> migration tool.

There's nothing wrong with being a migration tool.
Being more than a migration tool is even better.

+1 to the rest of your mail.

cheers,
  Roland

> 
> That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each
> of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life
> in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data
> formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output
> to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single
> minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And
> achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.
> 
> I therefore propose this:
> 
> * Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on
> restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)
> 
> * POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight
> procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months
> 
> * POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal
> and working out a consensus.
> 
> (BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this:
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)
> 
> Full disclosure:
> 
> I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an
> alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem
> to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded
> them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated
> in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual
> snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access
> back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when
> the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in
> ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight).
> However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button
> until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents
> rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing
> list.
> 
> -Andy
> 
> Andrew C. Oliver
> Buni Luni
> http://buni.org
> 
> 
> -
> 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: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Davanum Srinivas

+1. take a break :)

-- dims

On 12/18/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for
awhile and not spoken up.  It was Nick's first release, cut him some
slack.  POI has been around since 2001, in Apache since 2002.  It is
nearly 2007.  Talks of mentoring us or incubating us are a little
patronizing and insulting (multiple of us our even members of the
foundation though I forget who).  Much of the thread is about bashing us
and bashing me in particular which I stupidly reacted to partly out of
fatigue.  I appologize for that, I've been very busy launching
http://buni.org and planning our corporate structure.

It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta.
However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we
joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is
fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do
however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has
been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will
have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since
they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover,
Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last
official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to
be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key
signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect.
Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely
frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in
order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in
Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with
no effect).  So much that he's given up!

In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but
take yourself back 5 years) I really don't want POI to really merge into
Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I
don't think the majority of the committers do either.  On the other
hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is
too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that
parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats
era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI,
Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format
then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a
migration tool.

That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each
of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life
in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data
formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output
to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single
minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And
achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.

I therefore propose this:

* Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on
restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)

* POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight
procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months

* POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal
and working out a consensus.

(BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)

Full disclosure:

I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an
alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem
to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded
them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated
in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual
snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access
back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when
the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in
ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight).

However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button
until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents
rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing
list.

-Andy

Andrew C. Oliver
Buni Luni
http://buni.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Roland Weber
Hello Avik,

Avik Sengupta wrote:

> This is completely out of line (to say the least).

Yes it was. Henri already pointed out my error, and I apologize for
mixing things up and thereby offending the POI community. The problem
was not in the release files, it was with the procedure used for
publishing it. The responsibility for that is with the PMC and not
the developer community.
My thoughts started spinning around this vote thread over the week-end,
they spun too far from what was actually happening, and I failed to
re-read the mails on the PMC list. Again: I apologize. I'll do my best
to avoid misinterpretations in the future.

> Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the POI
> developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous!

I did not presume that POI developers want to become a commons
subproject. It was you who mentioned becoming a commons subproject,
and you clearly stated that you did not want that to happen. I just
pointed out that neither promoting up to TLP (to make a clean split
between POI and Jakarta) nor promoting down to a commons subproject
(to somehow cover up the existing community split) would address
the problem at hand. I was not suggesting nor considering moving POI
to a commons subproject at any time, and I am sorry if I phrased
that ambiguously.

As for helping the (POI) list, I'm afraid that I don't have time left
for that. HttpComponents is taking up the time I have available. I am
trying to help the Jakarta community - including POI - by participating
in this discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I share my views and current 
understanding
of the discussion's subject, however wrong they may be at times, and hope
to get new information and to be corrected where I am wrong before
I cast my vote. If I should vote at all, since there are only +1 and -1
to choose from.

> As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it
> mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely
> consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major releases
> earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a reason [yes i
> know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to bash four years
> of existence on a project.

For the latter, I apologize once more. But I also ask you to take
note that I phrased that part of my mail as a question. Provocative,
yes, but still a question. Thank you (and Henri) for answering it.
For the future, I'll try to avoid writing such mails late at night
when I am tired and my thoughts have spun around for too long.

cheers,
  Roland

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Rahul Akolkar

Nice, agreed.

-Rahul

On 12/18/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Niall Pemberton

Sounds good to me - thanks for this.

