Re: Call on Stein to resin
Oh! "resign". I thought you wanted him to use Resin rather than Tomcat. geir On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101159 http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101173 I call on Greg Stein to resign. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call on Stein to resin
(and I call on Greg Stein to stay put...) On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Oh! "resign". I thought you wanted him to use Resin rather than Tomcat. geir On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101159 http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101173 I call on Greg Stein to resign. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call on Stein to resign over Gernimo
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 05:00 PM, Vic Cekvenich wrote:
I repeat:
http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101159
Geir, are you supporting his actions, the ethics in here, denying what
that developer is saying, ie: that is not his code? I know my code
when I see it. What part are you supporting, all of it?
Vic - take a deep breath.
The ASF treats the allegations of code copying very seriously, and will
take what actions are necessary to ensure that no IP rights are
violated, any offending code, if found, is removed, and any other
appropriate action is taken.
However, you must allow the alleged violations to be vetted - just as
you wouldn't take the ASF's word that all was fine w/o explanation, you
shouldn't take JBoss claim of violation at face value either. Examine
the code - look for yourself. Do you really think that the Geronimo
developers would think they could steal JBoss code and get away with
it? Do you think that studly contributors to Geronimo need to steal
such visionary innovations like :
public boolean getStatus() {
return status;
}
(or whatever the class field name is...)
Many of the claims by JBoss appear to me to be specious. Deriving a
class from log4j? The example given by JBoss is a *log4j example* that
both groups used as a basis for their logger. (Hey, Ceki! Can we have
trace???) Using 'Interceptor' for the name of a class that's an
interceptor? Using IDEA-generated getters/setters for POJO fields?
It's hard to imagine that any of this stuff will stand up to rational
scrutiny.
-Stein is the one that railroaded this project on the lists, a
chairman. It is easy to trace messages that lead us to this.
He didn't "railroad" anything. Many people support it, and much
activity and work has gone into it.
-Durign his "rule", ASF brand was embarased. What does it mean, ASF
developer now?
How?
-Using ASF funds for this is a shame and a waste.
What funds?
I woud like for my profession to be ethical, the people that steal
should not be in here amongs us, but where other people that steal
are. What if a consultant you hire steals?
He can resign and get some nice "award"or, be voted out, together with
other people the think stealing is OK. ASF money/resources is better
spent putting people in Jail that do this to any other OSS project,
and making sure they can't ever work in this industry.
Like lets say in China, they get the Coca-Cola recepie, and then they
start selling Red-Cola... but it tastes the same beacuse it has the
same recepie? Is this OK? You are not going to say, well lets see what
they can legaly prove and what the lawyers say and then lets some time
pass.
Ethics!
No need to go find montivation that got us here, let's just go back to
before Geroniomo. Time in Las Vegas can be better spent. No need to
play games.
.V
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
(and I call on Greg Stein to stay put...)
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call on Stein to resin
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 05:05 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: [for amusement value. mine mainly. i don't speak for apache in any way] I too call on Greg to move to Resin. Not that it'll run Python there either, but it'll not run Python faster on port 80. I call on Vik to increase his monthly flames to be once a week, the userbase is demanding more of your words. I call on JBoss to use an open licence and not the utterly confusing and unusable LGPL licence written for C. I call on people to stop claiming that JBoss should get J2EE certified for free unless the ownership of JBoss is given to a non-profit organisation. Hey! There's a solution. If JBoss LLC can't pay the money for licensing like their competitors IBM and BEA, why don't they donate JBoss the codebase to the community [Apache could provide space under a far less restrictive licence] and JBoss LLC could focus on doing their real job, JBoss support. I think that JBoss was invited, and they declined to collaborate. Hen On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: (and I call on Greg Stein to stay put...) On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Oh! "resign". I thought you wanted him to use Resin rather than Tomcat. geir On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101159 http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101173 I call on Greg Stein to resign. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call on Stein to resin
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 09:57 AM, mohammad nabil wrote: Vic, Notwithstanding your arguments this is not the appropriate forum for this. This list is for project management discussion regarding the Jakarta project. Geronimo is not under the jursidiction of the Jakarta project. If you want to make trouble please make it in the appropriate place, where you can be sure to be acknowledged by people who know about the issues. d. ýwhy it is not the appropriate forum for this shouldnt we know the truth??!!!ý We must know the truth.ý It has nothing to do with Jakarta! This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] i wonder why you try to defend yourself if you are right and didn't make any think ý unfair !!!ý Please, go to the incubator and geronimo-dev lists. That's where all of this should be discussed, because it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JAKARTA! JAKARTA != APACHE != GERONIMO or you feel that you feel guilty??!! why you feel so?? I WONDERý Will you rebuild the copied modules or just will rename it?ý sure if they were stolen !!! ý It turns out, JBoss might have incorrectly handled log4j code. Are you yelling at them too? The ASF, the Incubator PMC, and the Geronimo team are working to evaluate the claims and make any fixes as required. geir _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call on Stein to resign over Gernimo
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 01:25 PM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I think that this is the right list, very few people are intrested about the incubator. This is about ASF reputation. (It is also about the OSS reputation, including BSD, Linux, CodeHus, etc.) Due to this Stein mistake OSS could be view as very lowest form. Makes me think ... hmm, did Linux developers refactor SCO code? Shame. I would like to know... does "ASF" claim that if they refactor offending code one by one, they feel they are clean? or If the code was imported and beeing refactored, that that is a probelm. Vic : I didn't write any of the above. Please try and make clear your attributions especially when what you are saying is inflammatory and in the wrong forum. The ASF treats the allegations of code copying very seriously, and will take what actions are necessary to ensure that no IP rights are violated, any offending code, if found, is removed, and any other appropriate action is taken. I have been thinking about it, I do not think removing the offeding code is appropriate or sufficient. If proven, I think offending devlopers, new or old should be baned from ASF (and other OSS projects) for a few years. The project should be parked. Let it live on SF, why shield it (becuase now ASF has to use their lawyers/resources) ASF should publicly applogize, and as a sign of friendship with OSS, do something to help jBoss, such as help with J2EE certification, or help with code or something. Did I say that Stein should be removed, as the person out of all the OSS projects out there, did most to ruin the high reputation, trough negligence or some other reason. I feel dirty using Apache Struts today becuase of this mess. I already remvoed ASF licnese from basicPortal.sf.net when this was originaly done and uses a "commons" license or something like that. However, you must allow the alleged violations to be vetted - just as you wouldn't take the ASF's word that all was fine w/o explanation, you shouldn't take JBoss claim of violation at face value either. http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337#101208 Above says: "The version 1.1 and 1.2 do contain an interface with methods hinting to "the 3 maps design" Marc is talking about. " This is fine proof for me. I think some sort of joint commission should be set up, of people with fine reputation, to report in a certain timeframe as to what happened. Also a sepreare group should find out what to do about it. This is a crissis as big as any, IMO. To the people that are siting on the sidelines: Do something. It does not have to be public. It is when silent majority sits on the hands, and allows immoral things to happen that the society loses. This is about sofware, not about lawyers. I will try to make this last message on the topic of ethics, its up to the people sitting on the hands to see this is as a problem and do something. .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
What do the turbine people want? On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote: sorry, missed one and probably [ ] leave JCS within turbine [ ] JCS to apache commons [ ] JCS to jakarta commons [ ] JCS to jakarta top level [ ] JCS to incubator [ ] something else (please specify)... ps before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Nov 30, 2003, at 9:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: What do the turbine people want? If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level project, taking JCS with it. Why? There are "Gump people", "Tomcat people", "struts people", "taglib people", etc. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that the various citizens of Jakarta work on different things. And if Turbine wants to go to TLP, +1 from me. geir On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote: sorry, missed one and probably [ ] leave JCS within turbine [ ] JCS to apache commons [ ] JCS to jakarta commons [ ] JCS to jakarta top level [ ] JCS to incubator [ ] something else (please specify)... ps before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Karma for Jakarta main web site
On Dec 5, 2003, at 3:52 AM, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: As indicated on http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jakarta-site2b.html I like to get CVS Karma to update the Jakarta main web site. Could someone grant me that Karma, please? Done. Be good. geir Thanks in advance :) Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Dec 15, 2003, at 4:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 13 Dec 2003, at 22:22, Martin Poeschl wrote: what do you mean? the code works. it is used by other projects .. and basically development slowed down as the developers are waiting for the jcache spec ... so i don't think there is any problem as long as there are developers maintaining the code IMHO 1 the pmc is unable to demonstrate oversight. 2 there are a large number of pmc people who believe that umbrella sub-projects don't work. as far as i was concerned the consensus was that whatever the JCS team wanted was cool provided that it addressed 1 + 2. promotion to sub-project status satisfies 2 and having henning and other turbineers volunteer to provide oversight satisfies 1. If you solve 1, then 2 can be demonstrated. No need to do anything but ensure PMC oversight. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 17, 2003, at 10:19 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The reason everything is quiet here is all decisions are being made on private lists now. | Don't feed | | the trolls | | | | --\|/ -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 17, 2003, at 11:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: As a slight aside, getting on the PMC list just means nudging an existing member and pointing out that you are an active committer to Jakarta. Yep. Do that. Every committer should want to be part of the PMC. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 18, 2003, at 9:30 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: As a slight aside, getting on the PMC list just means nudging an existing member and pointing out that you are an active committer to Jakarta. Who's the best person to nudge then? :) Anyone. Interested? -- Andy Armstrong, Tagish - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 18, 2003, at 9:58 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: As a slight aside, getting on the PMC list just means nudging an existing member and pointing out that you are an active committer to Jakarta. Do you feel that we'll still be an open source organization in more than name if all decisions end up being made on private PMC lists not open to the public? This is FUD. No decisions are being made in private. I think the best way to describe what is going on in private is that we are trying to get things organized enough to have a public discussion of the things that are concerning us. The ironic thing is that the upshot of what we are discussing is how to make governance of Jakarta as inclusive as possible :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PMC mailing list (Re: Just in case you're curious)
On Dec 18, 2003, at 9:52 AM, Joe Germuska wrote: Anyone. Interested? I'm interested in being on the PMC mailing list; I just became a Struts committer. My apache ID is "germuska". Joe, I took the liberty of cc-ing the general Jakarta list. Congrats on becoming a committer. I hope that your CLA has been signed and sent to the ASF. :) What we are trying to do is expand the Jakarta PMC to give as much inclusion and oversight as possible for all jakarta projects. To that end, we are looking for committers that are interested in the oversight of the projects, not just working on the projects. Fundamentally, this means that the committers are ensuring that the code and other contributions that is being added to the project's CVS is properly contributed (via a committer w/ a CLA or on a public list where it's clear it's a freely given contribution) and properly licensed. This is a subject we'll be discussing more on the general@ list, and I urge you to pay attention, participate and decide if this is something you wish to volunteer for. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 18, 2003, at 11:28 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: This is FUD. No decisions are being made in private. Isn't everything you disagree with? You are making assertions that aren't correct to cast doubt on something. That's commonly known as FUD. I think the best way to describe what is going on in private is that we are trying to get things organized enough to have a public discussion of the things that are concerning us. Which is IMHO, PRECISELY why it should take place here. Why should we describe it if when we can let it describe itself? Here I disagree with you, and what you are saying isn't FUD - it's just that I disagree. See the difference? The ironic thing is that the upshot of what we are discussing is how to make governance of Jakarta as inclusive as possible :) Glad you caught that. The private list of any PMC has it's place. The specific problem we are solving has to do with governance of Jakarta and how to bring as much of the community as possible into that governance process to make things as transparent and accountable as possible. Because there is this specific problem, I think that the private list is fine venue for the PMC to organize how it is going to approach the problem, especially since it's clear that we want to bring this to general@ ASAP. Ignoring this is convenient to support a position characterizing Jakarta as not open, but ignores the facts of the matter, IMO. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 1:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I see of this discussion, the more convinced I am that the sub-projects of Jakarta should be run like "mini-TLPs". We want to leverage the marketing power of the Jakarta brand, the experience of the other Jakarta developers, and some infrastructure support (web page, CVS, mailing lists, wiki). However, this idea that the PMC should manage individual projects as diverse as Tapestry, Lucene, ORO and BCEL is, to me, a losing proposition. I can't even envision what it means to "manage" these projects. To me, management is primarily about allocating scarce resources. For all these projects, the scarce resource is developer time and effort, and that is administered by each developer individually. It's not management other than oversight. All we want to do is make sure that the code and communities of the Jakarta sub-projects are healthy. The committers of each sub-project should be responsible for that. Given that we can get those committers from each sub-project on the PMC, I think we'd then have oversight covered. No one wants to interfere with the activities of any sub-project. From my point of view, the Jakarta PMC should be encouraging the individual projects to operate in a professional fashion, to provide advice when asked, to keep tabs on projects sufficiently to verify that they are operating as a healthy meritocracy ... and that's about it. Yep - and have representatives report that "all is well" or if not well, get assistance. That's all. