Re: Adding new committers process
On 11/04/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cliff Schmidt wrote: > 1. Only IPMC members (e.g. mentors) should send root requests for new >podling committers. > 2. A podling committer vote requires three IPMC +1s to be approved > (ideally the mentors, assuming the project still has three mentors). > This [is] not how I read what we have documented at > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html Then we need to fix the documentation. > From Noel's comments, it sounds like those "(P)"s should be removed > from the above sentence. The PPMC has no standing within the ASF. It is a useful structure for the Incubator, but the only binding votes on a PPMC are those of the Incubator PMC members casting them. The PMC is the recognized entity within the ASF structure responsible for the management of a project, and we need to ensure that decisions go through the PMC in order to maintain that role. Why do you think that I keep pushing the minimum of three (active) Mentors recommendation? So should PPMCs role should be to organise, select and perform the vote and then forward the vote to general@ for ratification that we have performed the process correctly. At which point the IPMC takes control of the vote such that when three IPMC memebers have voted (Which may have already occured IF the podlings mentors have voted) they create the account requests and send them to root@ copying the -private@ list. This would then give a bigger pool of recognized people that could pickup the completed votes and create the account requests. Alternatively the IPMC could then notifiy the podling-private list that their vote was successfull so that the PPMC could create the account request (Learning that process) and send it to the IPMC for forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That way the IPMC gets to over see the PPMCs ensuring they are moving towards the "Apache Way" and root@ only gets emails from people that they know have the right to request the action. Thoughts? > I honestly don't know if this is a case of things evolving rules, or > different IPMC members thinking they agreed with each other and not > realizing they had different ideas, or (equally likely) that I knew > the "right way" to do this long ago and have since lost my mind. Take your pick. :-P > I have chosen to handle this by offering my IPMC/mentor vote to > the three qpid votes that were summarized on this list last month. > I can also do the sending of the root requests when there are two > other +1 IPMC votes. That's fine. My comment to Martin Ritchie was entirely procedural, and not intended to be any sort of slap. I, too, am favorably disposed towards QPid (questions about the specification process aside). If you don't have sufficient votes, let me know, and I will review the archives in order to determine my own vote. --- Noel I didn't take the comments as a slap of any sort. It is just good to clear up the procedural work. I would have thought that the incubation documenation would have been more RC than beta as it appears in places but I understand the organic process that is going on here. :) -- Martin Ritchie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
On 4/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships? I've already stated mine. To me, it's self-evident that if a person is qualified to serve on the Incubator PMC, then that individual is qualified to serve as a podling mentor, at least in the same way that any random Member is qualified. We'll just have to leave it to the usual majority vote. -Ted - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Ted Husted wrote: > On 4/10/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Bottom line, what is the *motivation* to have non-ASF-member Mentorships? > > I've already stated mine. To me, it's self-evident that if a person is > qualified to serve on the Incubator PMC, then that individual is > qualified to serve as a podling mentor, at least in the same way that > any random Member is qualified. > > We'll just have to leave it to the usual majority vote. I agree; would have started the vote days ago, but this discussion is productive and would hold off a few more days to hear from folks who haven't added their 2c, yet. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Graffito update
Hi, Forwarding this as a FYI to the general Incubator mailing list. We're considering retirement of the Graffito project due to lack of activity even after the restructuring discussions a while ago. I'll have more on this in the Graffito report in a few days, but any comments already now are of course welcome. BR, Jukka Zitting -- Forwarded message -- From: Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Apr 11, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Graffito update To: graffito-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: general@portals.apache.org Hi, [Cc:ing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the sponsoring PMC of Graffito, please follow up on graffito-dev] The time for a Graffito report is again coming up. My thoughts on the current status: * JCR Mapping: I unfortunately haven't had as much time as I would have wanted to push for a release of the JCR Mapping component, but there's still been activity thanks to Christophe, Felix, and Ruchi. I still think there's enough activity and interest to move the component into a Jackrabbit subproject. * Graffito: The rest of the Graffito project has seen no activity since the status discussions two months ago. Based on this I'd be ready to recommend terminating the Graffito project as dormant once the JCR Mapping component has been moved to Jackrabbit. Comments? BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Board Reports
Hello, looking at the "board reports" wiki for the podlings, I noticed that there isn't an entry for Tika and RCF. Should I go ahead and add Tika for April, May, June and RCF for May, june, july (since these podlings are new, the first three reports are on a monthly period) -M -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Reports
Hi, On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: looking at the "board reports" wiki for the podlings, I noticed that there isn't an entry for Tika and RCF. Should I go ahead and add Tika for April, May, June and RCF for May, june, july Please do. I just removed Felix and Roller from the report schedules as both projects have already graduated. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Reports
