Re: POI TLP -- constructively
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
+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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> [+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.
> 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.
> 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
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.
> 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]
