Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Xavier Hanin]

On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




I suppose the Ivy committers need to send a CLA in any case ? Xavier,
Maarten, maybe you should read this http://www.apache.org/dev/ and
particularly this http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html.

I've just sent both an individual and a corporate CLA by fax. I was not

sure the corporate CLA was necessary, but since Jayasoft is the current
copyright holder of Ivy, I thought it might be required.

- Xavier

Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Xavier Hanin wrote:
>
> I've just sent both an individual and a corporate CLA by fax. I was not
> sure the corporate CLA was necessary, but since Jayasoft is the current
> copyright holder of Ivy, I thought it might be required.

Probably a good idea; the point to a Corporate CLA is actually an agreement
between your employer and yourself that what you do with the Foundation is
with their blessing.  The ICLA you signed claims you have that right already,
but we all know how painful employment contracts and their covenants are :)

Best to be safe for your benefit.

There is a DIFFERENT form, a Software Grant, which would be needed for a
wholesale import of a code base owned by another party.  See

http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants (very bottom paragraph.)

Bill

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Xavier Hanin]

On 10/25/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Xavier Hanin wrote:
>
> I've just sent both an individual and a corporate CLA by fax. I was not
> sure the corporate CLA was necessary, but since Jayasoft is the current
> copyright holder of Ivy, I thought it might be required.

Probably a good idea; the point to a Corporate CLA is actually an
agreement
between your employer and yourself that what you do with the Foundation is
with their blessing.  The ICLA you signed claims you have that right
already,
but we all know how painful employment contracts and their covenants are
:)

Best to be safe for your benefit.



In my case this is not really an issue, since Jayasoft is my company.
Anyway, now that it's done it doesn't hurt.

There is a DIFFERENT form, a Software Grant, which would be needed for a

wholesale import of a code base owned by another party.  See

http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants (very bottom paragraph.)



OK, I think that's what will be needed if Ivy is accepted in the incubator.
I will wait until someone ask me to fill this form.

Thanks for your help,
- Xavier

Bill


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Leo Simons]

Bill, dude,

On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:14 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:

Would everyone agree with Leo that it is OK to start asking for
infrastructural resources ?


Nope, first off with the server disruption, there's really been  
only a day

since the proposal was floated.  3 days is typical to let folks raise
objections before concluding the vote.


Like I wrote already, incubator policy is that we do not vote on  
accepting entry for subprojects to existing TLPs that such TLP has  
already voted on and is sponsoring. So, despite perhaps some evidence  
to the contrary, there's not really any motion on any kind of floor  
here. There's actually some new and approved documentation on this  
(which I had forgotten the specifics of):


  http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ 
Incubation_Policy.html#Acceptance+By+Incubator


which I'm sure someone like you will appreciate for its  
extensiveness. The policies says it should be the PMC chair sending  
the notification e-mail, but given that there's 3 (I think) ant PMC  
members mentoring the thing I think we're sorta ok in this case.


/ducks

LSD


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ivy

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Leo Simons wrote:
> Bill, dude,
> 
> Like I wrote already, incubator policy is that we do not vote on
> accepting entry for subprojects to existing TLPs that such TLP has
> already voted on and is sponsoring.

Ok, I missed that ... see the suggested thread name above :-P

You don't call something a proposal once it's been accepted, ROFL :)

And rereading the -entire- 'proposal' I'm impressed ... welcome.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ivy

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Xavier Hanin wrote:
> On 10/25/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> There is a DIFFERENT form, a Software Grant, which would be needed for a
>> wholesale import of a code base owned by another party.  See
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants (very bottom paragraph.)
> 
> OK, I think that's what will be needed if Ivy is accepted in the incubator.
> I will wait until someone ask me to fill this form.

Sorry for my confusion Xavier; as Leo points out - Ivy is accepted by proxy
of the Ant PMC.  Welcome, and once the grant form has been ack'ed by the
Secretary, and you resolve any other possible twists of IP, original authors
or similar issues with your mentors, you will be good to import into svn.

Bill

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Noel J. Bergman]

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:

> I have sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  but no
> one has moderated me in yet.

