Noel,
I think this email represents a good example of mixing official
communication of the incubator with your personal agenda to make
these top level projects. Emails like this lead to questions like,
is this required of all podlings or is this just a requirement
because Noel thinks
-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 with
-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? Or
-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 the
-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? Or
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
area.
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Andy Clark wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
A number of CLAs were recorded this morning. It appears, at first
glance, that we have most of the Zimbra folks, and a CCLA as well.
As an ASF Member, you can check the records (and should see commit
notices as they
On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
developers), so you are right: Roys's definition may be formally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Considering that both ActiveMQ and ServiceMix really ought to be
targeting TLP status, learning to do this is important.
That's a bit much, Noel. Where they end up is primarily
their own concern -- and not determined until
Hi,
Could somebody tell me how I can subscribe to the tsik-dev mailinglist.
On the project site of TSIK the mailinglist seems to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But when I send a subscribe-message to it, I get a failure notice saying
there is no mailbox by that name.
Can somebody give me some more
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/14/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm resurrecting the thread that fell off into /dev/null after
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200603.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
So this sentence in
(It looks like you were replying to everyone, not just me, so I've
added back the CC to the incubator list on this message).
Thanks for doing this!
I've created the lists. Please let me know if the commits are going to
the right place.
The status page looks ok to me, so please go ahead and
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/14/06, Jean T. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm resurrecting the thread that fell off into /dev/null after
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200603.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
So this sentence in
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 community, is
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm curious, how does one get into the Incubator PMC?
It's open to all members now with a simple ping - ack - short wait cycle.
All members interested in contributing to this effort are welcomed if
they
would help provide the mentoring and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
So, ASF corporate members can become members. That fits in with my
understanding as well since, IIUC, ASF corporate members can join any
PMC that they wish.
Correct. Although the 'ASF corporate member' is generally
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
So, ASF corporate members can become members. That fits in with my
understanding as well since, IIUC, ASF corporate members can join any
PMC that they wish.
That's not -quite- accurate. ASF Foundation members can read and chime
in on any PMC, as most internal
Alan,
There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
- The large # of committers who don't really commit
- The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
see a separate jar).
- The
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a concern about item 2. It has been my experience that the Incubator
PMC can be a bit tardy in replying to emails. May I suggest that the 72 hour
window starts w/ item 1? Given that, then item 2 seems superfluous.
Well, given
On 3/15/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a concern about item 2. It has been my experience that the Incubator
PMC can be a bit tardy in replying to emails. May I suggest that the 72 hour
window starts w/ item 1? Given that, then item 2 seems
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
So, ASF corporate members can become members. That fits in with my
understanding as well since, IIUC, ASF corporate members can join any
PMC that they wish.
Correct. Although the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm not complaining, just making an observation which may be incorrect.
No, your point was dead on. Which is why I expect very few if any new
Incubator PMC members to be brought in.
s/new Incubator PMC members/new non-ASF member,
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can extrapolate from past behavior on important podling votes. My
reservations are fair and based on past behavior.
No one other than an Incubator PMC member can acknowledge receipt of a
message intended for the Incubator PMC. The notice
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 *my*
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..
Jakarta and
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
robert burrell donkin wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
my first pass definition is quite different:
an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal
organization
Ken wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Considering that both ActiveMQ and ServiceMix really ought to be
targeting TLP status, learning to do this is important.
That's a bit much, Noel. Where they end up is primarily
their own concern -- and not determined until graduation
anyway.
Sorry for
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
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
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 to go before it's
Hi Noel,
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC. It
would behoove that PMC to include such active community participants
in the decision making
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 plus
On 3/15/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Noel,
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC. It
would behoove that PMC to include such
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alan,
There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
- The large # of committers who don't really commit
This is a perennial issue w/ incubation, IIRC. Do we give commit to all
original committers and take it away from inactive ones or do we go
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 how to practice
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 enumerate a list of
Hiram Chirino wrote:
If the ActiveMQ / ServiceMix community do decide to go under some
other TLP, I'm sure it would not take long for the active
participants of the community to asked to Join the TLP's PMC.
I would certainly hope that they would want to be, yes. Hence ...
I believe that
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to
convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that
the community really does get it regarding ASF principles
and practices.
There are a number of definitions for the word subjective.
An operational
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
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 are subjective, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I don't see any rush here.
I think your initial 'what do we need to work on in order
to eventually graduate?' message got interpreted by some
- -- probably myself included -- as a 'what are the last
items to check off so we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henri Yandell wrote:
Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the
PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even asking the
question.
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2006-02-05 04:40:19 -0500 (Sun, 05 Feb 2006) $]
Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/
Wiki page: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
[note: the Web site is the 'official' documentation; the
Hi Henri,
I think a good example of why not just a shoe in is because when the
ServiceMix and ActiveMQ apache commiter list was created, it included
all previous commiters to the project. But 100% of committers may not
have been active during the period of the incubation. All though the
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henri Yandell wrote:
Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates
into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the
PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do these really have to be Apache credits accumulated? Let's do a
hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of
his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the
project moves to ASF and
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
- The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone?
50 matches
Mail list logo