Niall

On 12/18/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for
awhile and not spoken up.  It was Nick's first release, cut him some
slack.  POI has been around since 2001, in Apache since 2002.  It is
nearly 2007.  Talks of mentoring us or incubating us are a little
patronizing and insulting (multiple of us our even members of the
foundation though I forget who).  Much of the thread is about bashing us
and bashing me in particular which I stupidly reacted to partly out of
fatigue.  I appologize for that, I've been very busy launching
http://buni.org and planning our corporate structure.

It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta.
However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we
joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is
fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do
however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has
been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will
have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since
they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover,
Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last
official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to
be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key
signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect.
Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely
frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in
order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in
Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with
no effect).  So much that he's given up!

In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but
take yourself back 5 years) I really don't want POI to really merge into
Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I
don't think the majority of the committers do either.  On the other
hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is
too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that
parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats
era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI,
Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format
then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a
migration tool.

That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each
of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life
in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data
formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output
to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single
minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And
achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.

I therefore propose this:

* Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on
restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)

* POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight
procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months

* POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal
and working out a consensus.

(BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)

Full disclosure:

I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an
alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem
to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded
them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated
in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual
snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access
back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when
the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in
ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight).

However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button
until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents
rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing
list.

-Andy

Andrew C. Oliver
Buni Luni
http://buni.org


-
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: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Thank you Andy for the detailed and constructive response. I didn't and 
won't participate in the previous thread because there were too many 
negatives there.


I like the proposals below, so long as the X months is not too large. I 
believe a 3-4 months target is appropriate for a POI TLP.


That said, Jakarta (and its Chair in particular) is still responsible 
for POI in the intermediate time. Legally, we have to monitor your 
releases (as I understand it). I just want that to be 'light touch' 
until a TLP is possible.


And can we please go to sleep for Christmas now!

Stephen


Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for 
awhile and not spoken up.  It was Nick's first release, cut him some 
slack.  POI has been around since 2001, in Apache since 2002.  It is 
nearly 2007.  Talks of mentoring us or incubating us are a little 
patronizing and insulting (multiple of us our even members of the 
foundation though I forget who).  Much of the thread is about bashing us 
and bashing me in particular which I stupidly reacted to partly out of 
fatigue.  I appologize for that, I've been very busy launching 
http://buni.org and planning our corporate structure.


It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta.  
However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we 
joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is 
fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do 
however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has 
been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will 
have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since 
they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover, 
Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last 
official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to 
be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key 
signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect.  
Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely 
frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in 
order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in 
Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with 
no effect).  So much that he's given up!


In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but 
take yourself back 5 years) I really don't want POI to really merge into 
Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I 
don't think the majority of the committers do either.  On the other 
hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is 
too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that 
parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats 
era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI, 
Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format 
then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a 
migration tool.


That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each 
of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life 
in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data 
formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output 
to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single 
minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And 
achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.


I therefore propose this:

* Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on 
restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)


* POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight 
procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months


* POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal 
and working out a consensus.


(BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this: 
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)


Full disclosure:

I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an 
alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem 
to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded 
them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated 
in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual 
snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access 
back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when 
the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in 
ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight).
However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button 
until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents 
rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mai

Re: POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Will Glass-Husain

Andy-- good thoughts.  A very pragmatic look at the situation.
Defuses the debate and provides practical suggestions for moving
forward.

By the way, as a POI user, I wouldn't worry too much about POI being
doomed due to Microsoft's switch in formats.  It's going to take years
for developers to be able to assume everyone has Office 2007?  2008?
on their desks.

WILL

On 12/18/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for
awhile and not spoken up.  It was Nick's first release, cut him some
slack.  POI has been around since 2001, in Apache since 2002.  It is
nearly 2007.  Talks of mentoring us or incubating us are a little
patronizing and insulting (multiple of us our even members of the
foundation though I forget who).  Much of the thread is about bashing us
and bashing me in particular which I stupidly reacted to partly out of
fatigue.  I appologize for that, I've been very busy launching
http://buni.org and planning our corporate structure.

It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta.
However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we
joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is
fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do
however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has
been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will
have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since
they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover,
Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last
official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to
be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key
signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect.
Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely
frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in
order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in
Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with
no effect).  So much that he's given up!

In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but
take yourself back 5 years) I really don't want POI to really merge into
Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I
don't think the majority of the committers do either.  On the other
hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is
too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that
parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats
era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI,
Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format
then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a
migration tool.