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:24 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7 members. There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ... All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. This is nothing I would encourage. There's really no question that it's legal. But it does then make Jakarta a website, rather than a community, IMO. I'd rather see the community. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 2:35 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: I would have embraced that idea a year ago, but when discussed it was said to not be an option to have a hierarchy of PMCs below the Jakarta PMC of 7 members. There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ... All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. Gotya. Had been wondering why you kept pushing the multi-PMC approach. Clue me in because I don't get it. I'm +0 to this and would still be worried about what 'Jakarta' meant now. Hopefully if this happened, ant, maven, avalon, cocoon, etc would be able to join Jakarta again. Same for xerces-J, xalan-J etc. I'm -1 to this, but it's not a -1-able thing. Projects are free to apply for top level status if they want. -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:08 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Ah now it all makes sense :) May be this should be included with the CLA and then there would be no reason to lobby for more members, really. We want to make sure that the PMC members are committers who understand the responsibility and are willing to take it. Automatic inclusion doesn't do that. geir -Harish Noel J. Bergman wrote: I don't see the distinction between a PMC member and a committer. <> You catch on quickly. :-) The difference is that a PMC member, as a normative statement, has a binding vote on the project. By allowing someone to become a Committer, you allow direct contribution to the codebase, but the PMC is overseeing it. The Committer contributes, but does not have a say. So there is a natural progression from: Contributor (patches) -> Committer (authorized access) -> PMC member If the PMC membership requires legal and governing skills, I am not sure the PMC can attain vast majority. It doesn't. 300+ Committers are already doing most of what they need to do, without the benefit of being on a PMC. Is there a legal binding between a [PMC] member and Jakarta/Apache that does not exist between a committer and Apache? Please see: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED] .org&msgNo=2711. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Volunteering for PMC membership
On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:14 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Hi, I, Harish Krishnaswamy (harishkswamy), a Tapestry committer, would like to help grow Jakarta in whatever capacity I can and I request my nomination for PMC membership. Hey look! He's willing to swim upstream to help *grow* Jakarta. I say we take him! geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:17 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 18, 2003, at 3:08 PM, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Ah now it all makes sense :) May be this should be included with the CLA and then there would be no reason to lobby for more members, really. We want to make sure that the PMC members are committers who understand the responsibility and are willing to take it. Automatic inclusion doesn't do that. But it seems that the exact responsibilities is not really laid out and is the primary reason for confusion? Oh, yes indeed. Something we are going to resolve. geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 18, 2003, at 4:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ... All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. This is nothing I would encourage. There's really no question that it's legal. But it does then make Jakarta a website, rather than a community, IMO. I'd rather see the community. I want to see a community, too. But I see two issues: 1) to me a community is a people with common goals and interests. As Howard illustrated, and others have commented, that is not the case throughout Jakarta. I think it's how you define them. And that wasn't quite how I read Howards mail. 2) the PMC is responsible for the immediate oversight of the project. But the key thing is not every person is responsible for every aspect of very project. What we need is a structure that can reasonably provide traceable oversight by the board. Thus, if the PMC has solid, accountable coverage of every codebase, by more than one individual who a) understands their responsibilities and b) actively works to meet those responsibilities, we have the oversight issue covered. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as the board doesn't yet dictate how the structure must be, just that oversight is demonstrable and complete, I think we'll be just fine. [SNIP] I see the creation of these PMCs as doing very little other than moving de jure decision-making to where the de facto decision-making ALREADY EXISTS. I do not see this as being negative with respect to Community. Can you explain why you feel otherwise? Because with the majority of Jakarta committers on the Jakarta PMC, you meet this exactly w/o having 'sub-project PMCs'. There is an alternative: all, or most, active Committers would come onto the Jakarta PMC, and there would be one entry in the CVS avail file so that every Committer has access to every Jakarta project. There is no relationship between CVS access and PMC membership. Given that enough of us have avail modification rights, in the event of a 'CVS emergency' we could easily do what needed to be done. There's no reason to grant every committer access to ever codebase. [SNIP] In any event, those are two possible structures. I think one is a structure for a community, the other is just a large number of TLPs with a shared website. We agree that either way, we need to communicate to the new PMC members their responsibilities in terms of ensuring that the IP remains clean. Of course. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
1) s/product/sub-project/ 2) I don't know what 'hosted at Jakarta' means. The CVS repositories are ASF respositories - there is no hierarchy grouping them as 'jakarta'. As for using the Jakarta website, the Jakarta community would be responsible for it, and thus they will decide on it's content. IOW, ASF projects that the Jakarta community has no oversight or responsibility for will be able to be a part of the Jakarta site at their pleasure. It's simply common sense. geir On Dec 18, 2003, at 5:45 PM, Ted Husted wrote: To do this, each product would simply need to draft a resolution to create the PMC and select a chair, and ask that it be placed on the board's agenda for the next meeting, just as Log4J and the others did. It would be very important that each product do this themselves, to help show they are ready for self-management. Essentially, each product would still be a TLP, but would just be hosted at Jakarta. This option has always been available, it's just that every product since Ant has chosen to have their own hostname and website. It's also important to remember that some of these products, like Log4J, are not just about Java anymore. The Apache Logging project will have compatible codebases available for half-a-dozen platforms. (Now *that's* community building!) -Ted. Dirk Verbeeck wrote: +1 If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution. No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center of the apache java development with a shared announcement list, general list, news and download pages, ... The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing each project (=PMC) and additionally a "Jakarta Community" project building a java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects) The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members. Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs. Is this possible? -- Dirk Noel J. Bergman wrote: There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ... All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 18, 2003, at 8:02 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: This is FUD. No decisions are being made in private. Isn't everything you disagree with? You are making assertions that aren't correct to cast doubt on something. That's commonly known as FUD. I'm sorry, I hallucinated that we were having all of these discussions about the future of jakarta and how to best reorganize it on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember what you said. You said that "decisions were being made in private". Which is IMHO, PRECISELY why it should take place here. Why should we describe it if when we can let it describe itself? Here I disagree with you, and what you are saying isn't FUD - it's just that I disagree. See the difference? I'm not sure you do. But do you see the difference, right? One is a disagreement, and one is you making things up. The ironic thing is that the upshot of what we are discussing is how to make governance of Jakarta as inclusive as possible :) Glad you caught that. The private list of any PMC has it's place. The specific problem we are solving has to do with governance of Jakarta and how to bring as much of the community as possible into that governance process to make things as transparent and accountable as possible. Because there is this specific problem, I think that the private list is fine venue for the PMC to organize how it is going to approach the problem, especially since it's clear that we want to bring this to general@ ASAP. Ironic. Ignoring this is convenient to support a position characterizing Jakarta as not open, but ignores the facts of the matter, IMO. Yeah right. I favor all of the present discussion on PMC@ take place here. No more secret discussions except when they MUST be secret... Openness isn't always convenient. And thinking things through isn't either. But sometimes it must be done. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 18, 2003, at 5:27 PM, Dirk Verbeeck wrote: +1 If this is acceptable by the board then it's the ideal solution. No changes to the email/website structure, jakarta remains the center of the apache java development with a shared announcement list, general list, news and download pages, ... The only change is that the board gets a list of members overseeing each project (=PMC) and additionally a "Jakarta Community" project building a java community at Apache. (assisting the java projects) The board will not get one big report from jakarta but many small ones and can see witch (sub)projects needs more members. Yes, the board gets 1 report from each little project. Jakarta is thus broken up. It think this is a bad idea. We have other problems to solve first. Lets solve them and take care of our responsibility for oversight. Then you can break up Jakarta for whatever reason you think makes that sensible. At least then I don't feel like we punted on the oversight issue. geir Of course many members will be joining multiple PMCs. Is this possible? -- Dirk Noel J. Bergman wrote: There is a difference between a hierarchy and a confederation. There is absolutely nothing that says that we cannot have: Jakarta PMC: responsible for jakarta-site/jakarta-site2 Tomcat PMC: tomcat and related code Struts PMC: struts and related code Jakarta Commons PMC: ... Tapestry PMC: ... ... All without a single change to the Jakarta domain. No one should feel that there is any relationship between the Foundation's legal structure, and e-mail/web addresses. We have had this confirmed already by both Greg and Sam. The above *is* an acceptable solution to the Board. The question is whether or not it is an acceptable one to us. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 18, 2003, at 5:39 PM, Dirk Verbeeck wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 18, 2003, at 9:30 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: As a slight aside, getting on the PMC list just means nudging an existing member and pointing out that you are an active committer to Jakarta. Who's the best person to nudge then? :) Anyone. Interested? Looks like there is some important stuff going on so maybe I should join as well. Either you believe that everyone should join (as I do), or that no one should join (as the "break up Jakarta" crowd would implicitly have it) other than to run a website. You get a big "welcome" from me if the former, and a "good luck, do good work" from me if the latter. geir -- Dirk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why you *want* to be on the PMC
On Dec 19, 2003, at 12:21 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: If all the PMC's share the same website, who is responsible for the website as a global concept. For example, the need to do mirrors. If a Jakarta-Site PMC exists, all other PMCs [jakarta sub-project based] are accepting the Jakarta Site PMC's oversight over their websites. How do you think the Jakarta site works already? The site2 module is just the "core" Jakarta site. All of the projects already have their own sites in their own CVS, which are then checked out under the /www/jakarta.apache.org/$project. Nothing would have to change, unless a project *wanted* a new domain, from what I can see. Am I missing your point? I'm just not seeing the problem. The Jakarta PMC, as the group responsible for oversight of Jakarta, is responsible also for all content on the website. And I couldn't imagine projects leaving jakarta not wanting their own website. geir --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 19, 2003, at 8:01 AM, Ted Husted wrote: Michael Davey wrote: Jakarta is the *brand*. It defines itself. Jakarta brand development. A brand can give a unique identity and grouping to an otherwise disparate and commodity range of goods and services. Apache is a brand too, and, IMHO, a much stronger brand than Jakarta. Not to Java people. I agree w/ you that it should be, but "Apache Jakarta" serves just as well, just as "Apache Httpd" is a strong brand too :) I believe Jakarta distracts people from the fact that everything we do here is on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation. We are not "Jakarta Committers", we are "Apache Committers". We use the Apache License, package our product for apache.org, check code into cvs.apache.org, and donate every line to the Apache Software Foundation. I realize that there are people who have romantic notions about "Jakarta" and like to talk about preserving Jakarta for Jakarta's sake. But for the life of me, I can't see why. For me, it's always been about the codebase and its community. Jakarta is also a community - while it may also be a "romantic notion", it is a fact. Denying that fact serves well the high-minded notion of "for the Foundation", but ignores the reality. The ASF has seen the incredible growth of codebase, community and thus opportunity for participation in the projects like Jakarta, XML, WebServices, etc, all of which are larger umpbrella-like entities where like minded people can come together and work on whatever "scratches their itch" near and with others that also have the same interests. Preserving those fostering communities is a "romantic notion" worth working for, and not at adds with the ASF or it's governance requirements. It generates an opportunity for new ideas and collaborations to take hold, and a place go grow and live until the project wants to be a TLP. Or doesn't. :) geir P.S. And before you say "Incubator Project", the Incubator is by design not intended to be such an entity, but rather a mechanism to ensure health and accounting of IP and community of incoming codebases and projects, the protection of the ASF. -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 19, 2003, at 12:56 AM, Rainer Klute wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:16 -0500 Harish Krishnaswamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For the record I'm in favour of transacting business HERE. But I would like to respond by saying that as I understand it it is the source and the development of it which is open, not the organisation. As a committer I would like to know what's going on with the origanization. I can understand certain private conversations that involve legal implications, but anything else, I think, should be out in the open to do justice to the committers. It seems like there is some talk going on about the Jakarta banner in private that I have no clue about. I would appreciate the knowledge sharing in such metters. That's just as I see it. Discussions should definetly take place HERE. That's the point of getting as many people as are seriously interested in the subject on the PMC. Then all can participate, and if we discuss something sensitive (as defined by the discusser), it doesn't all have to be on Google. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 19, 2003, at 3:33 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted : [SNIP] I agreed w/ every word from Costin. And look what's happening with logging: Now that it's a TLP, they are bringing-in the various Log4J compatibles. Now, there can be one Apache logging project serving every platform. That's community-building! Is logkit included in the logging TLP ? What about commons-logging ? I agree with you that the logging TLP does define a community ( just like jakarta or httpd ). It's a separate PMC bringing togheter different codebases and people. It remains to be seen if log4j as a TLP will be better than log4j as part of jakarta. There are plenty of TLPs - like apache-commons - that don't seem to be much better than sub-projects like jakarta-commons. Agreed. JC is a vibrant sub-project with ties to may Jakarta sub-projects. I think that important and valuable. I think log4j will do fine, and they can always come back. It's not clear what kind of synergy the log4* projects will bring together, but will be interesting to watch. I had such mixed emotions about log4j leaving, as I think it's going to take a bit of our community away. On the other hand, I support the freedom of the log4j community to choose it's own path, and that wins out with me. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 19, 2003, at 2:58 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Radical view: allow the subprojects to send 1-2 delegates to the PMC and require each subproject to send one or die. This would size the PMC, assure that "heart attack in the crowd" syndrome doesn't take place and make the discussion more manageable. Have the sub projects manage their own policy for who to send and for how long under threat of being closed. This also prevents "PMC for life" syndrome and makes sure that the PMC serves not only the boards interests but the committers of the projects. It also puts pressure on PMC members to keep discussions public. I don't like this "1-2" delegates. All active committers in a subproject should be in the PMC ( unless they don't want to ). The concern that there are too many people is absurd. What is missing is a bit of discipline in proposals/votes - and that has nothing to do with the number of people. As you said, all discussions should happen on jakarta-general - so each jakarta committer ( including those who chose not to be in PMC ) get to participate and express their opinion. The vote should be on jakarta-general too ( counting as binding only PMC member votes, of course ). Quite frankly, I have to disagree with you. There are many cases where PMC votes are not going to be public. Yes, I agree that everything that can be done in the wider community should be done in the wider community, but given the goal of PMC ~= 100% committers, a vote on a PMC list is going to be inclusive of ~= 100% committers. Yes, it then leaves out the rest of the community, as community isn't just committers, but from a legal standpoint, the members of the PMC are the votes that count. (As you note). This brings up an important point - the PMC membership does not have to be limited to members or committers, by my read of the bylaws. If we have the unlikely situation where a person is significantly interested by can't be a committer for some reason, they still can be on the PMC. One example might be a lawyer working closely w/ a community (for whatever reason) - that lawyer might be providing tremendous input and participation, but has no need/use for committership. That person could still be a member of the PMC. The difference between committers who are in PMC and the other should be only in the counting of the votes. The other argument - that nobody can or want to be responsible for codebases he is not involved with - is also bad. Each PMC member is overseeing whatever he chooses to ( typically the projects he is involved with and some he voluunteers to ). Every member of the PMC can vote on any issue - but it is common sense that those who are not involved with a codebase will abstain ( unless they have a good reason not to ). Yes. I'll bring that up in another thread, as it's important, and I know people are confused. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 19, 2003, at 2:27 PM, Ted Husted wrote: Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: ASF is a group of projects administered by the Apache board members. The board delegates certain responsibilities over to the PMCs of the individual projects while still maintaining the authority and management responsibilities. The PMC is responsible for a wholesome code and community of the project it oversees but does not have the authority to recognize new projects. I'd say it the other way around. The ASF is a collection of communities that create and maintain codebases. To obtain infrastructure support and some legal protection, these communities donate the copyright of its software and ownership of its brand to the Foundation. In order to provide legal protection and watchdog its copyright, the board assigns a vice president to oversee the project. A committee is also convened to assist the VP with oversight. I think this is mostly right, and I say "mostly" because it's legally precise, but in practice, the community tends to be there first, rather than be convened later, and the community also tends to suggest to the board the individual they wish to 'oversee' (meaning the PMC chair). The board doesn't always accept the community's recommendation, though, and indeed the selection of chair is legally the board's sole assignment, as you way. Since the committee is formed by a resolution of the board, its members are eligible for legal protection in the event of a lawsuit. I don't believe this is correct, although it will require someone else to give a definitive answer. (I've been playing a bit in the legal sandbox re some ASF-related issues, so I've been paying attention to this...) Indemnification is granted for directors, officers and members of the corporation (the ASF), or serving at the request of the corporation in some way. Thus, the PMC chair, as an officer of the corporation is protected, but not all PMC members. However, the structure of the ASF is such that the ASF is the holder of copyright and owner of the code, which provides a level of protection for committers. Also, since the committee is the only formal body created by the board, only the votes of committee members are considered "binding". In the normal course, most or all of the committers are also committee members. (Jakarta being an anomaly.) 100% correct [SNIP] A very subtle concept is that the ASF doesn't actually "own" the codebase. The codebase belongs to its community, and under the Apache License, that community can always "vote with its feet". Since it is the community that gives the software its value (by using and maintaining it), there is an Apache belief that the community is the true owner of the codebase. The ASF just owns the brand and yesterday's copyright. I believe that this isn't right - the ASF does own the codebase via the copyright, and the codebase is licensed at no cost to any entity that is willing to agree to the terms of the license. That entity, community or otherwise, cannot remove that license or change it unilaterally. I think that my understanding of these issues has been clarifying over the last several months due to my JCP work. This stuff always is hard for us non-lawyers. To that end, as I am not a lawyer, all that I said above could be completely wrong :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
ct (jakarta-commons) focused on making "small, focused, reusable" packages, and encouraging the larger projects to use them. Not only has this been successful within Jakarta -- there's been quite a lot of cross-fertilization among the web app frameworks, for example -- it's also created a fairly rich library of funcational packages that are widely used elsewhere. But one could really argue whether something like Commons Digester (originally designed as an easy-to-use tool to parse XML configuration files) really fit the Jakarta charter. Over time, there have been more than a few, err, "voluminous" discussions about how to scale up Jakarta from an organizational perspective, and whether the fundamental organizing principle was still the correct one. Does a focus on server side stuff exclude what could be some really interesting open source projects? Does a focus on Java make sense when just across the website there are things like xml.apache.org that are focused on a technology, not on an implementation language? Does it make sense to have "community" type projects that host individual software package projects at all? Coupled with these increasing concerns (at the ASF board level) about the ability of any oversight group (a responsibility delegated to PMCs in the ASF organizational structure), several original Jakarta subprojects (or even sub-sub-projects in some cases) like Ant, Maven, and James decided to become top level projects (TLPs) of their own -- this takes making a formal proposal to the ASF Board that gets accepted, and the formation of a PMC for that project. Those sorts of discussions continue to this day. Somewhat separately, but overlapping in time, it became clear that there needed to be a way to incorporate new developer communities (and in some cases existing codebases that were being contributed) into Apache. The developers (if they weren't Apache committers already) needed to learn "the Apache way" to do things. The code (if any) needed to be vetted for appropriate contributor agreements to protect both the ASF and those that rely on our code. Thus, the incubator project was created as a place for these things to happen. It is also actively evolving. To a large extent, the stresses that are felt as the ASF grows are actually a result of our success, and should not be looked at as signs of failure. I remember a statement from a consultant that one of my employers brought in along the way to deal with some important decisions when we had no consensus at all: "The absence of stress is death." So, here's to having some more stress! :-) Craig ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PMC membership : "I fear additional responsibility"
I want to share a conversation that I hope sheds some light on what it means to be on the PMC. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said "I fear additional responsibility". I told him that he should have nothing to fear, as what's being asked for is that the committers simply continue to pay attention. His response was "paying attention is a _big_ responsibility" "That's true", I thought. So I told him "but if you are interested in the project you are going to do that anyway. IOW, most committers are paying attention to what's coming in" "jakarta is just so big though" Aha! Being on the PMC doesn't mean you have to watch *every* commit in *every* project. The requirement of the PMC is that it, as a committee delegated oversight authority by the board, is responsible as a *group* for that oversight. If we can organize ourselves so that there is coverage that to an outside observer would be deemed reasonable and effective, then we satisfy the needs of the ASF. (The board could void this interpretation, but so far has indicated that it wouldn't). So this person, who participates in and some components of Jakarta Commons, would just continue to do what he normally does - participate as he does already. The only difference is that we would do our job and ensure that he understands the rules about contributions, CLAs, and what code contributions require the Incubator for IP accountability. ( Incubator => Largish contributions from outside of the ASF. Largish is loosely defined : Small patch- and file-sized commits and contributions don't need Incubator, an entire database project from Oracle does. The line is somewhere in the middle :) Anyway, I hope this example helps. It certainly gave me insight into what this individual was struggling with, and I assume that he isn't the only one... geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 20, 2003, at 8:24 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: Log4j is not leaving. It is simply moving to a new room in the house, a room with a different label but still located within the same house. As any house, this house offers protection and comfort to its inhabitants. It is a place where developers can unleash their creative powers onto the world. But this house is unique in its degree of openness and tolerance. Apache is a great place to be regardless of the room you chose. Well, you moved out of the Jakarta suite to another part of the Apache house :) As for log4j, its developers will continue to be involved with Jakarta. Many of us use Jakarta products in our daily work. Moreover, without the software contained in Jakarta, there wouldn't be much use for log4j. So there are no goodbyes to be said, we are just next door. No need to put on shoes, you can hang on to your slippers. Our door is open, you don't have to knock when you come in. Can we have TRACE as a supported level? At 07:23 AM 12/20/2003 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 19, 2003, at 3:33 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted : [SNIP] I agreed w/ every word from Costin. And look what's happening with logging: Now that it's a TLP, they are bringing-in the various Log4J compatibles. Now, there can be one Apache logging project serving every platform. That's community-building! Is logkit included in the logging TLP ? What about commons-logging ? I agree with you that the logging TLP does define a community ( just like jakarta or httpd ). It's a separate PMC bringing togheter different codebases and people. It remains to be seen if log4j as a TLP will be better than log4j as part of jakarta. There are plenty of TLPs - like apache-commons - that don't seem to be much better than sub-projects like jakarta-commons. Agreed. JC is a vibrant sub-project with ties to may Jakarta sub-projects. I think that important and valuable. I think log4j will do fine, and they can always come back. It's not clear what kind of synergy the log4* projects will bring together, but will be interesting to watch. I had such mixed emotions about log4j leaving, as I think it's going to take a bit of our community away. On the other hand, I support the freedom of the log4j community to choose it's own path, and that wins out with me. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ceki Gülcü For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TRACE level [WAS] Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 20, 2003, at 8:40 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: At 08:31 AM 12/20/2003 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Can we have TRACE as a supported level? Subsequent to the demand for the TRACE level expressed by a number of user, there is every reason to believe that a vote will be held on this topic before log4j 1.3 is released. However, there is still time as log4j 1.3 will not be released in the immediate future. Good. that gives me time to continue badgering in public. See : http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22944 I hope you are taking this with the good nature in which it is intended. geir -- Ceki Gülcü For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PMC membership : "I fear additional responsibility"
On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:01 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: I want to share a conversation that I hope sheds some light on what it means to be on the PMC. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said "I fear additional responsibility". I told him that he should have nothing to fear, as what's being asked for is that the committers simply continue to pay attention. His response was "paying attention is a _big_ responsibility" "That's true", I thought. So I told him "but if you are interested in the project you are going to do that anyway. IOW, most committers are paying attention to what's coming in" "jakarta is just so big though" Aha! Being on the PMC doesn't mean you have to watch *every* commit in *every* project. The requirement of the PMC is that it, as a committee delegated oversight authority by the board, is responsible as a *group* for that oversight. If we can organize ourselves so that there is coverage that to an outside observer would be deemed reasonable and effective, then we satisfy the needs of the ASF. (The board could void this interpretation, but so far has indicated that it wouldn't). If a PMC member doesn't watch every commit in every project - as surely few, if any, do - s/he needs to at least have trust in enough other PMC members to cover the projects s/he is not involved with. Because, as a PMC member, s/he is still responsible for decisions made by the PMC. That's a good deal of trust to place in others s/he might not encounter anywhere other than on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Yep :) That's the interesting part here, and breaking the Jakarta up doesn't solve it - it just pushes the problem upwards to the board. By having more than one person representing the project on the PMC (for example, having all committers on the PMC), we have a much better chance of ensuring that one individual doesn't make a mistake and put us all at fault. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jakarta: Confederation or Single Project?