Instant Gratification much?  No one else had gotten to it, but it got done
by me this AM.

Please note, that is NOT the same thing as requesting to join the Incubator
PMC.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] - Ratify Tuscany PPMC vote to release SDO for Java M2 artifacts

[kelvin goodson]

The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release the SDO for Java API implementation as
part of the M2 release.
In accordance with Incubator release procedures we are asking the Incubator
PMC to
approve this release.

Vote thread:*
*http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg09797.html
Result thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg10046.html

Regards, Kelvin Goodson.
**

Re: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Antoine Levy-Lambert]

Hello,

Thanks very much  Noel for moderating me in.

Regards,

Antoine
 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:29:44 -0400
Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: general@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy 

> Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
> 
> > I have sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  but no
> > one has moderated me in yet.
> 
> Instant Gratification much?  No one else had gotten to it, but it got done
> by me this AM.
> 
> Please note, that is NOT the same thing as requesting to join the
> Incubator
> PMC.
> 
Understood. Actually, I do not need to become a member of the incubator PMC 
either, but I would very much like to have the svn and UNIX karma to edit and 
publish elements of the web site of ivy.
>   --- Noel
> 
Regards,

Antoine

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Garrett Rooney]

On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Understood. Actually, I do not need to become a member of the incubator
PMC either, but I would very much like to have the svn and UNIX karma
to edit and publish elements of the web site of ivy.


Ok, slow down a bit.  I'm all for enthusiasm, but this stuff does take
a little time.  First we vote on accepting the project.  Once that
happens the initial committers send in their CLAs.  Once the CLAs are
in the project's mentors request accounts on the ASF infrastructure
(unix machines, svn, etc).  Once root@ creates the accounts the
mentors (or someone else if the mentors don't have the right access)
grants you the appropriate karma to make changes to this kind of thing
in svn.  You're on step 1, AFAICT, and you're all set to jump to step
6.  It'll happen, it just takes a little time ;-)

-garrett

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Antoine Levy-Lambert]

Hello Garrett,

I am not an Ivy contributor, but an ASF member and an ANT PMC member who has 
volunteered as champion and mentor for Ivy. I do not want to start checking in 
code, I just would like the possibility to start creating an ivy folder on the 
incubator web site.

Leo wrote that the fact that the Ant PMC sponsors Ivy is already enough to 
start incubation.

If this is true, we can start taking care of these issues. We will soon stumble 
on people.apache.org being dead which does not help to do web site updates.

Regards,
Antoine
 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:21:47 -0400
Von: "Garrett Rooney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: general@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

> On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Understood. Actually, I do not need to become a member of the incubator
> > PMC either, but I would very much like to have the svn and UNIX karma
> > to edit and publish elements of the web site of ivy.
> 
> Ok, slow down a bit.  I'm all for enthusiasm, but this stuff does take
> a little time.  First we vote on accepting the project.  Once that
> happens the initial committers send in their CLAs.  Once the CLAs are
> in the project's mentors request accounts on the ASF infrastructure
> (unix machines, svn, etc).  Once root@ creates the accounts the
> mentors (or someone else if the mentors don't have the right access)
> grants you the appropriate karma to make changes to this kind of thing
> in svn.  You're on step 1, AFAICT, and you're all set to jump to step
> 6.  It'll happen, it just takes a little time ;-)
> 
> -garrett
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RE: [PROPOSAL] Ivy

[Garrett Rooney]

On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello Garrett,

I am not an Ivy contributor, but an ASF member and an ANT PMC member
who has volunteered as champion and mentor for Ivy. I do not want to
start checking in code, I just would like the possibility to start
creating an ivy folder on the incubator web site.


Ahh, sorry, my bad.  If you're already an ASF Member you should have
write access to the appropriate places in the incubator tree.  The web
pages are all under /incubator/public, and the members group has write
access there.


Leo wrote that the fact that the Ant PMC sponsors Ivy is already enough
to start incubation.

If this is true, we can start taking care of these issues. We will soon
stumble on people.apache.org being dead which does not help to do web
site updates.


Yeah, not much you can do about that other than wait.  It should be
back up later today.

