Re: Incubator new committer redux
Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try again. I apologize for being absent from these threads for the last month. Life got busy and one of the things that got dropped was the incubator general list. I don't want to rehash everything that's been discussed before, but here's my opinions as an IPMC member: I'd prefer that the decision making stays close to the PPMC. If we need the IPMC to check off on PPMC decisions, fine. That should be possible via the mentors. But let's not make this any more bureaucratic than necessary. Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote. Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced by Noel's argument that the PPMC is a figment of our imagination. Sorry, Noel, don't mean to pick on you here. :-) My point is, if the IPMC choses to delegate committer voting responsibilities to PPMCs, then the PPMC votes are just as 'binding' as IPMC votes. AFAIK, there's no legal barrier for this to happen, only procedural ones. -- J Aaron Farr jadetower.com[US] +1 724-964-4515 馮傑仁 cubiclemuses.com [HK] +852 8123-7905 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now? On 6/19/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/16/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have have some questions that need answering before we can proceed > with the release. Please them inline below: > > On 5/29/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > On 5/28/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Just a friendly reminder. We're missing anoter IPMC vote ... > > > > > > issues > > > --- > > > > > > i think that apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating.tar.gz has some > > > libraries in lib that are missing their LICENSE/NOTICE entries (eg > > > howl, jencks) > > There are licensed under ASL 2.0 and don't have any NOTICE file afaik. > > Should all the jars be listed in the LICENSE / NOTICE file ? My > assumption > > was that only those who had some attributions somehow or with a > > different license > > need to be, but correct me if I'm wrong. > > Can someone clarify this? it's best that license information is provided clearly for all external parts of a release. otherwise, the collective license can be confused with the constituent licenses. i don't think that it's positively harmful to ship a release which is missing information about jars that are apache licensed but i would ask to find out their licensing if i didn't know them (IMHO we need to move towards using meta-data to record this information so that these questions don't have to continually asked) How are Apache Licensed projects that are > included in an ASF project supposed to be handled if they don't > provide their own NOTICE file? it they don't provide their own NOTICE file then that's fine but again, missing NOTICE files raise questions which then require answers > > apache-servicemix-3.1.1-incubating-src.zip contains a directory that > > > seems like somethings gone wrong (src/C:tmp) > > I will fix that. > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-decorator.tld > > > > > > is licensed under "The OpenSymphony Software License, Version 1.1" - i > > > can't see this in LICENSE or NOTICE. same goes to > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/sitemesh-page.tld > > > > > > > > > i think that > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/common.js > > > > > > requires attribution but i can't see anything in NOTICE > > > > > > i think that > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/css.js > > > > > > is missing from the LICENSE > > > > > > also > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/servicemix/tags/servicemix-3.1.1/web/servicemix-web-console/src/main/webapp/js/plotkit/*.js > > > > > > > > > (after re-reading the latest version of > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html, i'm not sure how this > > > applies javascript and other distributed source. i'll follow this up > > > with legal.) > > I will add these informations to the LICENSE / NOTICE files. > > Is it sufficient to place these licenses in the NOTICE file? Can > someone clarify this please? see http://www.apache.org/legal/ personally, speaking i wouldn't -1 a release that include LICENSE information in the NOTICE but AIUI it's more appropriate in LICENSE > > otherwise generally ok but i have a few questions > > > > > > source in > > > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/org/apache/servicemix/samples/wsdl-first/wsdl-first-jsr181-su/3.1.1-incubating/ > > > > > > lacks headers. is this going to be released? if so, are these > > > generated? > > > > > > are the jars under > > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ going to > > > be released? > > > > > > servicemix-wsn2005-3.1.1-incubating-sources.jar contains lots of java > > > sources without headers (mostly under > > > org.apache.servicemix.wsn.jaxws). is this going to be released? if so, > > > are these generated? > > Yeah, lots of these files are generated. Files generated are not in svn > > so we usually check the headers on the svn tree rather than the source > > jars generated by maven. These jars are not meant to be built for only > > contain all the java sources for debugging purposes. If you want to > > build these jars, you need to use the source distribution or use the svn > > tag. > > So do we need to license generated files? nope (AIUI generated files are not independently copyrightable) just needed to check that these were indeed generated and so didn't need a license header - robert -- James --- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-m
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
On 7/2/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now? after checking this thread, my substantive issue was the bad signatures if they've been updated, i'll take another look - robert
Re: [VOTE] Release ServiceMix 3.1.1 (2nd try)
As a new release with updated LICENSE file has been uploaded, all signatures have been updated too. I've just checked and they all seem ok. Cheers, Guillaume Nodet robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 7/2/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Robert, are you happy to +1 the release now? > > > after checking this thread, my substantive issue was the bad signatures > > if they've been updated, i'll take another look > > - robert > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [docs] release management [WAS Re: [VOTE] approve release of CXF 2.0-incubator]