On Dec 20, 2003, at 11:36 AM, Santiago Gala wrote: El sábado, 20 dici, 2003, a las 14:00 Europe/Madrid, Geir Magnusson Jr. escribió: On Dec 19, 2003, at 2:27 PM, Ted Husted wrote: (...) A very subtle concept is that the ASF doesn't actually "own" the codebase. The codebase belongs to its community, and under the Apache License, that community can always "vote with its feet". Since it is the community that gives the software its value (by using and maintaining it), there is an Apache belief that the community is the true owner of the codebase. The ASF just owns the brand and yesterday's copyright. I believe that this isn't right - the ASF does own the codebase via the copyright, and the codebase is licensed at no cost to any entity that is willing to agree to the terms of the license. That entity, community or otherwise, cannot remove that license or change it unilaterally. I think the point Ted makes, summarized as: "The ASF just owns the brand and yesterday's copyright." is, actually, subtle: Because of the Apache License, anybody wishing so can carry the code and keep the development outside of the ASF, with their own rules and licenses. This has only the "brand and attribution" restriction, as per our license. Well, it's not terribly deep, IMO. They can fork and carry the code, but the code that is created has their own rules and license. The ASF code still has the ASF license and thus the rules in that license. I agree that the beauty of OSS is that anyone can continue w/ a project in their own way as they choose, but I just don't think it's that deep or subtle. That freedom is one of the reasons we all are here. So, even if nominally, as you say, the code is the ASF property, anybody can re-license under different terms, provided that the ASF license conditions, "the brand", essentially, are met. Not at all. You can't relicense the code. The Apache Software License remains w/ the code. *new* code can have different terms, but not ASF-licensed code. In the hypothetical event that the ASF would "close" our License (which, BTW, would be against the ASF charter), the commmunity could just stop contributing the same day (hence the "yesterday's copyright"), and keep the development elsewhere, with just a notice, a copy of the Apache License and a disclaimer (hence the "brand"). They can't close the license retroactively - that's one of the great things about the license. There is no risk that in the future, the code you have now will become unavailable due to some kind of license change. *Future versions* released under a *different license* may be, but that is totally different. Using a version now doesn't require to use a version in the future. This implies that those having easier ability or will to maintain the product are the effective owners of it. as in a rapidly changing environment, software rot takes care of static code bases. However, you have to recognize that sometimes software is done. Look at ORO and Regexp. Do we use them because they are rapidly innovating, or because they do what they say they are going to do, and do it well? geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 3:51 AM, Santiago Gala wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El domingo, 21 dici, 2003, a las 02:35 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell escribió: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El jueves, 18 dici, 2003, a las 15:52 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell escribió: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html lists the PMC members up until the previous addition of 20 or so. That list has to go to the board etc and I plan to add them to the list as soon as I see them appear on the board's list [in the committers/ cvs module]. I have just discovered I'm listed as PMC member in the web page. When was I appointed? is there no notification to elected people? Ack. Sorry. Completely my mistake. I added you along with three others, thinking you'd been part of a batch vote with them. Instead your vote was separate one. This is the kind of problems that happen with private lists. I think the problem isn't the private list, on which we will continue to do work, such as voting, but follow up. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 5:03 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: You go discus your private matters wherever you like, I'd like to talk about open source projects and am quite willing to do so in the open. And you know there's a difference. :) What that we've discussed so far has been SSSooo sensitive? The recipe to the secret Jakarta Eggnog? I thought Jon took that with him... I think it is: Lots of expensive Bze Cheap store-bought eggnog There... Impeach me. I've divulged the state secrets. -Andy That's the point of getting as many people as are seriously interested in the subject on the PMC. Then all can participate, and if we discuss something sensitive (as defined by the discusser), it doesn't all have to be on Google. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 8:11 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:58:53AM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Do you feel that we'll still be an open source organization in more than name if all decisions end up being made on private PMC lists not open to the public? Do you believe there are discussions happening on PMC lists that should be happening on public dev lists? I think that there is nothing wrong with the PMC having a private list and discussing things there, especially when we're discussing trying to make that group bigger. I'm sure that Andrew doesn't really either. geir -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 9:20 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 09:09:34PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I think that there is nothing wrong with the PMC having a private list and discussing things there, especially when we're discussing trying to make that group bigger. I'm sure that Andrew doesn't really either. That is not the kind of ASF that I want to see. It seems we have gone from one extreme to the other: first we have everything in the public and now we want everything to be private? That's not at all what I said. Why not a happy medium? If it's sensitive, discuss it on the PMC. If not, discuss it on the dev/general list. I think you are confusing this with httpd. There is no one dev list, thank goodness. I agree that sensitive things should be on the PMC list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list. I think that specific tactics for restructuring can be considered sensitive from the POV of it not being some 'state secret', as Andy seems to want people to believe, but rather because of the confusion that it sews. My hope was for us to get our act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it as a group. No decisions were made on the PMC list, and the majority of the chatter was 'what do we do?'. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 07:17:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: That's the point of getting as many people as are seriously interested in the subject on the PMC. Then all can participate, and if we discuss something sensitive (as defined by the discusser), it doesn't all have to be on Google. No, that is not correct. The point of having most committers on the PMC is not to keep discussions out of google. The point of getting them on the PMC is so that the ASF can legally protect them, and so that they are legally empowered to participate in the decisions that govern the project. The reason is *not* that the ASF will protect them. There is no reason to believe that committers are guaranteed legal protection, nor should there be an expectation that they will receive protection. I'd bet that the ASF would do all it could to help a committer, but that's totally different than what you believe. The only people granted legal protection are directors, officers and members (and I'm sure that's only if they are dragged into a suit just because of membership status itself), and in some special cases, others working as 'agents' on behalf of the corporation, at the direction of the corporation. Only the PMC Chair is an officer of the corporation. The point of getting the committers on the PMC is to ensure that any action made on behalf of the corporation is overseen by those designated by the corporation to oversee such activities, namely, by the PMC. geir -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sign those CLAs!
Members of the Jakarta Community : With the privilege of committership in the ASF comes the requirement that each committer sign a document called the "Committer License Agreement", or CLA. The CLA is a legal agreement between you, the committer, and the ASF in which you state that the contributions that you make to the ASF in form of code, documentation, etc is your work that you are free to contribute, and that you are granting an unfettered copyright license to the ASF for that work. The purpose is to allow the ASF to be sure that the code that it offers to the world is, to the best of it's knowledge, free of questions about source and ownership. To that end, it is required that every committer in Jakarta has a signed CLA on file with the ASF. In the past, we have been negligent in ensuring this document was completed and filed, and wish to immediately rectify the situation for the ASF. This is a simple procedure, generally requiring just a few minutes of your time to fill out and mail or fax to the ASF administrative office. It will be greatly appreciated if this could be taken care of immediately. To check to see if you have a CLA on file, look here : http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html or http://www.apache.org/~jim/projects.html and find your name on either. If it is in italics, it means the CLA has been received and is on file. If not, please get one in. If you don't have a CLA on file, the CLA form can be found here : http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla.txt and a PDF version can be found here : http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla.pdf We will be sending out gentle reminders during the upcoming week or so for those that don't have a CLA on file, so the sooner the better as there will be less follow-up work for other Jakarta community members to do - after all, this is your responsibility and we're all volunteers. If there are any questions or problems, please bring them to this list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). If you have private concerns, because of employment or otherwise, feel free to post to the Official Jakarta State Sekrets List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), send a private message to one or more of the knowledgeable people here on general@, post to the board list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - fair warning -> readership is bigger than just the board - or to one of the board members or officers directly. This is an important subject, and people will give help if asked. Thanks for looking into this serious matter. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:27 AM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: ... sensitive things should be on the PMC list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list. What could be something that is sensteive in an open source community? This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are ashamed of it, don't do open source community. There are lots of things. Committer votes, for example, are considered a sensitive issue. Inter-personal disputes. If you would have been fair with your attribution, you would have included what I then said next, namely that I felt it sensitive "because of the confusion that it sews. My hope was for us to get our act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it as a group." IOW, simply to get a handle on how we approach the community to make things clear and non-confusing. For a developer ... lets have some code in open, and the bad code we will just have in a encrypted jar. Is this open source? What do I mean by that: ASF used(?) to be Libreterian: If you want code to do something, commit the code to do it. ASF used(?) to be run by commiters. Now some are trying to develop "rulling" class, that is carving out roles for itself and rules to legislate iteligence and integrity for commiters, but does not committ itself?. What happend to emritius commiters? People who did not CVS a chunk of code in a while lose vote rights and their berucrat office. The people that are vocal on berucracy are same people I wonder where have they CVSed latelly. Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary. Please re-read. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 8:05 AM, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:38:54 -0500 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: What could be something that is sensteive in an open source community? This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are ashamed of it, don't do open source community. There are lots of things. Committer votes, for example, are considered a sensitive issue. Inter-personal disputes. I agree. Also, I think "[PROPOSAL] As it ever were" mail was very reasonable. However, just one question came to my mind. Have The Committer Votes (I mean, [VOTE] in to elect new committer) to be taken place at Jakarta PMC list? ... This is very sensitive issue (maybe causes inter-personal dispute), i guess. Could you please explain more? Committer votes haven't taken place on the Jakarta PMC list. PMC member votes have, but that's a different thing. Here in Jakarta (as well as other projects, I assume), the sub-projects do committer votes in public. Some people outside of Jakarta feel that this is improper, and should be done in private to ensure that open discussion can happen in a way that doesn't hurt peoples feelings. I can see both sides of this - do it in public because it's a good "pat on the back" for a person to see fellow community members supporting him or her, but on the other hand, it would be a shame for people to be unable to say how they feel about a proposed committer and have that POV understood by others w/o possibly hurting the feelings of the person being voted on. I hope this is something we take up when we have this PMC issue sorted out. geir Thanks in advance. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) P.S. Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary. Well said. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
I realize that arguing with you on this will have no effect, but I want to keep working to extinguish the meme you keep trying to plant. IIRC, the thread in play at the time was my note to ask the opinion of all PMC members re the CLA signing, to make sure that it was a clear message we all wanted to go out with. IRRC, you never even responded to it. Further, IIRC, there was broad consensus that things should be public (I think it was Peter's first nudge), and we were working that direction. geir On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:04 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Well, saying please and asking nicely had no effect. -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. From: Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: mvdb.com Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 22 Dec 2003 01:53:20 +0100 To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious Sorry to hear you didn't understand my mail at all If that is the way a PMC member communicates, I can never be part of that PMC. Mvgr, Martin On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 23:10, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Now the conversation is here, that is the solution. You're welcome. -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
