Great! Thanks for tallying the vote Kalle. I'll get started on the next steps as soon as I can. It looks like the next board meeting is on September 15th, so we have a little wiggle room, but I'd prefer to get this done sooner rather than later. I'll take an initial crack at it this weekend.
Les On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok we passed the incubator vote with flying colors. Les, please send > the TLP submission to the Board's next meeting agenda, following > instructions at > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#toplevel. I suppose > we are not in a hurry, but it needs to done at least 72 hours hours > before the next meeting. Enormous thanks to Craig and Alan at this > point, your mentoring has been invaluable! > > There's a list of chores to do after we become a TLP but we'll cross > that bridge when we get there. In the meantime, we can work on getting > 1.1 ready for release right after we are official. > > Kalle > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sounds good to me - please feel free to post. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Les >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm on a roll here - Les, I can start the IPMC recommendation vote >>> shortly unless you specifically want to do that. I think we'll just >>> start the vote right away and rephrase the resolution during the vote >>> if needed (though >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#toplevel suggests >>> posting the resolution on IPMC before the vote). Given that we already >>> had a discussion on the resolution and it was linked to community >>> vote, I doubt the wording in the proposed resolution is going to >>> create any controversy. >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Yep, that's it - our community vote and then the IPMC recommendation >>>> vote. Looks like we're in the home stretch! >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> From http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#toplevel - >>>>> with suggested owners and timeline added >>>>> >>>>> Graduation to a top level project requires: >>>>> >>>>> * a charter for your project - done >>>>> * a positive community graduation VOTE - Kalle, this week (starting >>>>> (08/09) >>>>> * a positive IPMC recommendation VOTE - Les, next week (starting >>>>> (08/16 assuming community vote tallied and succeeded) >>>>> * the acceptance of the resolution by the Board (add it to the >>>>> September board meeting agenda as soon as recommendation vote >>>>> succeeds) >>>>> >>>>> The next board meeting is 3rd of September. The proposed timeline >>>>> should give us enough time to put it on the agenda. If no objections, >>>>> I'll send out the community vote email this evening. >>>>> >>>>> Kalle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> So what are the remaining items to kick this thing out of the Incubator? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Alan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Kalle Korhonen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey at least we got a discussion out of it. I agree, I think we'll >>>>>>> keep it as is unless somebody suggests otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I gotcha - and I'm glad your brought it up. As you said, that's what >>>>>>>> this email thread is for :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it is probably best that we leave it as the broad/general >>>>>>>> statement that it is - it is conceivable that we might add something >>>>>>>> else to the framework later on and I wouldn't want to be limited >>>>>>>> because our mission statement implies that it might be out of scope. >>>>>>>> I think that kind of stuff is better left to the community to decide. >>>>>>>> Just thinking out loud... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Security is still bigger than "authentication, authorization, session >>>>>>>>> management and cryptography" combined. Cryptography may be a huge part >>>>>>>>> of the project, but we are mainly users of the cryptographic >>>>>>>>> algorithms rather than providers of them. On session management I >>>>>>>>> agree, and probably should be noted if we wanted to be specific but >>>>>>>>> suppose it can be seen as being included in overall "related to >>>>>>>>> application security" statement. I'm fine leaving the statement broad >>>>>>>>> but that's about the only topic in the resolution we should discuss so >>>>>>>>> I wanted to make sure that we agree with it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I just copied Cayenne's resolution and changed only what >>>>>>>>>> absolutely needed to be changed to make it Shiro-specific. I thought >>>>>>>>>> this would be the 'safest' route to quickest approval since the >>>>>>>>>> Incubator graduation criteria page specifically recommended that it >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> used as an example from which we could create our own. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And I'm surprised to hear the potential suggestion to limit our >>>>>>>>>> domain >>>>>>>>>> to only authentication and authorization. Session Management and >>>>>>>>>> Cryptography are two huge parts of the overall project! At least >>>>>>>>>> based on our project origins and current mission statement, Shiro is >>>>>>>>>> supposed to be the most comprehensive application security framework >>>>>>>>>> available. I personally feel that we should retain this mission, >>>>>>>>>> which is why I left the wording very general. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just my .02, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Back to the original matter now. I added Craig on the resolution and >>>>>>>>>>> didn't make other edits. I think it should be called "Project >>>>>>>>>>> Resolution" rather than "Graduation Resolution" but since it'd >>>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>>> the url and only the content matters I didn't bother. I'm not a huge >>>>>>>>>>> fan of the fancy sentences either (I do not believe for a second >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> legal language for some reason needs to be complicated) but I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think we have a lot of leeway in the matter and even if we did, it's >>>>>>>>>>> not worth the effort. While the resolution is not the same as a >>>>>>>>>>> mission statement, it includes a mission statement which is the only >>>>>>>>>>> part in it that matters to me and which we might want to expand on a >>>>>>>>>>> bit. Specifically the resolution says "The Apache Shiro Project be >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> hereby is >>>>>>>>>>> responsible for the creation and maintenance of a software >>>>>>>>>>> project related to application security". Does that cover all and >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>> what the project and we are set to do? I don't have any exact >>>>>>>>>>> suggestions - it's a bit short but could do even as is. We could >>>>>>>>>>> though specifically limit our domain to "authentication and >>>>>>>>>>> authorization" - security as a whole is more than just those two >>>>>>>>>>> aspects. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Les, will review. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to turn this into a voting thread and I don't think we >>>>>>>>>>>> need a formal vote on it either, but +1 from me as well for Craig >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> stay on, we couldn't have gotten this far without him! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> A huge +1 from me for Craig joining the PMC. Thanks for offering >>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Craig L Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct. Mentors do not automatically become project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, it's generally considered a good idea to have at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Foundation Member on each PMC. Often this is the PMC chair. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentors volunteer to stay on at least for a while to help the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new PMC get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> settled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be happy to help out by being on the new PMC if you'll have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A quick note: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I assume Mentors are not to be automatically listed as project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since their relationship with the project is to help through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubation process, and (formally) their responsibility with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator podling is released upon graduation (per the last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Graduation Resolution). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is *not* a reflection of any desire not to have them as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members should they wish to participate - it merely reflects my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the role/scope of an Incubator Mentor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've posted my initial draft of the Apache TLP Graduation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Resolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SHIRO/Graduation+Resolution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please review and comment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig L Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Architect, Oracle >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://db.apache.org/jdo >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
