I hope that the policies, procedures, responsibilities, and
ultimate accountabilities, will have a tangible and net-
positive impact on the overall development of the Apache Community.
:-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
Stipe Tolj wrote:
no good, alas; i'll be on the road driving to another town at that point.
i *should* be back within a couple of hours, though. :-/
Ken,
please find the #kannel IRC channel log of the debate at
http://www.kannel.org/irc-sessions/
from last friday and today.
People have
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
snipped-release-plan/
this sounds to me like a very good plan. thank you!
+1 :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
Ted Leung wrote:
On 9/22/2003 4:50 PM, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
From: Rodent of Unusual Size
what's the role of the incubator pmc in this? at the least, it's a set
of passionate asf people who are essentially in agreement about what
makes something a genuine 'apache'-style project, who review
Ted Leung wrote:
I don't know if we want to tackle this at the same time as Steven's
document on entering the incubator, but at the moment Im more focused
on how to get podlings out of the incubator rather than getting them in.
A while ago I proposed some exit criteria for XML beans -- I
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Roy,
Please note that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list is suffering the same disease.
I said this before at that mailing list. Noone responded.
It (nonfeasance) really humiliated me.
I'm the moderator there, and I didn't see your mail.
I apologise for missing it, it was not
From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that Berin and I are aiming at the same objective and have very
similar motives. I happen to think that we can leverage and utilize the
contribution of Berin's process by analysing his concers and underlying
interests and drawing from
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Thus you have the shepherd appointed by the sponsor PMC, but being
bound by the Incubator PMC
rules and regs. (And I would imagine the incubator
would need to agree the choice.)
Which does not work in practice (with respect to current policy).
The Icubator PMC has been
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Engagement by the XMLbeans community with the XML PMC and other ASF
sub communities, particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my
personal bias that projects should pay an infrastructure tax).
Incubator PMC has voted for graduation
XML PMC has voted for final
Steven Noels wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Engagement by the XMLbeans community with the XML PMC and other ASF
sub communities, particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my
personal bias that projects should pay an infrastructure tax).
Incubator PMC has voted for graduation
XML PMC
Steven Noels wrote:
Do I read you correct in saying that the receiving PMC has no chance
anymore to declare an incubation failed, if the Incubator PMC says the
contrary? In that case (and I hope I'm wrong), why is the receiving PMC
involved then?
I've put something slightly different into the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it *wants*
that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Maybe there were reservations that the PMC wanted to have covered off
during incubation. The best way to ensure that everyone is
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Exactly.
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it *wants*
that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Because of things happening during incubation. What if a podling becomes
a mutant during incubation, in the best case
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
The sponsoring PMC asks to have that project. This means that it
*wants* that project and that community. Why would it change its mind?
Maybe there were reservations that the PMC wanted to have covered off
during incubation.
Practical example?
Peoples,
Have done another update and tried to represent the results of the
various comments during the day. Have mainly tried to :
1) Re-emphaise the role of a Sponsor as an ongoing role. No particular
requirements in the process (other than initial recommendation), but
have stated that
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
An incubation needs someone that actively nutrures the community, pushes
the agenda and reports to the PMC of which he is part.
I call him the sponsor.
We also need someone that is knowlegable of how the Incubator works and
that reports to the Incubator PMC.
I call
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith targets,
but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of question.
Which may require a vote of the PMC in question to
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
If a project cannot work well with the Sponsor PMC it's a failure, the
Incubator will not agree to make it go. It may decide to swith
targets, but imposing a project on non-willing PMC is simply out of
question.
Which may require a vote of the
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
It's about having an elder shepherd mentoring the main shepherd, and
possibly requiring at least two people helping in Incubation.
What do others think about this?
Over-regulation.
/Steven
--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Would be great if you could have a read through the new version of
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings
Its looking good.
One point concerning the description of the Sponsoring Entity. I
currently includes a sub-heading Responsibilities
Question. Is there any issue with a link to XMLBeansProjectPages being on the Apache
Wiki home page? If so, would it go under the XMLProjectPages or under some new
IncubatorProjectPages?
thx,
rem
Is there any issue with a link to XMLBeansProjectPages being
on the Apache Wiki home page?
Go ahead and at it here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheIncubatorProjectPages.
That is linked off of the Wiki home page.
--- Noel
Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/09/2003 08:39:08
AM:
[snip]
As a committer on a (hopefully :-) mature Jakarta subproject (Struts), I
As a committer on top level and not top level projects:
think there's another dimension here. Can we articulate the advantages
of
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
You can call it the anti-big-company rule.
Diversity is good on the grounds that (a) no one company can control the
direction of an ASF project, and (b) the fate of one company doesn't dictate
the fate of the project.
But also that the fate of
while they are in the Incubator, they must ensure these releases are
clearly labeled as being incubator releases, which are not fully
endorsed by the ASF
Does this fit with what you had in mind?
Works for me. But you should make sure that it works for the Incubator PMC.
As I understand from
Tetsuya,
Most people just want to write code or discuss code. If you want articles,
I hate to say it, but you would generally lucky to get someone to send you
an e-mail about the latest interesting thing with their project, and you'd
have to edit it into something resembling an blurb.
From: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One point concerning the description of the Sponsoring Entity. I
currently includes a sub-heading Responsibilities of the Sponsoring
Entity. The content is basically describing responsibilities of the
Shepherd. It would read better if this
27 matches
Mail list logo