That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each
of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life
in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data
formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output
to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single
minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And
achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.

I therefore propose this:

* Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on
restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)

* POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight
procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months

* POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal
and working out a consensus.

(BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)

Full disclosure:

I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an
alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem
to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded
them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated
in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual
snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access
back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when
the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in
ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight).

However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button
until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents
rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing
list.

-Andy

Andrew C. Oliver
Buni Luni
http://buni.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Forio Bus

POI TLP -- constructively

2006-12-18 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
I really liked hearing Avik speak up because he's been hurting for 
awhile and not spoken up.  It was Nick's first release, cut him some 
slack.  POI has been around since 2001, in Apache since 2002.  It is 
nearly 2007.  Talks of mentoring us or incubating us are a little 
patronizing and insulting (multiple of us our even members of the 
foundation though I forget who).  Much of the thread is about bashing us 
and bashing me in particular which I stupidly reacted to partly out of 
fatigue.  I appologize for that, I've been very busy launching 
http://buni.org and planning our corporate structure.


It is fair to say that not many POI people participate in Jakarta.  
However, to add perspective we never joined the "Jakarta as it is" -- we 
joined Jakarta as it was...and one day this formed around us.  It is 
fair to criticize our build...it is pretty rusty and yucky.  I do 
however thing focusing too much on it is a bit well...mean.  Nick has 
been doing a great job and a lot of work.  (I on the other hand will 
have to merge my patches into SVN before I can even commit them since 
they're off of CVS :-P ).  However it was his first release.  Moreover, 
Apache's "release policies" have evolved considerably since the last 
official release and none of us have a valid signed key...that needs to 
be rectified (laziness, don't like conventions where all the cool key 
signing parties).  We're not the only one's guilty of kinds of neglect.  
Our own Marc Johnson (who cofounded the project) has been extremely 
frustrated at the lack of responsiveness in getting his access/etc in 
order and no one at POI seems to be able to jerk the right chain in 
Apache to make that happen (and I think he requested from this PMC with 
no effect).  So much that he's given up!


In any case, legal issues aside (which have to a good degree abated, but 
take yourself back 5 years) I really don't want POI to really merge into 
Jakarta (which is really now the successor to Jakarta Commons) and I 
don't think the majority of the committers do either.  On the other 
hand, I really don't think POI by itself can be a TLP as its scope is 
too narrow (historically this was deliberate).  I also don't think that 
parts of POI have much of a future as we're moving to an XML formats 
era, but other parts certainly do.  Partly because of projects like POI, 
Microsoft is even moving.  Once the default is to save in an XML format 
then will anyone really care about POI "as it is" as more than a 
migration tool.


That being said, there is considerable interest in unified APIs for each 
of these verticals (spreadsheets, documents, etc) and considerable life 
in POI with a very active userbase.  Many people dealing with data 
formats have asked for common APIs for the various verticals that output 
to the various formats.  Moreover, many of us are no longer as single 
minded with regards to Java as we once were (POI ruby for example).  And 
achieving API compatibility across these could be interesting.


I therefore propose this:

* Jakarta PMC has the responsibility to not call more votes on 
restructuring POI during the next X months.  (Access or otherwise)


* POI committers have responsibility for achieving the proper oversight 
procedures and putting out a new release in the next X months


* POI committers have responsibility for putting together a TLP proposal 
and working out a consensus.


(BTW that pretty much is batting 1000 on this: 
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark)


Full disclosure:

I've also submitted a counter proposal to the committers as an 
alternative to leave apache entirely.  However thus far most folks seem 
to value POIs association with Apache and the opportunities afforded 
them, even if they find it "difficult to work with" as one person stated 
in response.  I suspect TLP status would alleviate some of the mutual 
snags between apache and POI (for one we could get poor Marc his access 
back despite him having sent in his CLA now like 3 times including when 
the project moved to Apache and for two we'd be sending our reports in 
ourselves and thus have to do more proper oversight). 

However, PLLEEAASS let's press the PAUSE button 
until January 3rd so that we can all get very drunk and open presents 
rather than jerk each other's chains in front of a computer on a mailing 
list.


-Andy

Andrew C. Oliver
Buni Luni
http://buni.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Avik Sengupta
> eg the legal issue, which still
> remains partially unanswered.
>

Andy has already replied that this was done in the early days of POI's entry 
into Apache under discussion with POI's then mentor and the board. It was 
also done as a consequence of a specific issue that had arisen. 