-garrett

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: JiniProposal -> BraintreeProposal

[Noel J. Bergman]

In any event, let's get this thing going.  *IF* the name has to change
again, it can change again.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Noel J. Bergman]

Leo Simons wrote:

> I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like
> adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly
> dependent on the champion.

Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of
Incubation.  So the Champion's role is helping to draft the proposal,
including reviewing the Committer and PPMC lists.  Someone has to do it.

> Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced
> directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not
> through their champions.

Actually, my view, after having spoken with (almost) everyone involved from
Iona and the ASF is that if this HAD been done for CXF, we would have
avoided the conflicts entirely.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Noel J. Bergman]

Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote:

--

The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
etc., but not arbitrary).  The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.

The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
PPMC members*.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.

The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project.  Upon a successful vote
to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
and PPMC lists.

*Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
accepted.

--

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

UPDATE - Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

As noted in the vote email :

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


Under the Incubator process, Harmony must have a destination prior
to exiting incubation, which means the ASF Board must decide whether or
not create a TLP for Apache Harmony prior to the Incubator vote being
official.  However, I suspect that the board would want some indication
that we are ready to graduate first.

So, I am asking for a vote of the Incubator on graduation of Harmony
that is conditional on the board's approval of a TLP for that purpose.
This way we don't have to vote again after the board meeting on
Wednesday (or whenever the board considers the proposal).


I'm happy to report that much to my surprise and delight, the board 
considered and accepted the TLP proposal for Harmony at today's board 
meeting, so the above condition is satisfied.


I look forward to completing this vote. (Some time after Minotaur is 
revived and personal @apache.org mail flows again...)


Thanks

geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[robert burrell donkin]

On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote:


(comments on policy change process)

i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded
and document on the incubator site. all changes to the policy document
require a formal vote. therefore to avoid a second vote to record a
policy already approved, all policy changes should be proposed in the
form of patches to the policy document.

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

[Ted Leung]

+1

On Oct 24, 2006, at 4:02 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


The Apache Harmony community has voted to request graduation
from the Incubator as a TLP.

 

The following votes have been recorded (in order of votes cast) :

   +1  Geir Magnusson Jr (Incubator PMC/committer/mentor)
   +1  Etienne Gagnon
   +1  Gregory Shimansky (committer)
   +1  Sam Ruby  (Incubator PMC)
   +1  Rana Dasgupta
   +1  Danese Cooper
   +1  Mark Hindess  (committer)
   +1  Alex Blewitt
   +1  Mikhail Fursov
   +1  Matthias Wessendorf
   +1  Alexei A Fedotov
   +1  Jorden Justen
   +1  Andrew Zhang
   +1  Leo Li
   +1  Nathan Beyer  (committer)
   +1  Naveen Neelakantam
   +1  Mikhail Loenko(committer)
   +1  Leo Simons(Incubator PMC/mentor)
   +1  Paulex Yang   (committer)
   +1  Tim Ellison   (committer)
   +1  Salikh Zakirov
   +1  Alex Karasulu (Incubator PMC)
   +1  Weldon Washburn   (committer)
   +1  Sergey Soldatov
   +1  Nadya Morozova
   +1  Robert Burrell Donkin (Incubator PMC)
   +1  Richard Liang (committer)
   +1  Vladimir Ivanov
   +1  Dan Lydick(committer)
   +1  Tony Wu
   +1  Spark Shen
   +1  Rui Hu
   +1  Pavel Rebriy
   +1  Pavel Ozhdikhin
   +1  Jimmy Jing
   +1  Xiao-Feng Li
   +1  Alexey A Ivanov
   +1  Pavel Pervov
   +1  Sian January
   +1  Pavel Afremov
   +1  Alexei Zakharov(committer)
   +1  Stefano Mazzocchi  (Incubator PMC/mentor)
   +1  Davanum Srinivas   (Incubator PMC/mentor)
   +1  Svetlana Konovalova
   +1  Egor Pasko
   +1  Stepan Mishura (committer)
   +1  Ilya Okomin

Under the Incubator process, Harmony must have a destination prior
to exiting incubation, which means the ASF Board must decide  
whether or

not create a TLP for Apache Harmony prior to the Incubator vote being
official.  However, I suspect that the board would want some  
indication

that we are ready to graduate first.

