There are some good ideas in here. Though I don't see Alan complaining.
I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it,
and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion.
Seems like a positive start.
-David
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Alan,
Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and
something
incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but never enough since most of
those people
are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
(...)
What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-
to-face
history of various people trying to help with this incubation
thing, stamp
your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the
third time
I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this
is not
how it works.
(...)
Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
* stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
* compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
those that came before you.
* send the list out to people (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for feedback
and discussion.
* work to address the list.
* keep a record of this work.
* point to the record (STATUS file).
* spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board
meeting.
* look back on this process and document what you learned so others
can benefit from it.
The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
everytime I look at [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be enough indication that
it is not.
LSD
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 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 projects and whether AMQ should be a
TLP or
subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it
graduates
that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that
it has a
long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
See my reply to Dain. And 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. And
that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
Incubator.
There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself,
can you
not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is
that
fair to the AMQ community?
If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
as a sub-project
I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of
that comes
down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more
or less
been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So
if we have
some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of
another TLP
within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that
community to
lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they
going to
be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for
them to
have binding votes?
This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in
detail the PMC
and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to
this case.
I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
ActiveMQ
and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome
them as
Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the
need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it
graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we
will be
ready to vote, imho.
Regards,
Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