Short of not believing him, what do you propose are the next steps to resolve 
this?

Regards
-
Avik

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt
If you are lost in bad sentences let me know :)
Forgot to proof read :(

Mvgr,
Martin

Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> 
> Avik Sengupta wrote:
>> I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I
>> do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on
>> less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.
> 
> As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things.
> 
>> The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a
>> FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
>> JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
>> requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
>> than attack it.
> 
> See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh).
> 
>> All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of
>> contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily.
>> (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or
>> Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky
>> enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most
>> open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their
>> commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this
>> phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis.
> 
> Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in 
> other mails that POI is
> pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of 
> POI, I cannot judge it
> technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was 
> technically bad).
> 
>> The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV
>> access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this
>> thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the
>> poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so
>> lets not go down that path.
> 
> There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking 
> of taking a different
> approach, which I described in the board report too.
> 
>> So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
>> understand, why do people want to  be an officially anointed 'mentor'
>> before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about  the 'doing' ...
>> he who does ... etc.  Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where
> 
> I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote 
> thread isn't finished
> yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that 
> offer you could have asked
> for help (which was offered) and state "we are on it" or something (about the 
> release itself not
> being checked).
> 
>> we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all
>> jakarta committers for only asking.
> 
> If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy 
> to me (although I
> could have misread him).
> 
>> Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
>> few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
>> we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile,
>> he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very
>> gratefully accepted.
> 
> I read the thread.
> 
>> This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
>> bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
>> proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.
> 
> Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first 
> step to improve
> things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there 
> was asked about the
> reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the 
> mail about the release
> (about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball 
> back to the project to get
> some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered.
> 
> If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the 
> thread, the negativity
> comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive 
> attitude, so let's focus on
> that :)
> 
>> Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
>> contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a
>> whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
>> POI is in active development, used by thousands , 
> 
> Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I 
> wanted to make clear
> with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is 
> doing more than well
> (which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing 
> that in the responses
> from, in this case, you.
> 
> it doesn't need a
>> mandate from the P

Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt


Avik Sengupta wrote:
> I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I
> do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on
> less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.

As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things.

> 
> The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a
> FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
> JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
> requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
> than attack it.

See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh).

> 
> All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of
> contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily.
> (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or
> Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky
> enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most
> open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their
> commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this
> phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis.

Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in other 
mails that POI is
pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of POI, 
I cannot judge it
technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was 
technically bad).

> 
> The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV
> access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this
> thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the
> poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so
> lets not go down that path.

There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking 
of taking a different
approach, which I described in the board report too.

> 
> So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
> understand, why do people want to  be an officially anointed 'mentor'
> before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about  the 'doing' ...
> he who does ... etc.  Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where

I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote 
thread isn't finished
yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that offer 
you could have asked
for help (which was offered) and state "we are on it" or something (about the 
release itself not
being checked).

> we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all
> jakarta committers for only asking.

If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy 
to me (although I
could have misread him).

> 
> Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
> few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
> we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile,
> he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very
> gratefully accepted.

I read the thread.

> 
> This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
> bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
> proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.

Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first 
step to improve
things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there was 
asked about the
reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the 
mail about the release
(about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball back 
to the project to get
some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered.

If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the 
thread, the negativity
comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive attitude, 
so let's focus on
that :)

> 
> Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
> contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a
> whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
> POI is in active development, used by thousands , 

Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I 
wanted to make clear
with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is 
doing more than well
(which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing 
that in the responses
from, in this case, you.

it doesn't need a
> mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?

It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am 
trying to solve here,
that most requests/vote announcements don't get a response is because the vote 
and release is
because we have lazy consensus

Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt


Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> -1 from me.
>>
>> Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
>> sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
>> AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
>> protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
>> fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
>> side of caution.
> 
> Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help 
> anyone. We have the ICLA that
> covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on 
> the assumption that it
>   means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are 
> the records ?

Ouch rereading this I meant : The POI policy of course :) (in case it is 
misread)

Mvgr,
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Avik Sengupta
I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI.  
I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption  
on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.


The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is  
a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a  
JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'  
requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather  
than attack it.


All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows  
of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some  
temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from  
either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At  
POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular  
intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere,  
surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we  
need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole  
project on that basis.