So, I am asking for a vote of the Incubator on graduation of Harmony
that is conditional on the board's approval of a TLP for that purpose.
This way we don't have to vote again after the board meeting on
Wednesday (or whenever the board considers the proposal).

Please send in your +1/0/-1 to approve/abstain/disapprove.

Status: 

Site: 

List: 


geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UPDATE - Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

[Tim Ellison]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'm happy to report that much to my surprise and delight, the board
> considered and accepted the TLP proposal for Harmony at today's board
> meeting, so the above condition is satisfied.

Hurray! Good work all round.

> I look forward to completing this vote. (Some time after Minotaur is
> revived and personal @apache.org mail flows again...)

+1 on this thread too to help it along.

Regards,
Tim

-- 

Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [doc] final call for review on http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html

[robert burrell donkin]

On 10/23/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Would you like a patch for any of this?


usually easier to patch than explain ;-)

i've committed a fix for c) and amended the phrasing highlighted in d)

can't update the site ATM so these changes won't be reflected there yet

the code sections work fine on my browers but would gladly committed a
patch so that other people can see them too :-)

not sure whether b would be an improvement or not. a patch would be very useful.

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Antoine Levy-Lambert]

Hello Noel,

sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a 
particular incubator project ?

Regards,

Antoine
 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400
Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: general@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Martijn Dashorst]

PPMC  = Podling project management committee
IPMC  = Incubator project management committee

if I'm not mistaken.

Martijn

On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello Noel,

sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a 
particular incubator project ?

Regards,

Antoine
 Original-Nachricht 
Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400
Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: general@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote
for http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket
at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in
the World!

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I didn't want to mess up the vote thread...

Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a 
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in 
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any code.


We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and 
just looked for people that followed through once the project got started.


geir


 Original Message 
Subject: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400
From: Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
To: 


Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote:

--

The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
etc., but not arbitrary).  The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.

The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
PPMC members*.  The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
to justify each inclusion.The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.

The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project.  Upon a successful vote
to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
and PPMC lists.

*Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
accepted.

--

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: JiniProposal -> BraintreeProposal

[Jim Hurley]

Thanks, Noel.

I'm not sure if the potential trademark conflicts are
problems in this case -- it's always a matter of gauging
risk, and it's not clear if they'd be a problem or not.

I agree that we'd like to get going, and we can address
the name issue again during incubation.

thanks -Jim

On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:


In any event, let's get this thing going.  *IF* the name has to change
again, it can change again.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a
> slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
> except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
code.

Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:

> We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and
> just looked for people that followed through once the project got started.

would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

How to submit policy changes?

[Noel J. Bergman]

robert burrell donkin wrote:

> i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded
> and document on the incubator site.

Agreed.

> all changes to the policy document require a formal vote.

Which is what is being called here, after discussion since ApacheCon.

> therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
> all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
> policy document.

I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive.  And it may not make the
policy as clear, when presented in the form of a diff.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Garrett Rooney]

On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a
> slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
> except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
code.

Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:

> We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and
> just looked for people that followed through once the project got started.

would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.


I'm not sure how this would prevent what was done with harmony.  Just
have the initial proposal come with no list of committers.  The
champion has a very easy job to do in validating that list ;-)

-garrett

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any

code.

Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:


We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and
just looked for people that followed through once the project got started.


would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.


How?  How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community 
until after it got formed and working?


geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: How to submit policy changes?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
> > all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
> > policy document.

> I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive.  And it may not make the
> policy as clear, when presented in the form of a diff.

In the specific case of the bootstrap proposal, it would appear to effect:

  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/entry.html
  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
  http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Cha
mpion

And while we will need to record the policy, I'd rather not see a
straightforward policy degenerate into a debate over how to factor web
pages.  And it seems clear to me that such a diff across multiple pages
would be far more difficult for people to understand.

Thoughts?

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Noel J. Bergman]

> What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project
?