Ok, Jukka, the time is ticking for April :) -Matthias On 4/11/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > looking at the "board reports" wiki for the podlings, I noticed that > there isn't an entry for Tika and RCF. > > Should I go ahead and add Tika for > April, May, June > > and RCF for > May, june, july Please do. I just removed Felix and Roller from the report schedules as both projects have already graduated. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Reports
Hi, On 4/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jukka, the time is ticking for April :) Yeah, I had somehow remembered that the deadline was on Friday, when in fact it's already today... But no worries, I have both Graffito and Tika reports already in the owen. :-) Other than that, I see that only CXF has reported so far. Other projects, time is ticking. BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] [Retry] Approve the release of Apache Lucene.Net 2.0 build 004 incubating
Hi Niclas, Thanks for your +1 vote, but most of all for your time. This now gives me: +1 from Erik Hatcher +1 From Niclas Hedhman +0 from Robert Burrell Donkin I still need 1 more +1 to get this release out. Can at least one other PMC member review this release please? > Personally, I think the project is suffering from a > chicken-egg problem. This is true. Recently, there has been some interest from folks who want to get on and start contributing. Lets hope this holds. The good bit is that there is a good user base community and Lucene.Net is not only recognized but is being used in production out in the field. An official release, more publicity should help, *AND* we need to start thinking about how ASF can help too should give Lucene.Net a new start. ASF folks voting on a release, in a timely fashion, is a good start. > I am also pleased to see that the many remarks in the first > round has been attended to promptly. > However, there are 2 more subsystems in "contrib/" and the > first file I checked "Similarity.Net/AssemblyInfo.cs" didn't > have the Apache License header, but others did. I did not "AssemblyInfo.cs" is an auto generated file; we discussed those in first release attempt. > perform an exhaustive check. I would be interested to here > how come "so much" gets added between two reviews of a release 2.0. The only changes between build 4 and build 3, is: 1) Build 4 added the correct copy right header and files 2) Build 4 added 1 new ported project to "contrib", Similarity.Net. This wasn't ready in time for the first vote but was for the second. > But I think those are minor enough to get my +1 for this release. Much appreciated; thanks. Regards, -- George - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Alex Karasulu wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the > > ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means > > they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific > > issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in > > similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble. > > I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me > as a mentor. But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one Mentor is an ASF Member. > > They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are > > members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less > > to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in > > the trenches, where egos can get in the way. > I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is > a very important point I did not consider before. And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it become Members. > I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members > although IPMC members need not be ASF members. Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its projects? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mentors and members (was: Re: Mentors On IPMC [WAS Re: [Vote] RCFproposal (was: [Proposal] RCF - a rich component library for JSF)])
Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Alex Karasulu wrote: > >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>> ASF members -do- have additional insights from private forums, and the >>> ability to oversee most of the private forums at the ASF. This means >>> they can (and do) go back to the archives to look back at how a specific >>> issue (people issues, company issues, legal issues) were addressed in >>> similar cases to help guide a podling away from trouble. >> I've done this several times and it proved to be a valuable asset to me >> as a mentor. > > But not an invaluable one that you could not perform the task without. But > this is why we had previously compromised on ensuring that at least one > Mentor is an ASF Member. 1/3 is not sufficient, given the absenteeism that is evident. This goes to my earlier comment about mentoring-the-mentor, if the 1/3 becomes 0/2 for a time (which is happening too frequently), what then? >>> They also have made their mark on the Foundation (which is why they are >>> members). That gives me a bit of reassurance that our mentors have less >>> to prove, and can help guide the project from 10,000 feet rather than in >>> the trenches, where egos can get in the way. > >> I was opposed to your line of thought until I read this paragraph. This is >> a very important point I did not consider before. > > And very disrespectful to those who have admirably performed the Mentor role > without having something to prove. Becoming a Member does not grant some > magic insight. It is often the other way around: those who demonstrate it > become Members. First, no disrespect intended. I've repeatedly pointed out this is a forward looking assessment of the policy, and not ment to rewrite history, so don't even waste bandwidth framing it as such. Second, becoming a member *acknowledges* insight, which I want the incubator out of the business of determining, and put that back on the members where it belonged. Where it isn't meeting our expectations (1/yr is too infrequent) take that discussion and solutions to members@ discussion. Lastly, I'm curious 1. how many (often is a gross overstatement) and 2. would this have been true with or without their mentoring a project (my guess is it was not a deciding factor in their nomination or election, but feel free to correct me). >> I think I would agree with you now that mentors should be ASF members >> although IPMC members need not be ASF members. > > Oh? So people wo are not qualified to be a Mentor, should still be > permitted to make binding decisions regarding the Incubator and all its > projects? Cast a binding vote in the project? Yes, of course. Mentorship is a heavier hammer than that, when necessary. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[STATUS] (incubator) Wed Apr 11 23:55:56 2007
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