You are free to do what you want. Is this then about personal google hitcount? On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:06 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I think the problem isn't the private list, on which we will continue to do work, such as voting, but follow up. geir Heads up, FYI, except where I feel the situation absolutely mandates it, I will be voting/discussing here. While I'm not sure I agree, out of courtesy, I will vote privately for: * PMC nominations/discussion * legally precarious issues * things too likely to cause me to get slashdotted. I favor openness, but the peanut gallery isn't helpful. Pointedly, I will not discuss the organization, structure, software, etc. of Jakarta on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will discuss it here. This is my personal choice. I choose to work in the open. I choose to be googled. I volunteered for it in fact. -Andy -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:45 -0500 To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious On Dec 21, 2003, at 3:51 AM, Santiago Gala wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El domingo, 21 dici, 2003, a las 02:35 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell escribió: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Santiago Gala wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El jueves, 18 dici, 2003, a las 15:52 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell escribió: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html lists the PMC members up until the previous addition of 20 or so. That list has to go to the board etc and I plan to add them to the list as soon as I see them appear on the board's list [in the committers/ cvs module]. I have just discovered I'm listed as PMC member in the web page. When was I appointed? is there no notification to elected people? Ack. Sorry. Completely my mistake. I added you along with three others, thinking you'd been part of a batch vote with them. Instead your vote was separate one. This is the kind of problems that happen with private lists. I think the problem isn't the private list, on which we will continue to do work, such as voting, but follow up. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 10:31 AM, Danny Angus wrote: While closing out everyone else. Like those who are not yet committers. I certainly think that increasing the size of the PMC makes it easier for things to get discussed on the PMC list, but if people care (and you do for one) about visibility the very nature of things mean that it won't happen for long before someone starts to get obstreperous. Just to save everyone the trip to dictionary.com : ob·strep·er·ous Pronunciation Key (b-str p r- s, b-) adj. 1. Noisily and stubbornly defiant. 2. Aggressively boisterous. I know from the past that you'd favour a fully open process, but we don't have that. I don't think this should _necessarily_ be a social experiment, in open management, this isn't a political project its about software. No one wants things unnecessarily private. The less the better. The less organizational conversation the better -> more tech, more community. This stuff is tiring :) geir d. -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:38:54 -0500 To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:27 AM, Vic Cekvenich wrote: ... sensitive things should be on the PMC list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list. What could be something that is sensteive in an open source community? This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are ashamed of it, don't do open source community. There are lots of things. Committer votes, for example, are considered a sensitive issue. Inter-personal disputes. If you would have been fair with your attribution, you would have included what I then said next, namely that I felt it sensitive "because of the confusion that it sews. My hope was for us to get our act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it as a group." IOW, simply to get a handle on how we approach the community to make things clear and non-confusing. For a developer ... lets have some code in open, and the bad code we will just have in a encrypted jar. Is this open source? What do I mean by that: ASF used(?) to be Libreterian: If you want code to do something, commit the code to do it. ASF used(?) to be run by commiters. Now some are trying to develop "rulling" class, that is carving out roles for itself and rules to legislate iteligence and integrity for commiters, but does not committ itself?. What happend to emritius commiters? People who did not CVS a chunk of code in a while lose vote rights and their berucrat office. The people that are vocal on berucracy are same people I wonder where have they CVSed latelly. Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary. Please re-read. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and 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 m
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were
I don't think that crossposting would be good keep it here On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:52 PM, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Hello, folks. I am a moderator of three -dev lists in jakarta. What should I do next? Forwardin' this Pro-forma to each -dev lists? T.I.A. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:07:26 -0500 (Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were) Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: This is what I proposed some weeks ago. I think you would serve the community well if you also posted a summary of pros and cons that we had discussed. On Dec 21, 2003, at 6:14 PM, Ted Husted wrote: Re: Proposal to grandfather Active Committers to Jakarta subprojects as PMC Members. As it stands, most Jakarta committers have assumed that they already have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities granted PMC members. (Mainly because it was written that way in the Jakarta bylaws). When all these committers were elected, it was with the understanding they had binding votes and oversight responsibility, as stated by the original Jakarta bylaws. It could be said that we have been electing PMC members, rather than only committers, all along, without realizing it. Following our original bylaws and practices, there is no such thing as a committer without the rights and responsibilities of PMC membership. Accordingly, a stipulation of becoming (or remaining) a committer to a Jakarta subproject can said to be PMC membership, as it is described by the ASF bylaws. To complete the process we've already begun, I suggest a [VOTE] be brought on each [EMAIL PROTECTED] list to nominate the list of its active committers to the PMC. This vote will also serve as notice to committers who wish to opt-out. To bootstrap the process, the current moderator of each DEV list can be asked to bring the vote and report the result. If necessary, a new moderator can be installed by the Chair. The moderator of each dev list will also act as the "PMC steward" for the subproject. The list moderator is suggested since that individual is already suppose to be monitoring the list where this activity occurs. The steward will have the responsibility of immediately reporting any new committers/PMC members elected to a subproject, so that they can be affirmed by the chair and notice given the board. All PMC members (which is to say all active committers to jakarta-* CVS repositories) will be subscribed to the PMC list, which will be a required list for PMC membership, like [EMAIL PROTECTED] The PMC business for each subproject will continue to take place on its own dev list. The steward for each project will report to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list the status of his or her subproject, covering such points as: * What code releases have been made? * Legal issues: * Cross-project issues: * Any problems with committers, members, etc? * Plans and expectations for the next period? The chair can then summarize these reports for presentation to the board. Effectively, each dev list becomes a sub-committee of the PMC. (Divide and conquer.) The list moderator/steward becomes the subcommittee's secretary, with the additional responsibility of summarizing the result of our ongoing meetings. As appropriate, the steward or any PMC member can bring up oversight issues to the PMC list. Routine matters, such as releases, can be approved by the PMC members who are committers to a given subproject. So long as the usual 3+ quorum is met, there would be no reason to bring routine votes before the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Of course, the result would be tabulated on the steward's report, which *is* published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. -Ted. Pro-forma [VOTE] It has come to our attention that the Committers to a Jakarta subproject must also be members of the Jakarta Project Management Committee to have binding votes. To complete the legal process, the current PMC is asking each subproject to nominate it's active committers to the PMC. Since we have never supported the idea of non-voting committers at Jakarta, and only PMC members have binding votes, if a committer is unwilling to serve on the Jakarta PMC, we will be unable to continue to extend write access to any jakarta-* CVS to that individual. Each PMC member will also be subscribed to the Jakarta PMC list. *However, all subproject business can continue to occur on this DEV list as always!* In the future, we anticipate that the PMC list will be very low-volume. (Really, we do!) The only change is that the owner of the DEV list must also serve as the PMC steward for the subproject. The steward must submit monthly status reports for the project and immediately report any new Committers to the PMC list. But, other than that, it will be business as usual. Accordingly, we ask that the Committers to this subproject nominate the following individuals to the Jakarta PMC. Please check all that apply. [ ] $committer Any committer who wishes
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: Larry, I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw). From what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf of the organization. Further is it seems that the ASF does not believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone would like to join a PMC). This protection is usually referenced when people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other areas. I'm not aware of an official statement on this, but it would be nice to have one. I did respond. As I understand it, here is no protection for PMC members except for the chair, if he or she was acting on behalf of the corporation in good faith. And if you don't know Larry, he's a well-known attorney specializing in OSS matters. geir Happy Holidays -dain /* * Dain Sundstrom * Partner * Core Developers Network */ On Dec 21, 2003, at 9:08 PM, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: No, that is not correct. The point of having most committers on the PMC is not to keep discussions out of google. The point of getting them on the PMC is so that the ASF can legally protect them, and so that they are legally empowered to participate in the decisions that govern the project. Would someone please explain what protection committers expect from ASF? And what legal empowerment is being granted? /Larry Rosen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 5:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: Larry, I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw). From what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf of the organization. Further is it seems that the ASF does not believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone would like to join a PMC). This protection is usually referenced when people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other areas. I'm not aware of an official statement on this, but it would be nice to have one. I did respond. As I understand it, here is no protection for PMC members except for the chair, if he or she was acting on behalf of the corporation in good faith. Sorry missed your reply. From what I have seen there are vastly differing opinions on this matter (from ranking people in ASF). Anyway, it would be nice to see something official on this matter, but it is a legal matter and therefore unlikely to happen (at least anytime soon ;) Feel free to send them to me. I'm interested. I'll be happy to report back a summary or correction. And if you don't know Larry, he's a well-known attorney specializing in OSS matters. I know Larry. He used to a company I used to do business with. Ah Sorry. :) geir -dain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:31 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 5:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: Larry, I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw). From what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf of the organization. Further is it seems that the ASF does not believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone would like to join a PMC). This protection is usually referenced when people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other areas. I'm not aware of an official statement on this, but it would be nice to have one. I did respond. As I understand it, here is no protection for PMC members except for the chair, if he or she was acting on behalf of the corporation in good faith. Sorry missed your reply. From what I have seen there are vastly differing opinions on this matter (from ranking people in ASF). Anyway, it would be nice to see something official on this matter, but it is a legal matter and therefore unlikely to happen (at least anytime soon ;) Feel free to send them to me. I'm interested. I'll be happy to report back a summary or correction. I doubt the ASF wants me to make declarations about what legal protections they provide to PMC members. Even if they did want me to come up with a straw man, I wouldn't even know where to start. LOL. I meant if you have references to emails and such :) And if you don't know Larry, he's a well-known attorney specializing in OSS matters. I know Larry. He used to a company I used to do business with. Ah Sorry. :) AHHH... can't type today. Meant to write "He use to *represent* a company..." I guessed. That or 'sued'. :D geir -dain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Indemnification of the PMC
Here is the clearest description I've found. It's by Roy Fielding, ex chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely knowledgeable in these matters. It was posted here : http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=2642 "Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. In other words, a member is only indemnified for their actions as a member (not much). A director or officer is only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the scope of their mandate as an officer. A PMC member is indemnified under the category of "who is or was serving at the request of the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise" and only to the extent of that enterprise (the project). A committer who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation, and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer. Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the assets held by the ASF. Beyond that, we are on our own as far as personal liability. It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws)." So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on behalf of the corporation. I think that this would be limited to the official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board for the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general day-to-day committer activities, such as technical discussion and personal code commits. Of course, that will probably need to be clarified too. However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much. So try to keep the litigation to a minimum :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Oh, and thanks to Noel for the links... On Dec 23, 2003, at 6:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Here is the clearest description I've found. It's by Roy Fielding, ex chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely knowledgeable in these matters. It was posted here : http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=2642 "Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the corporation. In other words, a member is only indemnified for their actions as a member (not much). A director or officer is only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the scope of their mandate as an officer. A PMC member is indemnified under the category of "who is or was serving at the request of the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise" and only to the extent of that enterprise (the project). A committer who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation, and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer. Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the assets held by the ASF. Beyond that, we are on our own as far as personal liability. It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws)." So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on behalf of the corporation. I think that this would be limited to the official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board for the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general day-to-day committer activities, such as technical discussion and personal code commits. Of course, that will probably need to be clarified too. However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much. So try to keep the litigation to a minimum :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] ORO 2.0.8 maintenance release
+1
On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:39 PM, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
I know now may not be the best time to have a vote, but I would ask
the PMC to vote on approving the release of jakarta-oro 2.0.8.
The current code base contains important bug fixes and has gone too
long without a public release.
[ ] +1 I approve the release of jakarta-oro version 2.0.8.
[ ] -1 I do not approve the release of jakarta-oro version 2.0.8.
This vote will last until the end of Saturday 27th, 2003 (72 hours
minus the Christmas holiday). In accordance with
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, at least three binding
+1 votes are required for this vote to pass and the number of +1 votes
must exceed the number of -1 votes. Non-PMC members are encouraged
to cast their non-binding votes (please indicate your vote is
non-binding to facilitate vote tabulation).
RELEASE INFORMATION:
The 2.0.8 release will be a maintenance release incorporating the
following
changes since the 2.0.7 release made in January (taken from
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/~checkout~/jakarta-oro/CHANGES?content-
type=text/plain):
o examples moved to an examples package and com.oroinc migration tool
moved to tools package.
o Fixed bug whereby compiling an expression with
Perl5Compiler.MULTILINE_MASK wasn't always having the proper effect
with respect to the matching of $ even though
Perl5Matcher.setMultiline(true) exhibited the proper behavior. For
example, the following input
" aaa bbb \n ccc ddd \n eee fff "
should produce "bbb ", "ddd ", and "fff " as matches for both the
patterns "\S+\s*$" and "\S+ *$" when compiled with MULTILINE_MASK.
Perl5Matcher was only producing the correct matches for the second
pattern, producing only "fff " as a match for the first pattern
unless setMultiline(true) had been called. This has now been fixed.
o Fixed embarrassing bug whereby an expression like (A)(B)((C)(D))+
when matched against input like ABCDE would produce matching groups
of: "A" "B" "" null "D" instead of "A" "B" "CD" "C" "D".
These changes have been available to the public in the CVS repository
for testing since May 2003. There are no outstanding/unresolved issue
reports for the code.