See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a
>>> slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
>>> except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any
>> code.
>>
>> Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
>> majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:
>>
>>> We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and
>>> just looked for people that followed through once the project got
started.
>>
>> would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.

> How?  How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community
> until after it got formed and working?

What problem are you trying to solve?  Garrett's view is that you basically
"discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt
with Committers after the fact.  So a minimal Initial Committer list would
be null except for the Mentors.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: JiniProposal -> BraintreeProposal

[Greg Stein]

It doesn't matter whatsoever as long as you are VERY consistently
calling it "Apache Braintree" as you should be doing _anyways_

On 10/25/06, Jim Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Thanks, Noel.

I'm not sure if the potential trademark conflicts are
problems in this case -- it's always a matter of gauging
risk, and it's not clear if they'd be a problem or not.

I agree that we'd like to get going, and we can address
the name issue again during incubation.

thanks -Jim

On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> In any event, let's get this thing going.  *IF* the name has to change
> again, it can change again.
>
>   --- Noel

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: JiniProposal -> BraintreeProposal

[Noel J. Bergman]

Greg Stein wrote:

> It doesn't matter whatsoever as long as you are VERY consistently
> calling it "Apache Braintree" as you should be doing _anyways_

Would that apply equally to the two names that were more highly rated by the
JINI community than the one selected?  What is the criteria?  This topic
comes up quite often.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony with a
slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any

code.

Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:


We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, and
just looked for people that followed through once the project got

started.

would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.



How?  How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community
until after it got formed and working?


What problem are you trying to solve?  Garrett's view is that you basically
"discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt
with Committers after the fact.  So a minimal Initial Committer list would
be null except for the Mentors.


Yes.  But having that list of people interested is useful.  Maybe the 
name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's 
no code.


Anyway, never mind.  I was just think that this is a good guideline, but 
I'm wary of strict procedure for something like this.


geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: UPDATE - Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

[Noel J. Bergman]

> the board considered and accepted the TLP proposal for Harmony
> at today's board meeting

Congratulations.  :-)

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago.   I just 
missed it.  Apologies.  Ignore me :)


geir


Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:



Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Should this really be "Shall"?  We've been successful in Harmony 
with a

slightly different model, where we didn't just sweep committers in
except for the mentors and champion, because we didnt' start with any

code.

Yes, it should be a Shall, since it has been made quite clear that the
majority of people want a binding list.  The work you did on Harmony:

We treated the Initial Committer list as an indication of interest, 
and

just looked for people that followed through once the project got

started.

would have to be done PRIOR to the vote.



How?  How do you see if the people actually engaged in the community
until after it got formed and working?


What problem are you trying to solve?  Garrett's view is that you 
basically

"discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and dealt
with Committers after the fact.  So a minimal Initial Committer list 
would

be null except for the Mentors.


Yes.  But having that list of people interested is useful.  Maybe the 
name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's 
no code.


Anyway, never mind.  I was just think that this is a good guideline, but 
I'm wary of strict procedure for something like this.


geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Anyway, I do realize that the discussion was two weeks ago.   I just
> missed it.  Apologies.  Ignore me :)

No way!  Yes, discussion started weeks ago, stopped, and so I called a vote.
But I would never want to arbitrarily cut off discussion.

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Comment - (Was [Fwd: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members])

[Noel J. Bergman]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > What problem are you trying to solve?  Garrett's view is that you
basically
> > "discarded" the Initial Committer list, treated it as advisory, and
dealt
> > with Committers after the fact.  So a minimal Initial Committer list
would
> > be null except for the Mentors.

> Yes.  But having that list of people interested is useful.  Maybe the
> name should change from Initial Committer to something else when there's
> no code.

Sure.  But do we need to document such a list in the bootstrap process?
Remember: we removed the Emeritus Committer section because it was similarly
unnecessary.

> I was just think that this is a good guideline, but I'm wary of
> strict procedure for something like this.

Too many people didn't like the softer procedure that was originally
proposed (and which worked well enough for Harmony).

--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members

[Antoine Levy-Lambert]

Thanks Martijn.