On Sunday 01 July 2007 14:33, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 6/30/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe we should use that release notes as a template :) > > sounds like a good idea :-) > > i hope that daniel might find some time to help write the release > management guide (which is next on my personal documentation hit list) > > - robert I'd be happy to help out a little bit. The next couple weeks might be tough (busy with releases of our commercial stuff), but I'll try to make a little time. From a "release with Maven" standpoint, there are still a couple holes that need to be filled in. Once I get some time, I hope to work on filling them (or at least pushing some of the other maven folks into filling them). -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Log4PHP restart proposal - Please VOTE
The Log4PHP restart proposal vote (http://thread.gmane.org/ gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/15122) has been open for 72 hours at this time and there have been +1 votes from Curt Arnold and Jim Jagielski, both IPMC members. Additional votes or comments from other IPMC members are desired. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Log4PHP restart proposal
On 6/29/07, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...Revival of the terminated log4php incubation with a new development community and a goal to migrate log4php to PHP 5 +1 -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubator new committer redux
Hi, On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:10 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote: Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The thread has died down with no consensus, so I'm going to try again. I apologize for being absent from these threads for the last month. Life got busy and one of the things that got dropped was the incubator general list. I don't want to rehash everything that's been discussed before, but here's my opinions as an IPMC member: I'd prefer that the decision making stays close to the PPMC. If we need the IPMC to check off on PPMC decisions, fine. That should be possible via the mentors. But let's not make this any more bureaucratic than necessary. I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self- governance. But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid its responsibilities. Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote. That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both private lists. Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced by Noel's argument that the PPMC is a figment of our imagination. Sorry, Noel, don't mean to pick on you here. :-) I can't claim to have read every document that pertains to this issue, but as far as the Board is concerned, PPMC's don't exist. They are a construction of the Incubator in accordance with the Incubator's charter to provide guidance to subprojects. According to Apache Foundation how-it-works [1] which I'm assuming is normative, PMC members have the right to propose new committers. And the PMC as a whole is responsible for project governance, which includes new committers. My point is, if the IPMC choses to delegate committer voting responsibilities to PPMCs, then the PPMC votes are just as 'binding' as IPMC votes. AFAIK, there's no legal barrier for this to happen, only procedural ones. The discussion here is on the process (procedure) to create new committers in the incubator while staying within the Incubator's charter within the Foundation's bylaws. Which means to me that the Incubator PMC must decide (vote) on new committers. I'm not convinced yet that the Incubator PMC can decide to let another group (PPMC) decide without voting to accept the other group's decision. I guess that's a bit of a legal question. If we can pop the stack a few frames, the reason I'm pursuing this is that I've seen several examples over the past few months where PPMC votes were taken without the Mentors voting, the PPMC tried to get the new committer on board, root ignored the request, and a general melee occurred. Also from personal experience, a new project has no idea how to get a new committer on board. There seem to be as many opinions (conflicting) as Incubator PMC members. I'm trying to avoid these kinds of issues in future. Craig [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#asf-members -- J Aaron Farr jadetower.com[US] +1 724-964-4515 馮傑仁 cubiclemuses.com [HK] +852 8123-7905 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://db.apache.org/jdo smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Incubator new committer redux
Craig L Russell wrote: > > I agree that the Incubator should groom the PPMC toward self-governance. > But that doesn't mean that the Incubator PMC can avoid its > responsibilities. +1 >> Thus I'm in favor of only ONE vote. > > That's why I proposed that a vote occur simultaneously on both private > lists. That's why I see one of two acceptable solutions; * parallel votes, cc both lists (allot of noise, potentially productive.) * vote at ppmc-private, notice of result to ipmc with a 72 hour ack/nack timer (for ipmc to review the ppmc-private results). The later is how the board manages additions and deletions from regular PMCs. And IMHO it works extraordinarily well. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vote] Accept JRS project for incubation
+1 (non binding) Xavier On 6/29/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have changed the proposal to indicate that initial source will not be made available until the software grant is executed. Other than that, the proposal is unchanged from the original submission. Full text is attached below. Votes, please. The vote will remain open for 72 hours, closing 2 July 0200 GMT. [ ] +1 Accept this project into the incubator [ ] -1 No, because Thanks! Phil
[Result] [Vote] Accept JRS project for incubation
This vote has passed. Incubator PMC (binding) 8 +1 votes (martinc, mvdb, pzf, jukka, brett, rdonkin, leosimons, clr) no - votes 5 +1 non-binding votes, no non-binding - votes I will start the process of making infrastructure requests and clearing IP. Thanks! Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
