Let's run down the checklist and make sure our ducks are all in a
row. I have a good feeling about it =)
-Brian
On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Folks, especially you ActiveMQ Mentors out there...
I feel that ActiveMQ is ready if incubator graduation. For the loo
Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks, especially you ActiveMQ Mentors out there...
>>
>> I feel that ActiveMQ is ready if incubator graduation. For the looks
>> of the Status report and the health of our community I think we are
>> overdue! Mentors, do you thin
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I wonder if we're big enough to be a TLP. Thoughts?
(very big) +1 to TLP. We have plenty of folks to provide oversight,
and the scope is too big to fit well in any umbrella.
-Brian
(though its worth adding this is for the board to decide)
On 6/16/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
IMO ActiveMQ deserves TLP status.
--jason
On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:24 AM, James Strachan wrote:
> +1.
>
> On 6/15/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 15,
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
Regards,
Alan
ssues in your list of concerns
> >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> >>
> >
> >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> >
>
> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> concerns. Henri and
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> > >>that would prevent the graduation of Act
concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out
points on
the definition of umbrella proj
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
Regards
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of
Hi John,On 3/13/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:>>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/tru
Alan,
Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for
ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing
that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in
several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I
Hi Noel,
We've got a JIRA out there to create the PPMC lists:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-757
But perhaps it has fallen through the cracks. Should I ping the
infrastructure mailing lists about this issue? Any help with this
would be most appreciated!
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/13/06
On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure!
> But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
> poddling from graduation from the incubator.
Well, I do. At
On 13 Mar 2006, at 17:27, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF
infrastructure!
But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
poddling from graduation fr
in the ASF infrastructure!
> > But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
> > poddling from graduation from the incubator.
>
> Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all
> resources on ASF-standard resources or I will
member that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to
be mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify
due
ng pains,
because
projects are already here, and lack the resources.
I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
graduation. A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close
se to
graduation.
'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
Noel's opinion that
If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
the new rules would only apply to "projects close to
think it appled to them, since they are so close to
graduation.
'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
Noel's opinion that
If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
> the home fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Official policy documents would be really nice, especially
> considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would
> hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator.
Yup. Policy still evolving, though
Sam Ruby wrote:
What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a
precondition being placed on where they land.
A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process,
and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with
lots of abandoned projec
rule, so I
>>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>>> graduation.
>>
>>
>> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
>> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
>>
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
simply use the Geronimo pmc since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James
> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken C
community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
> is supposed merging communities with another.
You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
> Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that
not appropriate for a project that has an
existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
is supposed merging communities with another.
You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
I think a podli
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
> > (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
> That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
Not at this time. We're still dis
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly
> given Noel's opinion that [...]
Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may
not
> > That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
> Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST
> will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just
went back and found that
are just that:
Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation"
were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the
same thing.
It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that
a project could use another PMC for its P
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
And should have been on general@incubator.apache.org, not [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate
question of neti
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread
> here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for
> imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better
> import tool.
Please kee
from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding
Yoko that
"this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just
that:
Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at
graduation"
were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe
that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
separately
releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE
server,
and would do better as
On 3/14/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
> Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
Only the Board can approve a new TLP. If the Board does not approve a
podling as a TLP, the Incubator PMC is then responsibl
Noel,
I see this as a big source of my frustration, and I hope we can do
something about this. From the perspective of anyone in an
incubating project, you represent the incubator. So when you express
"just your opinion" it very difficult if not impossible for someone
to see the distinc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
be' statement. Right? :-)
> What makes a project wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
> communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
> they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
> where we do all of th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
>
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
> at this time, and in no way a 'dis
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
Which part of "Personally, I believe" wasn't clear? ;-)
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella
> > is a gray area.
> I've posted
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...snip good stuff..
> Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
>...snip good stuff..
Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
'
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
> community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
> The vision was to
On 3/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...snip good stuff..
> > Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> > Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
> >...snip good stuff..
>
James Strachan wrote:
> What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
> > (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
> > they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
> > from the Foundation/Board's pe
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal
eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
that
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> long way
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
> If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
> on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
> goal eventually.
> We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
> the past two p
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
James Strachan wrote:
What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand ho
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to
't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation.
unluckily came at the perfect time to reinforce the wrong message.
> Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do?
It absolutely is.
> Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to
see a
nu
+1
I couldn't have said it better myself.
-dain
On Mar 15, 2006, at 4:27 PM, David Blevins wrote:
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
goal eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs
Let's continue this discussion on dev list
--- Begin Message ---
It may be time to consider it.
The community is growing and diverse ...
I don't see any issues left.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
--- End Message ---
On 3/14/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let's continue this discussion on dev list
-- Forwarded message --
From: Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:08:37 +0100
Subject: What do people think
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
It may be time to consider it.
The community is growing and diverse ...
I don't see any issues left.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Do you guys think we should be a TLP?
Regards,
Alan
On 3/15/07, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> It may be time to consider it.
> The community is growing and diverse ...
> I don't see any issues left.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Do you guys think we should be a TLP?
That's a
Yeah, give the current size of the project, it would not make
any sense to me to be a subproject. And users / dev community
are big enough to warrant a TLP imho.
On 3/16/07, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> It may be time to co
ood idea to me.
>
> Do you guys think we should be a TLP?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-Fwd%3A-What-do-people-think-about-graduationtf3404120s12049.html#a9510113
Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I would agree that due to its size and complexity that a TLP makes sense :)
On 3/17/07, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree on both counts. I think ServiceMix is ready for graduation and I
think a TLP would be most appropriate.
alex
On 3/16/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL
I would like to see SMX as a TLP.
On 3/16/07, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> It may be time to consider it.
> The community is growing and diverse ...
> I don't see any issues left.
Seems like a good idea to me.
Do you guys
Yes!
We should present a fully formed resolution, based on the OFBiz thread.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
I think this project is like the 40 year old virgin still living at
home with his parents. lol! Don't you think it's about time we get
the ball rolling on g
Want to take the lead on that? :) please!
On 11/15/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes!
We should present a fully formed resolution, based on the OFBiz thread.
-Brian
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I think this project is like the 40 year old virgin sti
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Want to take the lead on that? :) please!
Sure. Any nominations for proposed PMC Chair?
-Brian
On 11/15/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes!
We should present a fully formed resolution, based on the OFBiz
thread.
-Br
Why don't we get the ball rolling on graduation and IF they choose to
make us a TLP, then we start looking into that??
On 11/15/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Want to take the lead on that? :) please!
Sure. A
71 matches
Mail list logo