Daniel Savarese (dfs.apache.org) will serve as the release manager for
this release. A release announcement will be sent to
{oro-dev,oro-user,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were
On Dec 24, 2003, at 6:28 AM, Ted Husted wrote: My complaint is this: Our current base of committers were led to believe they have binding votes. We are now told this is not the case. The committers we now have were all elected on the premise that they had binding votes and oversight responsibilities for their codebase. They were in fact elected as if they were to be members of the PMC. Personally, I feel it is an abomination to think we have the right to hand-pick a subset of these committers and bestow upon them binding votes. Our communities deserve to be represented by the set of committers that they have already chosen, not an arbitrary subset deemed to be "PMC material". I call for the Jakarta Chair, as the ASF Vice President in charge of Jakarta, to do the Right Thing and promote all Jakarta committers to the Jakarta Project Managemenet Committee. I disagree, and I think you are going a bit far. I call for the Jakarta Chair to let us continue the discussion and keep working towards our solution :) Anything less breaks the covenant we made with each and every Jakarta committer, as published in the original Jakarta guidelines. We said committers had binding votes, and it is now our obligation to make it so. If we fail to make a good faith effort to correct our oversight, then we will have accepted all these contributions under false pretenses. "False pretenses" means that there is the "intent to cheat". I assume you didn't know that, and thus will retract it. What we have said is that the committer has write access to the repository and voting rights allowing them to affect the future, and so far, that's how it worked. I don't remember one complaint to the contrary. We have a community that respects the vote of every committer. Period. The fact that we have a *legal* structure, the ASF as a corporation, that requires the board to know about every corporate activity is what the PMC is for - the board delegates oversight to the PMC. So when a community votes, and that community isn't all on the PMC, then you have a vote which is legally not binding, although totally respected by the community, which becomes a legally-binding vote when the PMC is informed, and the PMC acknowledges it. So while the argument that a vote of committers is not binding legally, it is socially binding, and it becomes a binding legal vote when the PMC approves it, as the PMC is in effect voting by proxy, respecting the decision of the community. That actually is no different than the board representing the wishes of the ASF membership. What we are thus solving is not a community issue, but a legal one. Bringing as many informed, interested people as possible onto the PMC increases oversight, increases communication between the subprojects, and IMO, strengthens community. Right now, we couldn't make a clear case that we have enough PMC representation for all the codebases. I'm assuming the source of this idea of yours was the conversation we had on the PMC list about grandfathering in every committer. While suggesting it originally as I too thought it would be the fast approach to the desired solution, I no longer support the idea of doing it in a blanket maneuver, and here's why : 1) Being on the PMC does imply responsibility. Some people are not interested in that responsibility and just want to commit. I think that should be allowed. Not encouraged, but allowed. 2) Roping everyone into the PMC without ensuring things like CLA and understanding of responsibilities makes the whole thing a farce - we couldn't demonstrate that the chain of oversight from the board to the sub-projects is clear and manageable, because we have no clue who we just asked to represent the ASF in project governance, nor do we have any indication of their interest. Thus, while painful and work intensive, adding people one by one lets us produce a healthy, active PMC rather than simply a redefinition of terms. I hope you can see what I'm trying to say, and hoping you want to help out on the 'work intensive' part :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were
On Dec 24, 2003, at 12:11 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: Ted, I think we must focus on what we agree on - it seems nobody is against expanding the PMC to include most committers ( or all active committers who don't decline ). I'm not sure I understand Geir's current position, but I think he still agrees we need to include most people. I don't think anyone can argue for excluding some active committers - I'm ok with a wait period ( i.e people who have been active committers for at least N months ), but it has to be a deterministic process. My current position hasn't changed. We should try to include 100% of Jakarta committers, but recognize that we won't find that number who are willing to assume the oversight responsibility of being on the PMC. This isn't surprising, and is what other projects like httpd experience as well. And I agree, it must be a deterministic process - not a sweep. In addition to that, there are other things we need to do - like making sure we have clearly identified people who will prepare the reports for each codebase ( be it moderators, release managers, rotation, drafts or whatever a project wants to do - as long as the result is 2-3 names and a monthly report ). We also need to clearly identify what the board means by "oversight" ( to be honest - I don't know, I just have a vague idea, haven't seen any official definition :-). Since this "oversight" is motivated by legal concerns - I think we need a definition understandable by everyone, not just guesses. But doing it all at once is very unlikely to work - with all the strong opinions around jakarta. Divide and conquer - first step is to grow the PMC - IMO you need to simplify your PROPOSAL to make it focused to one point ( instead of solving more problems at once ), and move to VOTE. I don't understand why he's going about it this way. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were
Exactly - lets not overdo this with too much process. Lets just get people who have genuine interest onto the PMC, covering the project(s) they work on, and then keep growing. geir On Dec 24, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: Post a list of projects and get PMC people to volunteer to post reports, chase up CLAs and improve PMC-to-non-PMC ratio, and record who has volunteered. Keep going until all projects are covered by the minimum number, which can be 1 to start with. Hen On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: (Again, sorry about the quoting.) o·ver·sight 1. An unintentional omission or mistake. 2. Watchful care or management; supervision <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oversight> The board expects PMCs to exercise (2) so as to avoid (1). :) For a PMC this boils down to issues of "committer consensus" and "intellectual property". In the past, there have been incidents at Jakarta on both counts that lead to suspension of access, for both individuals and modules (on different occasions). IMHO, if we were to * require subprojects to file regular reports with bullets regarding consensus and oversight, and * subscribe all committers to the PMC list where these reports are filed then we'd be able to defuse these happenstances before they turn into incidents. IMHO, the one and only set of individuals that can provide "watchful care" over a codebase is the set of committers we already have for each subproject. IMHO, each and every committer to a Jakarta subproject has already passed through a gauntlet that proves they are PMC material and entitled to binding votes. All we need to do is complete the process that promotes our committers to PMC members with binding votes, as our original guidelines contemplated, and require subprojects to provide regular status reports. (Just as the board requires our project to report.) As both Roy and Greg have said, if the Jakarta committers truly understood how few rights and privileges they have, they would be demanding both ASF and PMC membership. Few do, so few have. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scalability and oversight (Was: Just in case you're curious)
On Dec 27, 2003, at 1:39 PM, Santiago Gala wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El lunes, 22 dici, 2003, a las 16:32 Europe/Madrid, Geir Magnusson Jr. escribió: You are free to do what you want. Is this then about personal google hitcount? To the risk of re-starting a extinguishing discussion, I think google (or any outsider looking) plays an important role here, but not in the "personal hitcount" sense. I'll simply note that as you didn't quote what I was responding to, some readers unfamiliar with the thread might incorrectly assume that this was about an effort to keep this from being an open discussion. No one wanted to keep this from being an open discussion. It was first suggested by Peter a while ago, and I think everyone was in agreement. The issue was trying to get some organization and planning around a complicated subject before bringing it public. I think openness of product *and* process is the only thing that makes us scalable and fault-tolerant, when comparing Apache with more traditional organizations. I fully support openness, but I'll also note that a bit of organization and planning go a long way. And there are plenty of traditional closed organizations that do just fine due to planning and organization, such as IBM and Microsoft. Scalable because big groups of people can coordinate, even if they don't give specific input or they were not "there" while the decision was taken. Yep, all helped by a bit of planning and organization. Fault tolerant because the public audit trail left in CVS and mailing lists makes it easy for third party observers (or interested parties) to spot any error in oversight. Yep, all helped by a bit of planning and organization. Note that 'CVS' and 'mailing lists' are two examples of planning and organization. If we go to the "cathedral versus bazaar" metaphor, nothing beyond a small group conversation remains private in the bazaar. So, if some merchant down there is "selling" cheaper, notice propagates fast. Same if some merchandise is faulted. Maybe. I'll note that the most successful OSS projects I've seen also had a strong individual or group of individuals that helped via (you can guess what's coming...), "...a bit of planning and organization". Apache httpd, linux, emacs, hibernate, mysql, the list goes on... Same w/ Jakarta. There have always been a strong group of people guiding the sub-projects and the project overall. What we are trying to do now is increase that group, or better, recognize those that are doing it already, and conforming to legal structure needed by the ASF. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in the hope the board will stop hassling us. The board isn't "hassling". They have valid concerns that they know we are working on, and they are even helping. This doesn't mean we are out of the woods by any means, but we're not being "hassled". This could be because this is the consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it. Background info: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges Stephen PROPOSAL The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top Level Project (TLP) status. It shall do this by - drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings - explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a subproject's rights - documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs - produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP - clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation - proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists - setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be those of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, with the exact list to be determined by the dev list. -1 from me I fully support and respect sup-projects deciding on their own to leave Jakarta and be a TLP if they feel it's better for their community and code, but I see no reason for the PMC to make it their purpose on life to encourage them. Seems rather pointless. You might as well just disband Jakarta and save everyone time. geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote: * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and No, it doesn't. We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but it's not required to be all. We can also have people that aren't committers on the PMC. * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this. If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to the "As it ever were" proposal under another thread. Let's see if we can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that works. IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to let it. I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works. I think we all know it does. I think we disagree what the "ASF Way" is - I think it simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, namely project direction and oversight. Thus, the PMC does not necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules and reporting content and format. I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the day-to-day PMC process. Until we achieve the former, the latter is somewhat of a intellectual game. As you like to point out, we all are adults working for the best interest of the organization. Please work with us on this. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir, I agree with everything that you said, except one. You have the idea that when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens you. In the above sentence, there is one correct statement : ".. when a project moves to TLP status, it leaves Jakarta." (this is a correct and true statement) and one sort-of correct statement : "... and that saddens you." As it's bitter-sweet - it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving a friend after a visit. What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door. You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to reassure you that it wasn't going far. I was 100% supportive of logging going, and hope to see it prosper. However, it did go. :) Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case. If you want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a monolothic PMC. Jakarta will always have a PMC. Unless the board changes the Jakarta PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and communications of Jakarta. We may allow other Apache projects to have links and resources on our website, for example, but as it is the Jakarta PMC legally required to oversee such resources and activities, it's entirely up to us. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote: +1 I agree that interested volunteers should: * setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work together? I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on this. * give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists. My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of the subprojects of the latest developments. What 'developments'? We are discussing things here on general@, and as far as I can see, we have no developments yet. Ted, you seem to be in a terrible hurry to push this through. Can you wait until people come back from the holiday break and read and catch up? the point of doing things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing something through during a generally world-wide western holiday. I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal <http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi? JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication>, and setup a draft TLP resolution. I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. ) Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person from each project on the PMC send to their community. It would be a good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different thread, namely increased participation. Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised. LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each sub-project. Let others join in this... -Ted. - Original message > From: Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 + Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in favour of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought I'd place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)
more faith in Jakarta than they do now. And thats because it changes nothing of significance. It changes everything. It turns Jakarta from a place that is supposedly governed by an "other wordly elite" to a place that practice "minimum threshold meritocracy" -- both socially and legally. Today our social order is out-of-synch with our legal status. This proposal legalizes what already happens in practice. * It provides a forum where ALL the decision makers can discuss oversight (not just a chosen few). AND, * It puts reporting in the lap of the decision-makers for each product, which ensures it stays on the *decision-makers* radar, and is not pushed up to some body that cannot possible oversee our products. -Ted. --------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) geir On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Ted Husted wrote: On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote: * We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, that means *all* the committers, and No, it doesn't. We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but it's not required to be all. We can also have people that aren't committers on the PMC. * We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about consensus and oversight. Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this. If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to the "As it ever were" proposal under another thread. Let's see if we can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that works. IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to let it. I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works. I think we all know it does. I think we disagree what the "ASF Way" is - I think it simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, namely project direction and oversight. Thus, the PMC does not necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules and reporting content and format. I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the day-to-day PMC process. Until we achieve the former, the latter is somewhat of a intellectual game. As you like to point out, we all are adults working for the best interest of the organization. Please work with us on this. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door. To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in the next phase of their life. Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent. It's a good analogy, but makes the assumption that the Jakarta PMC will do for the sub-projects whatever is analogous to the care for children - washing, feeding and bed making. In fact (from my POV anyway), the Jakarta PMC has done no such thing in the past, and should do no such thing in the future. [Some proposals seem to want to enforce bed-making and ironing, but I don't think we should do that...] All we're trying to do is get the PMC populated w/ as many committers as possible, educated as to what oversight means, to satisfy the oversight requirements of the ASF.That's not something to take lightly, but it doesn't mandate additional process, control and procedure either. The board or ASF by-laws require no such scaffolding. Things will continue to be community-centered and decisions community-led. Sub-projects still govern their own activities. The PMC - composed of all the sub-projects - just makes those activities legal, in line w/ the oversight requirements of the ASF, and w/ proper education of the PMC members, helps catch problems. By becoming a TLP, a sub-project has changed nothing other than remove some antiquated-and-should-be-changed Jakarta charter restrictions, and removed itself from the larger community that is Jakarta. And yes, I recognize that people don't believe me about the last point. :) geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Indemnification of the PMC
No worries. I was just truly baffled. geir On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Ted Husted wrote: Mea culpa. I'm trying a new mail client and managed to press the wrong buttons. Sorry for the confusion. -Ted. - Original message > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:19:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Indemnification of the PMC Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going on? This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous case Stephen) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving a friend after a visit. I understand. And I understand why you view Jakarta that way. Why do you not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the subject of several discussions? I just don't think it will happen. It will be a website at best, and a bad website at worst. As an example, look at the difference between Jakarta Commons to Apache Commons. Jakarta will always have a PMC. Unless the board changes the Jakarta PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and communications of Jakarta. The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its "project." And it's website, the project websites, the mail lists and the usage of CVS. This implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active Committers to the Jakarta PMC. That's what we're trying to do. That is something the PMC could do, pro-actively, right now without further delay. Taking that action would mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general lists, improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities. But we've discussed this, and just glomming everyone wouldn't result in the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are explicitly signing up for project oversight, rather than being drafted to meet a quota. Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it a go. I can't see why not. The point of oversight is to catch the cases where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that shouldn't w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when things are going well. It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to seek TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of oversight and direct participation. So the question remains whether Jakarta should turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP status, they aren't "forced" to leave the community. I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of work. The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community versus Jakarta as a website. Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say. geir it's entirely up to us. Exactly. :-) --- Noel ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a vote ). And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence. Then you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about over-regulation... The PMC is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or more projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC is not supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a collective for the common good. Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered. geir --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:49 PM, Danny Angus wrote: -1 I don't think the PMC should be doing anything other than encouraging sub-projects to *consider* TLP at this stage. I don't even think they should do that. I don't think the PMC should take a position either way. I don't think there should be any communication that can even be confused as coming from the PMC. The proposal contains a number of detailed actions most of which I'd wholeheartedly support as they will help sub-projects to consider pro's and con's of promotion. However I think it is inappropriate to be talking about "proactively encouraging proposal then vote". I would much rather that individuals who are active participants in the sub-project reach this stage, or don't, without having being prompted by the PMC. For the record I think that many sub-projects would benefit from promotion, but not all of them, but I think the process would be made much harder is the sub-project is hustled into applying before the participants are really comfortable with the nature and consequences of the change. And I think that once we have the PMC enlarged with all active, interested committers, these kinds of discussions and awareness will be a natural, open thing, not requiring any special schemes or campaigns geir d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of work. Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member I have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of Jakarta this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And thats just plain wrong. We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key word is "directly". Think about it. How could this possibly work in ANY ASF project of any useful size? You couldn't do a Commons TLP (be it A-C or J-C) if every participant was directly and personally responsible for every shred of activity. Here is what the ASF bylaws say : "Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible" A reasonable person should *not* read this to mean the PMC chair is directly, actively responsible in that he or she must read every commit, watch ever mail list, and see every site and wiki change - rather he or she is able and required to organize the day-to-day management as he or she sees fit (subject to board approval) such that all code, site, mail and wiki's are covered by active, responsible oversight. In the event that the management does *not* do this, the chair is responsible, but that's a huge difference from the 'every shred' model. Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable, and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC. Isn't that reasonable? If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to leave the PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. Oversight is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed. "sign 'em up" is flawed, but not for the reason above (which I think is simply a misunderstanding on your part.) It's flawed because we can't assert that those tasked with oversight (of their projects) on behalf of the ASF as PMC member is doing their job is they didn't ask to do it and/or be trained to do it. I first floated the 'deputize them all' approach on the PMC list a while ago, and I'll be the first to say that I was wrong. The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community versus Jakarta as a website. The communities are the subprojects. And the subprojects together are also a community. I'm not the only one that recognizes this. Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say. Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't exist then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain more. In fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you see Jakarta in 3-6 months time. I'll be happy to do the latter. As for the former: A-C was a board invention, as you note, and I think a well-intentioned one. However, after 14 months, it has a single codebase (a http client written in C). J-C was a 'bottom-up' effort of multiple people in the Jakarta community from many *different* sub-projects that self-organized, debated independently (and incessantly) about the charter, presented the proposal to the PMC, had it approved and then rolled up their sleeves and got to work, with the resulting vibrant, productive community. The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion that Jakarta as a whole is also a community. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
I'll try to be brief. I agree w/ you - I don't want to have to watch ever project. I'm also not interested in endless debate. I'm also not interested in legislation, process or overbearing procedure. And I'm not interested in breaking up Jakarta. All I want to do is get CLAs signed and maximize participation on the PMC that covers all projects to satisfy the ASF oversight requirements. My only concern about Lucene (to use your example) is that the code that comes into the ASF's CVS is free from any problems of provenance, and that the releases are done with the support of the Lucene community, and I would be comfortable w/ that if I knew that the active participants of the Lucene community were on the PMC and understood what the PMC does. (Note that we are not advocating any layer of management separate from the codebase, and have not had that to date.) As I think that your view of your responsibilities as a PMC members is mistaken. I'll ask for a clarification of the responsibilities from someone outside of Jakarta w/ no stake in this debate. I too have no interest in being forced to be involved w/ any project other than those I choose to participate in. geir On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key word is "directly". As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry release, or a new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't care (especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated responsibility and my actual interests. This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care about the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one jot. Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right. All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that the PMC should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else leads to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). All the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which we do not need. These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members are given the choice: - debate/manage continuously and don't code, or - code and ignore the PMC I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the former. It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will win on the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue incesantly. Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable, and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC. Isn't that reasonable? No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as there is a PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with other responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People look after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They may be on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't. The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion that Jakarta as a whole is also a community. The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time machine) is whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not existed. ie. Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java code. You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, however I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred without Jakarta. Stephen --------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)
ld suggest that there is nothing in this proposal that will cause the board members to have any more faith in Jakarta than they do now. And thats because it changes nothing of significance. It changes everything. It turns Jakarta from a place that is supposedly governed by an "other wordly elite" to a place that practice "minimum threshold meritocracy" -- both socially and legally. Today our social order is out-of-synch with our legal status. This proposal legalizes what already happens in practice. * It provides a forum where ALL the decision makers can discuss oversight (not just a chosen few). AND, * It puts reporting in the lap of the decision-makers for each product, which ensures it stays on the *decision-makers* radar, and is not pushed up to some body that cannot possible oversee our products. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] || | Magic by Merlin| | Production by Avalon | || | http://avalon.apache.org/merlin| | http://dpml.net/ | |----| ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about over-regulation... LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either Costin or I live in the EU. I don't either. I live in Connecticut, USA. I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs said the total trip was too long. The whole thing is something like an hour. :/ You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a restaurant under EU regs. They must keep them cold until being served. Ug. The PMC is supposed to be performing "the active management of one or more projects", not ensuring that other people are doing it. The PMC is not supposed to be a body of auditors. I see your analogy as describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a collective for the common good. Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered. As I've said, let's do it. Get them on. And then see which projects decide to form their own PMC. The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a sense of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC. True. geir --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
On Dec 29, 2003, at 10:17 AM, Ted Husted wrote: - Original message > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management (i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered. All active committers should be "interested" or else they wouldn't be active committers. Please - interested in participating on the PMC. Oversight is not some "otherwordly" task to be conducted by an elite subset of our committers. IP oversight is something *every* decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they commit a line of code. Consensus oversight is something *every* decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they post to the DEV list. If committers aren't thinking about this now, it's only because they have no reporting requirements to remind them. Ted, we all agree. Our community has already decided who its decision-makers should be: the committers. The Jakarta PMC doesn't need to second-guess the Jakarta community. We simply need to ratify the choices the community, in its wisdom, has already made. Moving forward, we may want to distinguish between "newbie" committers and the "silver-haired" PMC members. But, as it stands, when each of these committers were selected, they were selected to be *the* decision-makers. They were selected to do what the PMC does: actively manage the codebase. We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. I never understand why you keep doing this. There is no 'schism' between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it. I hate to "appeal to authority" because the ASF charter does provide a healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate for that person. Committing != oversight. There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on the PMC. We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, weakens the PMC. There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that person. 100% should be the goal, not the requirement. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
+1! On Dec 29, 2003, at 6:01 PM, Danny Angus wrote: We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 I totally agree, and I would hope that no one seriously holds any other view. Concern about oversight has been flagged as an issue for us to address and we are duty bound to explore the ways in which we can achieve this. I would hope that by debating the issue we are bringing it to the wider attention of our community, and disseminating fact and opinion (perhaps, indeed, for a third or fourth time) which will help to inform the actions of every commiter and PMC member and bring us closer to our goal without any radical or authoritarian steps being required. Frankly I would regard either step as being at best a partial failure, and at worst potentially more damaging to the community than any failure to _quickly_ resolve the situation. I still believe that by continuing to have an open debate we are making progress, and I hope that others can see how frank and honest examination of the various opinions and potential directions is in itself vital to bind and re-unify the project and engage the whole community in shaping our mutual future. At the end of the day (Oh I hate it when I say that!) the most important asset we have is each other, and we have nothing to keep us here apart from the attraction of a healthy community, it is not bylaws or oversight or promotion that should be the focus of our efforts to restore some balance, rather it should be the community, and through the actions of a united community we will achieve the technical requirements of procedure and oversight in much the same way that a healty community will produce high quality software with very little management effort required. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
we have a committer that does not accept these obligations, then a misunderstanding has occurred, and such committers should step down. The ASF does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand that. In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members, because its the committers make the decisions and do the work. It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member of the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits will be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a committer also makes them a member. When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they were the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, the Jakarta PMC. In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the PMC is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of the codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: give the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always believed they already had. Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that we have ever had. Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They have all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible self-starters capable of managing our codebase on the community's behalf. These are the individuals that have been creating, maintaining and releasing the products we all cherish. These are the individuals that have been doing the true work of the PMC. Where things have gone wrong, they have gone wrong because we were still using a "bootstrap" PMC that excluded all but a few of our decision makers. I'm sure that there are Jakarta committers that would be unwilling to serve on a "bootstrap" PMC, but serving on a true, inclusive PMC may be a different matter. Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the "bootstrap" PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. But 'nuff said, I have a release to co-manage :) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just in case you're curious
On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:53 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Everything is back on the private list again. Odd to discuss including more people in the PMC while excluding them from the discussion. Oh, quit it. Discussing individual people should be done in private to let people speak freely and avoid potential embarassment of those being discussed. geir -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Project Proposal
On Jan 8, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Chad Meadows wrote: Hi Danny, After reading some replies and further review, I am going to attempt to get this project hosted on IBM's developerworks Open Source site first. Once we can then establish a community of interest, then at that later time it may be better to evaluate this project as a potential member of Jakarta. When the project does become available, I will inform everyone on this list. That's a great approach, IMO. And as for the velocity bits, please come over to velocity-land and discuss with us. If appropriate for general use, we should talk. geir Thanks, Chad Meadows, Software Engineer Research Triangle Park T/L 526-2894 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/08/2004 04:11 AM Please respond to "Jakarta General List" To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: New Project Proposal Chad, > I am an IBM employee who has developed a new type of framework Please first read:http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html also readhttp://incubator.apache.org/ You might consider approching the incubator project (subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I would certainly suggest it as the best next step for you. You might consider contributing this to jakarta-commons. Alternatively you might also consider approaching one of the existing Jakarta sub-projects if you believe that there might be benefit in creating a joint project combining the two things, or even of simply donating and joining an existing sub-project. Jakarta has a high bar for entry of new sub-projects, higher still since we have been encouraged by the ASF board to "flatten" the structure of Apache. This doesn't mean that we are unable or unwilling to consider new sub-projects but it does mean that we might have to work hard to justify it. One final word of advice, Apache is not sourceforge, and whilst we do welcome new projects it will require you to convince people of its worth and you would do well to find someone who can champion your cause and do some evangelising on your behalf. d. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and 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 Limi! ted. 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] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list If you are nominated and not elected people would know. Otherwise, there is privacy. I do agree that when the results are known they could and should be published. Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but choose not to accept? I don't think so. We want *everyone* to accept. Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a [RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the results]. Yes - once we get the list complete (based on acceptance)... Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Differences
On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Ted Husted wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:00:31 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a good place to ask (its more of an administrative list). You'd be better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably send you links to their website). Generally these messages devolve into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in fact) so asking them all in a room together "what's the difference" is well...often not pretty. Actually, this used to be the place where people could ask questions like this, and chat about everything under the Java sun. A while back, we co-opted the General list for use as the PMC public list. And subscribes to General have been falling every since. Less than a third of what they once were. Perhaps once most of the Committers are on the PMC list, we can move the administrative nonsense there again, and let the General list be the General list again :) +1 -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache License 2.0 came into effect
On Jan 28, 2004, at 9:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If all licenses must be updated by March 1st 2004, you'd better get us some "using" instructions really quickly, e.g. what goes in Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] for all our existing code? Will someone need to look up the original author and all updaters in CVS? Why? The Apache Software Foundation is the copyright owner for any and all code in ASF CVSs and projects. geir -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 24/01/2004 12:01:01 PM: Hello, Jakarta-Folks, Just a note (but very important) ++ brief summary ++ The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/. The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to the new license by March 1st, 2004. Please watch this space for further instructions on how to "use" the new license. - ++ description ++ The 2.0 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF (The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0) in 2004. The goals of this license revision have been to reduce the number of frequently asked questions, to allow the license to be reusable without modification by any project (including non-ASF projects), to allow the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file, to clarify the license on submission of contributions, to require a patent license on contributions that necessarily infringe the contributor's own patents, and to move comments regarding Apache and other inherited attribution notices to a location outside the license terms (the NOTICE file [1]). The result is a license that is compatible with other open source licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations. All packages produced by the ASF will be implicitly licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0, unless otherwise explicitly stated. For more information, see Apache Licenses Page [2] [1] - http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt [2] - http://www.apache.org/licenses/ - You can also read this above from here: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/elsewhere.html#20040121.1 Sincerely, - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache License 2.0 came into effect
On Jan 28, 2004, at 10:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/01/2004 02:02:05 AM: The ASF is the copyright holder.. Not exclusively. The original author also retains copyright to any works as well, AFAIK. That is technically correct, but irrelevant here. When you take a file and grant ASF copyright to it, the copy that is granted is totally under the control of the ASF. The original author has no further rights to the ASF copy other than those granted by the ASL. Of course, the author still owns the copyright on the original, and can do with it what he/she pleases, including putting under a different license, making closed source, etc. This is really important because it makes ownership of the ASF-distributed software clear - it's the ASF, and ASF only. So we can upgrade the license of all ASF code w/o consulting the original author(s). geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CLAs : Deadline is March 1, 2004 to avoid suspension of commit privs
Jakarta Committers, The March 1 CLA deadline for CLAs is approaching quickly. As you are aware, all committers working on Apache Software Foundation projects are required to have a CLA filed with the ASF. This document clearly defines the terms under which intellectual property has been contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future time. Every committer is responsible for ensuring a CLA is on file with the ASF by March 1, 2004. Any committer that does not have a CLA on file will have their committer privs suspended. To check to see if one is on file for you, please look here : http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html If your name is *not* in italics, there is no CLA on file. f you are not listed as having a CLA on file, read about it and get one : http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas and follow the instructions. It's really easy. Please direct all questions and problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the public list if you don't mind public discussion of your situation. We will do what we can to help resolve any issues that arise. Silence on this issue isn't an option. The ASF is working to tie up any IP-related loose-ends, and this is an important one - they will suspend commit privs. Thanks geir, writing on behalf of the Jakarta PMC -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HiveMind] There's that grant!
