On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
>
> In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
> community and continue to contribute. It has to be recorded by the
> secretary and reads like legal-ese I am trying for a h
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
> are placing it under control of an existing PMC.
Which, in effect, creates a new PMC around those code bases :)
> Plus, there is
> effectively no com
OK, next draft below. Some comments first:
On 11/29/15, 6:25 AM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>Alex,
>
>Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:
>
>a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.
>
>b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal
Alex,
Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:
a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.
b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
c) is there a need to mention disbanding the original community? Could
that be framed more positively as "We would love to have you come be
On 11/28/15, 6:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>>
>>>Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all
>contributors isn't a common case, and there are both legal and
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your answer. If the
>>> answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Harbs wrote:
> Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
> License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any
> question about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that
> contributed even if they don’
Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any question
about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that contributed even
if they don’t understand licenses (not very likely) will care. I
The code was originally on Google Code and has 26 people listed there.[1]
[1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/people/list
On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> 2) AS3Commons
>
> Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the
> contributors has already b
Alex
The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is
correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be applied
or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means or what
granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it o
On 11/27/15, 10:50 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
>Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to
>incorporate the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their
>contribution being licensed as ASL.
The code is already under AL. I think we want them to give permission to
m
Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to incorporate
the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their contribution being
licensed as ASL.
A simple email confirmation should be fine.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 12:40, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> Str
Pierre,
I don't understand your comment. Could you help clarify it?
A) was this sarcasm? If so, please indicate what you are being sarcastic about
and I will respond however you like. If this was just intended as snarky, no
need to clarify
B) do you think that there is a real issue here?
C)
Hi,
> Strange, my GH view showed 12.
That includes pull requests.
> And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or something else?
a) If they are OK to have the code donated to Apache b) have they signed an
ICLA for the project and if not would they be willing to sign an Apache one.
> And how many
The key question is whether the code winds up in an apache repo. If it is
downloaded during build, no problem. If you download it and check it in as
source then we need to cross t's and dot i's a bit.
The term bundling is not terribly precise.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:28
On 11/27/15, 3:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> 1) Swiz Framework.
>
>There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which
>have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?
Strange, my GH view showed 12. And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or
s
Hi,
> 1) Swiz Framework.
There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which have
ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?
> 2) AS3Commons
Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the contributors
has already been asked, woul
Alex wrote:
>sounds like PMCs are not empowrd to make a judgement call gere.
>Here are two cases:
Can anybody do the grunt work/due diligence in obtaining
permission/authorization/whatever for ASF clearence, or is that function limted
to current/former members of the community the cde originate
On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
>> answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue
>>working
>> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but unde
I guess, that is the difference between 'The Apache Way' and anyother
way
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> > Since you are
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
> answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks"
> as Ted said, then the PMC is empowere
Hi Jim,
In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
are placing it under control of an existing PMC. Plus, there is
effectively no community left. Nobody has made a change to these projects
in 4 years. A major contributor from each project has indicated their
desi
As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN
do and what we SHOULD do.
We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically,
and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what
we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by the
I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those projects is
close to zero.
Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them.
Harbs
On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
> >There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
> >license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
> >contributors understood that they were contri
On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
>license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
>contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
OK, so I think you are saying that we can
There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 A
If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and
signed it himself. no other contributors signed the SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
>
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-ou
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
> original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always
> assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
> ones under AL,
Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always
assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
one
Since the contributors were employed at Cloudera, they probably signed an
invention assignment. That means Cloudera can sign an SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Alex,
> > >
> > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that
> > >authors don’t want us to have. S
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
> wrote:
>
> >Alex,
> >
> >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that
> >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of
> >the authors on the incoming Kud
epartment
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Harui
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:14 AM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org&
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Harui
> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:46 AM
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>
> >
> >
> >O
-
From: Alex Harui
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:46 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>
>
>On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
> wrote:
>
On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
wrote:
>Alex,
>
>Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that
>authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of
>the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If
>it’s not the case, we go by th
++
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:14 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>
>
>On 11/22/15, 12:51 PM, "
On 11/22/15, 12:51 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
wrote:
>If they have code contributions part of
>this
>code base, that they don’t want included, they can state that. It was my
>understanding this code base was Apache License, version 2, beforehand,
>thus
>we have the ability to include and
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> Basing the "diversity" on affiliaiton (or any other arbitrary property) is
> quite bogus - I am with you and Roy on this. All I want to make sure that
> people who contributed code and, perhaps, became inactive for a period of
> time
Hi Cos,
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Boudnik
Reply-To:
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 08:19PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Todd has answered this qu
+
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Boudnik
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 12:14 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>
> >My point exactly, thanks Henry!