The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about  
SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on  
this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right  
on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us  
anywhere, so lets not go down that path.


So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont  
understand, why do people want to  be an officially anointed 'mentor'  
before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about  the 'doing'  
... he who does ... etc.  Please join the POI dev lists, and show us  
where we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn  
access to all jakarta committers for only asking.


Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a  
few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some  
we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the  
meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's  
been very gratefully accepted.


This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI  
bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn  
proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.


Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to  
contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as  
a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm  
misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , it  
doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?


I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong.

Regards.
-
Avik

Quoting Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Hi Avik,

Avik Sengupta wrote:

Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)


I know what you mean :)



Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
thread till this point.

Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
seems seems quite painful.

At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about
communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of
destroying a community, what's the use?

I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I
don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not
understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not
seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been
promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either.


I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already   
been said (and despite of what is

said below here)
How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't   
speak up ?




However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish
to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more'


If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can   
think of a couple : A lot of
development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to   
invest energy in.


The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI   
doesn't seem to realize that or to
misuse your words "don't care about that". Everything that affects   
POI actually affects Jakarta.
I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never   
had the feeling that POI was part
of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what   
happens at POI. With the releases
going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the   
ultimate trigger for this vote
as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next  
 steps (I summed them up already).
So your remark about don't care anymore is not making me very happy,  
 since I hoped you would start
caring, although I hope I misinterpreted that remark and making   
assumptions that are wrong. The big
problem is that no one from POI is ac

Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt

> So.. I think we need to:
> 
> 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the
> files etc.
> 
> 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and
> organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing
> when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for
> Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the
> points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta
> PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so.
> Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a
> policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy.

We definitely need to do something with that, but just solving it at the PMC 
level, doesn't help.
I am not in favor of gathering useless documents, so if we come up with 
something it actually has to
*mean* something legally, else we are just keeping books to keep books (even 
though I am from the
Netherlands, where we like bureaucracy, doesn't mean that I like it).

Mvgr,
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Avik Sengupta

Quoting Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:




So.. I think we need to:

1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the   
files etc.


2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and
organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing
when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for
Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the
points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta
PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so.
Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a
policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy.

3) Work on a TLP proposal.



+1 on all three.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Avik Sengupta

Quoting Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Hello Avik,


I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either.  I
think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project


I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any
difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and
after Andy's first responses I also thought "hey, let's get them
promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in
Jakarta". I've since had time to reconsider and realize that
this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is
even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting
it to TLP or "hiding" it in commons will not change anything.
If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions
directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly
on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we
made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you
promote it to TLP".

A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by
the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of
things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or
missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements
on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around
since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write
a build process that generates release jars conforming to
Apache standards?




This is completely out of line (to say the least). It isn't as if the  
release contained encumbered code, or didn't include source. If I were  
to use your level of rhetoric, I'd say this sounds like a witch hunt.  
Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the  
POI developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous!


Way back when the POI committers were among the first to conduct an  
audit of its dependencies. The results were on the old wiki


As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it  
mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely  
consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major  
releases earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a  
reason [yes i know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to  
bash four years of existence on a project.


Regards
-
Avik



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt


Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
>> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
> 
> As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an "WILL" to protect
> and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues,
> I am willing to put +1 to this vote.

The biggest problem is that if we need protection, there is currently nothing 
in place (even though
you need to swear something). There are no records, no signed documents and 
such thing needs to be
organised at a PMC / Apache level.

> 
> -- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully
> in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land).

+1 to that ;)

> 
> -- Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> P.S.
> Mvgr> Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1
> Mvgr> except the POI committers.
> Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] / March)
> at that time. Sorry.
> 

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=114344584424864&w=2 is the 
start of the thread / vote.

Mvgr,
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Tetsuya Kitahata

> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...

As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an "WILL" to protect
and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues,
I am willing to put +1 to this vote.

-- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully
in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land).

-- Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

P.S.
Mvgr> Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1
Mvgr> except the POI committers.
Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] / March)
at that time. Sorry.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Danny Angus
> I am wondering about this vote though.  Why now?  and what's the
> significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging?  To me it seems the
> flattening of svn is of little significance.  After a year with the
> new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
> cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
> big impact for many subprojects.