On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote: I guess this is as much of a notification as we get? In any case, the grant appears to have been recorded. Fabulous. Since I believe that your intention is to make it a Jakarta sub-project, the Jakarta PMC should vote to accept or reject it's addition to Jakarta. If you agree, then we should probably do this first, and assuming success, approach Incubator with the project and the wish of Jakarta to host the project once it passes all incubator requirements. Comments? geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: news reorganization
On Feb 24, 2004, at 5:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: i've just committed the reorganization i proposed last week. i've moved all the news documents into the news subdirectory and all now have date-related names (so no renaming should be necessary and therefore the urls will be permanent). the html versions of the old pages now redirect to the new ones. i'm considering adding some other redirects into the .htaccess file. That's great. Any support for moving the link to Martin's page up, have a separate section above news "In memoriam" or like? -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chairmen..
On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Danny Angus wrote: If its not too patronising of me I'd like to propose vote of thanks to Sam as outgoing chair, Sam, I know you've been more involved elsewhere lately, but from a personal point of view I've learned to respect and appreciate the low-key, mature and consensus building way in which you have steered Jakarta through a period of great change. You have worked hard to ensure that allegations of conservatism couldn't be levelled at Jakarta, and have sucessfully encouraged project after project to grow up and follow their own star. If more of us were more like you we'd've achieved so much more by now. Thanks its appreciated. Thanks Sam, for everything that you've done. And thanks for sticking around :) On a related note, welcome Geir, I'm sure you can count on us to continue to be a bunch of cranky opinionated blowhards who couldn't reach a real decision if our lives depended upon it. :-) I'm counting on it! geir d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiki Migration
On Feb 26, 2004, at 8:38 PM, Scott Eade wrote: According to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?MigrateFromThisWiki and http://wiki.apache.org/general/UseModMigration we eventually need to migrate the existing Usemod wiki content over to the new MoinMoin wiki. For jakarta I would imagine that we will want a subwiki per subproject. I would like to migrate the turbine project pages across as a subwiki called turbine under a Jakarta heading (with change diffs going to the turbine-dev mailing list). I am only volunteering to migrate the turbine project pages, but if others want to put their hands up for other subprojects then perhaps a single request to infrastructure could be used to request multiple subwikis. As I understand it there needs to be a consensus in the jakarta PMC that this is the way forward before a request can be made to infrastructure to create any subwikis. Do any PMC members object to this approach? Does this mean we can have ./jakarta ./jakarta/turbine ./jakarta/whatever Where turbine and whatever are distinct and separate, not just parts of /jakarta? geir Thanks, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiki Migration
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:31 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote: What about non-project related wiki content like the following, where would that go in the new wiki? http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?GettingInvloved http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ToolChest http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IrcChannels I'd like for us to have a general Jakarta wiki for the whole community geir -Mark Henri Yandell wrote: Sounds good to me, I think Commons can work fine as a single Wiki. Continues to allow for interesting inter-component relations. Taglibs also fits well as a single Wiki. +1 (PMC) I'm unsure if either have a wiki, but am prepared to learn the necessaries to migrate if need be. Hen On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Scott Eade wrote: According to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?MigrateFromThisWiki and http://wiki.apache.org/general/UseModMigration we eventually need to migrate the existing Usemod wiki content over to the new MoinMoin wiki. For jakarta I would imagine that we will want a subwiki per subproject. I would like to migrate the turbine project pages across as a subwiki called turbine under a Jakarta heading (with change diffs going to the turbine-dev mailing list). I am only volunteering to migrate the turbine project pages, but if others want to put their hands up for other subprojects then perhaps a single request to infrastructure could be used to request multiple subwikis. As I understand it there needs to be a consensus in the jakarta PMC that this is the way forward before a request can be made to infrastructure to create any subwikis. Do any PMC members object to this approach? Thanks, Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au - 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] -- Mark Diggory Software Developer Harvard MIT Data Center http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiki Migration
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Scott Eade wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: What about non-project related wiki content like the following, where would that go in the new wiki? http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?GettingInvloved http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ToolChest http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IrcChannels If the PMC is agreeable the Jakarta heading (I see it is there now with a jakarta-cactus subwiki) could itself be a subwiki to provide a place for these non-project documents (with change diffs emailed to this list). The Incubator and Logging projects seem to take this approach. That answers my first question. We can't structure the wiki's such as I was thinking before. +1 Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wiki Migration
On Feb 27, 2004, at 8:13 AM, Scott Eade wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: Does this mean we can have ./jakarta ./jakarta/turbine ./jakarta/whatever Where turbine and whatever are distinct and separate, not just parts of /jakarta? Not quite - the wiki urls would all be at the same level. Using separate wikis thus: ./jakarta ./turbine ./jakarta-commons has a few advantages: 1. Oversight can be improved by sending change diffs to the list most appropriate to the wiki concerned. 2. Potential migration of subprojects to top level projects could simplified (especially if we use, for example, "turbine" rather than "jakarta-turbine" as the name of the turbine wiki). 3. Separate wikis means independent namespaces for WikiWords. All if these could be solved if the design of the wiki system wasn't broken. The URL should be just that, the URL, and structure of the Wiki was distinct. IOW, it would be nice for separate wiki's to be able to be assembled any way we wanted. Including links between separate wikis is easily achieved through the use of InterWiki links. Would anyone like to comment on a preferred naming convention - i.e. "turbine" vs "jakarta-turbine" (I see we now have "jakarta-cactus" and "jakarta-tapestry"). I don't know if it is difficult to change the name of a wiki from say "jakarta-cactus" to just "cactus" if say cactus were to become a top level project in the future, so perhaps just "cactus" might have been a more future-proof choice. If we can do 'jakarta-cactus' until it's a TLP w/o much work to convert, that would probably be better... geir Scott -- Scott Eade Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. http://www.backstagetech.com.au --------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: questions license for site documents
On Feb 29, 2004, at 5:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: the generated html does not contain an explicit license just a copyright. am i right in thinking that now it would be better to publish them under the apache license 2? also, am i right in thinking that all the source documentation should have license notices added? Might as well make it explicit - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: entering jakarta
On Mar 3, 2004, at 7:24 AM, Paulo Simao wrote: Hi Folks I´m new in the group. I read all the docs in jakarta site, but I´m not sure about the process for donating code and starting a project. It would be very helpfull, if someone could give me a small guidance.'' If you have some contributions to make for an existing Jakarta sub-project, work with that community via the mail lists. If you have and idea about something new to start, you have two options. If appropriate to the Jakarta Commons, you might try to ignite a discussion about your ideas there. If it's larger and far enough along in development, the Apache Incubator would be a good place to discuss. geir Thank you all for the attention. Paulo Simao _ MSN Messenger: converse com os seus amigos online. http://messenger.msn.com.br - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project
All Jakarta Community Members : Howard M. Lewis Ship, on behalf of the committers of the HiveMind project in the Jakarta Commons sandbox, has proposed HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project. The proposal was sent to this list, a copy of which can be found here : http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09244.html Please read the proposal and vote, and add any comments you deem appropriate. All Jakarta community members are encouraged to vote, although only the votes of the PMC members are legally binding as per the ASF*. [ ] +1 I support this proposal [ ] -1 I don't support this proposal [ ] 0 I abstain from voting for or against this proposal Comments : * If the bit about PMC members having binding votes bothers you, solve the problem by indicating interest in joining the PMC :) -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project
On Mar 3, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: All Jakarta Community Members : Howard M. Lewis Ship, on behalf of the committers of the HiveMind project in the Jakarta Commons sandbox, has proposed HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project. The proposal was sent to this list, a copy of which can be found here : http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09244.html Please read the proposal and vote, and add any comments you deem appropriate. All Jakarta community members are encouraged to vote, although only the votes of the PMC members are legally binding as per the ASF*. [X] +1 I support this proposal [ ] -1 I don't support this proposal [ ] 0 I abstain from voting for or against this proposal -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: news reorganization
On Mar 3, 2004, at 4:24 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 25 Feb 2004, at 13:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Feb 24, 2004, at 5:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: i've just committed the reorganization i proposed last week. i've moved all the news documents into the news subdirectory and all now have date-related names (so no renaming should be necessary and therefore the urls will be permanent). the html versions of the old pages now redirect to the new ones. i'm considering adding some other redirects into the .htaccess file. That's great. Any support for moving the link to Martin's page up, have a separate section above news "In memoriam" or like? done. Thanks. Very nice. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project
On Mar 3, 2004, at 6:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [X] +1 I support this proposal [ ] -1 I don't support this proposal [ ] 0 I abstain from voting for or against this proposal Comments : Are releases going to use HTTPD release numbering or the Jakarta method ? There is a jakarta method? -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