> >
> >On Tue, No
:
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
>My point exactly, thanks Henry!
>
>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:51PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>> Hi Todd,
>>
>> One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for
>> project that already open source
My point exactly, thanks Henry!
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:51PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for
> project that already open source and accepting contributions from
> individuals which not part of initial committers is that it
merit is merit, why would the barrier for new committers be different here
than in any other project? If the ramp up and time to learn the projects
source is the barrier then it is on us to help make it easier through
documentation, clear project roadmap and entry level consumable tickets to
help t
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Saputra
wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for
> project that already open source and accepting contributions from
> individuals which not part of initial committers is that it needs to
> get the consent or g
Hi Todd,
One concern, other IPMCs could help correct me if I am wrong, for
project that already open source and accepting contributions from
individuals which not part of initial committers is that it needs to
get the consent or grant from those contributors when moving to ASF.
Unless, the individ
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Luke Han wrote:
> In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies
> have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio,
> and said there are contributions from them.
>
> I think their engineers are more interesting and be involved
>
In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies
have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio,
and said there are contributions from them.
I think their engineers are more interesting and be involved
in Kudu actively, why not think about to invite them to be com
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik
> wrote:
> >
> > > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the
> > > contributors merely by the am
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the
> > contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed to the
> > project. Am I reading
And we'd be pleased to hear your advice over on our [DISCUSS] thread :)
On 17 November 2015 at 16:59, Henry Saputra wrote:
> You were trying to comment on Impala proposal =P
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wro
You were trying to comment on Impala proposal =P
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
>> I agree that this prospective podling is going to have a lot o
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> I agree that this prospective podling is going to have a lot of work
> to do, and I think that a more diverse Mentor corps is badly needed.
> But those are separate issues.
Bah
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> > For now, I think "meritocracy" should be followed -- when contributors
> > demonstrate sufficient merit, we can add them as committers. Note that
> > there are plenty of my coworkers who have made small contributions in the
> > past
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the
> contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed to the
> project. Am I reading this right?
We've had this debate about committer cattle call add
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:33PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi Atri,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the interest! Following the example of other recent incubator
> > > projects, we would like to keep the initial committer list to those who
> > are
> > > already have a track record of contributions to
>
>
> > Hi Atri,
> >
> > Thanks for the interest! Following the example of other recent incubator
> > projects, we would like to keep the initial committer list to those who
> are
> > already have a track record of contributions to the project. We'd love to
> > have you involved as a contributor du
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:43AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
>
> > Sounds great.
> >
> > I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be
> > fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big data
> > projects to
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Atri Sharma wrote:
> Sounds great.
>
> I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be
> fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big data
> projects to accelerate so Kudu's growth is something I would care about.
>
Hi
Sounds great.
I would love to be an help as a committer, if possible. This seems to be
fantastic in line with my focus areas and can help existing big data
projects to accelerate so Kudu's growth is something I would care about.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
Hi all,
We'd like to start a discussion proposing the submission of Kudu to the
Apache Incubator.
The proposal is available on the Wiki here:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KuduProposal
and pasted in this email for easy quoting during discussion.
Looking forward to hearing feedback!
-Todd
--
62 matches
Mail list logo