Its about reaching the end of a process which was intended to stop jakarta 
being too big and containing insular sub-projects, a situation which was 
felt to be a threat to the nature of the ASF, the rest of Jakarta has 
pretty much accomodated this change POI have made no moves, it isn't going 
to go away until either POI becomes part of the flat jakarta or leaves to 
become a TLP, there isn't really any way that POI could be a "special 
case" when Ant, Avalon, Gump, James, Logging, Lucene, Maven, Jetspeed, 
Struts, Tapestry, Tomcat, Watchdog, and others, have had to face the same 
decision, and in many cases had similar reservations about both opening up 
and leaving.

Jakarta is part of the ASF, it isn't an alternative entity. There isn't 
and should not be a hierarchy of management and oversight, it should be 
Board->PMC and no deeper than that. That means participate in flat jakarta 
or move up to TLP.

d.


***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) 
only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your 
computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any 
other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student 
Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to 
this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely 
on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written 
confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts 
any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are 
those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student 
Loans Company Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the 
presence of computer viruses.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Danny Angus
> I still have no personal desire to have the same people who brought me 
> commons automatically in POI.
 
> I do however welcome constructive 
> good-intentioned dialog

Take POI out of Jakarta, seriously.

The problems seem to be really around "POI vs Jakarta" the PMC are uneasy 
at POI's insularity, POI are uneasy at the PMC's interest in their thing.
Kill two birds with one stone by applying for propomotion to TLP and 
answer only the Members and the Board.

d.

***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) 
only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your 
computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any 
other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student 
Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to 
this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely 
on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written 
confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts 
any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are 
those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student 
Loans Company Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the 
presence of computer viruses.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Board Report December

2006-12-18 Thread Martin van den Bemt
Just a reminder : the board report was written by me (completely) and the 
feeling is something I
have and doesn't necessarily mean the whole of Jakarta agrees with that. The 
board is aware that it
is my personal report.

Don't forget that in the first place this feeling (/ observation of this 
disconnect) is expressed by
POI people themselves (the complete thread) and was offered help by Henri (at 
that time VP Jakarta)
to help fix the situation :
http://www.mail-archive.com/poi-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg11492.html.
The vote for Nick to be added to the PMC, didn't give me a good signal either. 
It showed that
Jakarta PMC members representing POI had a hard time to vote, probably causing 
that (almost) no one
at Jakarta felt the need to vote or invest energy to see who Nick is. Since I 
don't believe people
feel that Nick shouldn't be on the PMC shows that there is a disconnect between 
Jakarta and POI.
If you add that with the svn karma exception with the legal NDA stuff (which 
isn't something that
the PMC is officially aware of), the release vote withouth result, not 
notifying the pmc of the
release, not sending mail to eg announcements of release, not adding the 
releases to the main
jakarta page, you can probably see the reason for my feeling that POI is not 
part of Jakarta or Apache.

That being said : I don't have any doubts that the intentions are good and we 
are happy to help out,
but it helps to be proactive. A good start would accepting Marks offer :)



Mvgr,
Martin

Rainer Klute wrote:
> Avik Sengupta schrieb:
>>> It feels like they are acting as a separate entity in Jakarta and
>>> even the ASF itself
>> Let me put on record my severe objection to this statement.
> 
> Yes, the wording is quite harsh. However, following the arguments in the
> POI thread, we indeed seem not to act as we should - be it
> deliberately or not. I must admit I didn't follow the Apache politics
> closely in the past for the lack of time, but it seems we have to invest
> some time to get back on track. I am sure Apache fellows will help us by
> pointing us into the right direction.
> 
> Best regards
> Rainer Klute
> 
>Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
>   Dipl.-Inform.
>   Rainer Klute E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Körner Grund 24  Telefon: +49 172 2324824
> D-44143 Dortmund   Telefax: +49 231 5349423
> 
> OpenPGP fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E
> 
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.

2006-12-18 Thread Danny Angus
> I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to
> remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise,
> this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart.

Same here, as no-one has ack#ed my resignation I'm going to vote +0 for 
this.

I think that if POI believe that they are in anyway different from the 
rest of jakarta, and are capable of making these judgements by themselves 
then they should seriously be thinking about becoming a TLP.

I think POI should have another look at the questionnaire:

http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark

d.

***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) 
only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your 
computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any 
other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student 
Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to 
this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely 
on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written 
confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts 
any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are 
those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student 
Loans Company Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the 
presence of computer viruses.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]