Regards,
Antoine

Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> PPMC  = Podling project management committee
> IPMC  = Incubator project management committee
>
> if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Martijn
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[STATUS] (incubator) Wed Oct 25 23:59:24 2006

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

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 wiki pages
 are for collaborative development, including stuff destined for the
 Web site.]

Pending Issues
==

o We need to be very very clear about what it takes to be accepted
  into the incubator.  It should be a very low bar to leap, possibly
  not much more than 'no problematic code' and the existence of a
  healthy community (we don't want to become a dumping ground).

o We need to be very very clear about what it takes for a podling
  to graduate from the incubator.  The basic requirements obviously
  include: has a home, either as part of another ASF project or as
  a new top-level project of its own; needs to be a credit to the
  ASF and function well in the ASF framework; ...

See also:

  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR

Resolved Issues
===

o The policy documentation does not need ratification of changes
  if there seems consensus. Accordingly, the draft status of these
  documents can be removed and we will use the lazy "commit first,
  discuss later" mode common across the ASF for documentation
  (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=517190)

o Coming up with a set of bylaws for the project
  (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=517190)

o All projects under incubation must maintain a status Web page that
  contains information the PMC needs about the project.
  (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html)

o Projects under incubation should display appropriate "disclaimers"
  so that it is clear that they are, indeed, under incubation
  (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=504543)

o Clearly and authoritatively document how to edit, generate,
  and update the Web site (three separate functions)
  (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html).

The Incubation Process
==

TODO: this does not belong in the STATUS file and probably was integrated into
other documentation a while ago. That should be double-checked and then this
section should be removed.

This tries to list all the actions items that must be complete for a project
before it can graduate from the incubator. It is probably incomplete.

Identify the project to be incubated:

  -- Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist
 and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not
 already trademarked for an existing software product.

  -- If request from an existing Apache project to adopt an external
 package, then ask the Apache project for the cvs module and mail
 address names.

  -- If request from outside Apache to enter an existing Apache project,
 then post a message to that project for them to decide on acceptance.

  -- If request from anywhere to become a stand-alone PMC, then assess
 the fit with the ASF, and create the lists and modules under the
 incubator address/module names if accepted.

Interim responsibility:

  -- Who has been identified as the mentor for the incubation?

  -- Are they tracking progress on the "project status" Web page?

Copyright:

  -- Have the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received?
 It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the
 core code, and any new code produced by the project.

  -- Have the files been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright?

Verify distribution rights:

  -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
 Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
 code and redistribute?

  -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more
 of the following approved licenses:  Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X,
 MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?

Establish a list of active committers:

  -- Are all active committers listed in the "project status" file?

  -- Do they have accounts on cvs.apache.org?

  -- Have they submitted a contributors agreement?

Infrastructure:

  -- CVS modules created and committers added to avail file?

  -- Mailing lists set up and archived?

  -- Problem tracking system (Bugzilla)?

  -- Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?

Collaborative Development:

  -- Have all of the active long-term volunteers been identified
 and acknowledged as committers on the project?

  -- Are there three or more independent committers?

 [The legal definition of independent is long and boring, but basically
  it means that there is no binding relationship between the individuals,
  s

Re: UPDATE - Re: [VOTE] Graduate Harmony to TLP status (pending board approval)

[Craig L Russell]

Congratulations on the board vote.

+1 for graduation, and good luck.

Craig

On Oct 25, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


As noted in the vote email :

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Under the Incubator process, Harmony must have a destination prior
to exiting incubation, which means the ASF Board must decide  
whether or

not create a TLP for Apache Harmony prior to the Incubator vote being
official.  However, I suspect that the board would want some  
indication

that we are ready to graduate first.
So, I am asking for a vote of the Incubator on graduation of Harmony
that is conditional on the board's approval of a TLP for that  
purpose.

This way we don't have to vote again after the board meeting on
Wednesday (or whenever the board considers the proposal).


I'm happy to report that much to my surprise and delight, the board  
considered and accepted the TLP proposal for Harmony at today's  
board meeting, so the above condition is satisfied.


I look forward to completing this vote. (Some time after Minotaur  
is revived and personal @apache.org mail flows again...)


Thanks

geir


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature