RE: I would like to join the Geronimo project
Welcome! The best place to start is http://incubator.apache.org/geronimo. Join the developer mailing list, get acquainted with the software, and find some work that needs to be done. It's that easy; no resume is needed. Regards, Alan > -Original Message- > From: Octavian Tanase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 12:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: I would like to join the Geronimo project > > as a developer, please find my resume attached. > > Cheers, > --Octavian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Graduate Geronimo from Incubator and recommend as top-level project
+1 Many thanks to Geronimo's resident nudniks Geir and Noel. > -Original Message- > From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [VOTE] Graduate Geronimo from Incubator and recommend as top- > level project > > > The Geronimo project has been in Incubation for almost 10 months. In > those 10 months, the Geronimo project has developed a community, > developed a new codebase in an open and collaborative fashion, > weathered problems both internal and external, formed a functioning > group of committers to manage the day to day affairs of the project > (the PPMC), demonstrated collaboration with other OSS groups in the > enterprise software domain, and produced a milestone release of > software. > > Therefore, I believe the Geronimo project has satisfied the > requirements of the Apache Incubation process, namely : > > o does collaborative development according to the ASF's > philosophy and guidelines > > o has a codebase that is properly licensed, has clear > provenance, and conforms to the ASF's legal requirements > for contributions > > Furthermore, I believe that the Incubator PMC, on behalf of the > Geronimo PPMC and the entire Geronimo community, should recommend to > the Apache Board of Directors to make the Geronimo project a top-level > Apache project. > > If this pleases the chair of the Incubator PMC, I request that members > of the Geronimo PPMC (which is the Incubator PMC and the Geronimo > committers) please vote : > > [ ] +1 - The Geronimo project has met the requirements > for incubation and will be recommended to the > board for TLP status > > [ ] -1 - The Geronimo project as not met the requirements > for incubation > > This vote will run ~72 hours, closing at 23:59 EDT, Sunday May 23, 2004. > > geir > > > -- > Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - > 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: Geronimo J2EE project
Bhanu, The mailing lists can be found in http://geronimo.apache.org/mail-lists.html I'll fix the wiki. Regards, Alan > -Original Message- > From: Bhanu Vasireddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Geronimo J2EE project > > > Hi, > > > > I am not sure whether Geronimo J2EE project falls under incubator project. > I tried to subscribe Geronimo mailing list using following mail id's and I > am getting failure notice. is there any other mail address other then > these 2 addresses > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Any help in this matter will be appreciated. > > > > > > Thanks, > > VCB > > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Agila] assigning tasks to groups of users
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Agila] assigning tasks to groups of users
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2004, at 15:58, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> Its very common with people workflow to assign a task to a group
of
> >>> users (or a role) rather than assigning it to a specific
individual
> >>> user. Then a user sees a list of all available tasks they could
> >>> perform - they then grab one ('locking it') and then execute the
task
> >>> or releasing it back into the pool if they don't want to complete
the
> >>> task.
> >>> Right now Agila uses a single UserID for assigning tasks. Unless
I'm
> >>> missing something, it looks like Agila needs some kind of 'role'
or
> >>> 'group' entity so that users can grab tasks rather than a workflow
> >>> just assigning it directly to them. Or am I missing something
subtle
> >>> here?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think there was a design trade off here around how that list of
> >> users would be determined.
> >>
> >> One option is that when task is being generated, the actor
resolution
> >> process pre-calculates the list of users and assigns tasks to all
of
> >> them. When one of them completes their task, then all other
> >> assignments are marked 'already-completed-by-another-user'. This
means
> >> the expansion process, which can be very expensive, is only done
once.
> >> It also means that there is a permanent audit trail of all tasks
that
> >> have been assigned to a user, whether they were the one who did
them
> >> or not. The downside, of course, is that a lot of assignments may
be
> >> generated and not used.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Its often better to just assign a task to a group and then let a
user
> > grab a task - again the same audit trail can be kept, but it can
result
> > in just 2 simple database operations rather than lots for large
groups.
> >
>
> In these situations the resulting number of users is often small
making
> for a very manageable set. The set is also defined by some correlation
> id associated with the activity and so can be handled by two simple
> database operations.
>
> >
> >> The other option is to assign the task to a group deferring
expansion
> >> until a task list is displayed. The set of tasks returned is then
> >> calculated based on the union of all groups to which the user
belongs.
> >> If there are more views of the list than there are assignments then
> >> this may be a more expensive solution.
> >
> >
> > Agreed - though its the more common approach on all the systems I've
> > worked on in the past. e.g. folks often want to search the available
> > tasks by role/group.
> >
> > Typically a users group membership is not that great (only a few
groups)
> > and the groups in which a user belongs does not change that often,
so
> > its common to be able to cache this around for a while, so the query
of
> > all tasks for 1..N groups is usually pretty cheap.
> >
>
> Funny - I have seen systems collapse under such load even with caching
> (the cost of a cache miss was too high when dealing with hundreds of
> thousands of users).
>
> >
> >> The audit trail is also more expensive as you have to record the
list
> >> of tasks that was calculated from the group membership expansion.
> >
> >
> > I don't quite follow. So long as you've an audit trail of tasks to
> > groups and users to groups, you're OK right?
> >
>
> You have to generate audit events for the tasks that were displayed as
a
> result of the expansion. In the pre-calculated one you have specific
> unique task-ids that can be logged. In the dynamic one you have to be
> able to reconstruct the user/group hierarchy as it was at the time of
> display. This involves an effective dating mechanism for users/groups
> (which you would probably have anyway) plus way of making that data
> available to the auditor.
>
> >
> >> In certain business scenarios (especially HR, Finance or Health)
the
> >> group membership rules can be quite complex. For example, something
> >> simple sounding like "get approval for my expense report" could
> >> involve calculations to determine which managers have approval
> >> authority based on the employee, the value of the report, the date
of
> >> the report, who "default" approvers (such as HR) are, and so forth.
> >
> >
> > That sounds more like an approval workflow rather than just a group
of
> > users. i.e. if it requires complex logic to figure out what a group
is,
> > then its more about a step in the workflow chooses which users
should
> > get what tasks.
> >
>
> It depends on how you view actor resolution. Yes, the rules for it can
> be scripted by an analyst in the workflow itself (or in a reusable
> sub-flow). Alternatively they can be managed by more specialized
systems
> such as a rules engine. Yes, you can have an activity encapsulate such
> an agent, but I was tryin
RE: [VOTE][release] [ApacheDS] 0.8
> --- > [X] +1 I support this release and am willing to help > [ ] +0 I support this release but am unable to help > [ ] -0 I do not support this release > [ ] -1 I do not support this release, and here are my reasons - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Directory exiting Incubator
[X] Graduate the Directory Project [ ] Abstain [ ] Keep incubating the Directory Project - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Incubating java projects
Dumb question, is it a requirement that the incubating project move to the org.apache package? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Growth
On 12/21/2005 7:22 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Folks, Right now any PMC can automatically ok projects into incubator. How about we change that rule? So that the only pmc that can approve a proposal is the incubator PMC. Without putting too much thought into my response I think that the Incubator PMC wields enough control given that they have the final say on Incubation graduation. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating java projects
On 12/21/2005 3:13 AM, Leo Simons wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:59:11AM +, James Strachan wrote: On 20 Dec 2005, at 19:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: It's not actually a dumb question, but rather one that I always took for granted... I realized when asked by Alan that we never had the need to codify it... Yeah - I've never seen it actually written down anywhere & noticed that the Roller project hadn't switched domains yet. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/src/org/ I wondered why this was mandatory; the purpose of the Java package name scheme is purely to avoid clashes; provided the .org domain name is owned (& we'd be happy to donate to Apache) I don't see why we need to force a major package name change on our users. If it is mandatory then hey we'll comply I'm just questioning who made this decision and why? Sun Microsystems in their coding standards :-). It was in retrospect not such a good idea perhaps... One thing we *can't* have is trademarks that aren't owned by the ASF (registered or not), so *if* the package isn't changed then yes the org.roller name and domain *should* probably come under full control of the ASF (I'll say that's a good idea anyway). I think the package name change is currently not mandatory, but perhaps it should be. FWIW, ActiveMQ and ServiceMix are currently in the process of being transfered. Regards, Alan
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/2005 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation. Again, the Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification. The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :) The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one, and one that we've always held to, but it's also the one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's not the fact that other PMCs should decide what gets added in which is the issue, is that we have the required checks and balances in place to avoid another Jakarta. Going under the assumption that there "should" be some sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator is the best such entity currently in existence (other than the board itself). That's all ;) I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/21/2005 11:21 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ted Leung wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache brand name And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the Incubator. Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying to make the projects look different by being in the Incubator. They ARE different. And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules. Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an incubated project and an Apache project. Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project. that can be easily resolved. you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no project or PR firm can mention apache there. Although I'm not sure we should take that step right now, I don't think that's such a crazy suggestion. I do believe we should rethink the branding of incubating project: Today, we complain that corporations working on incubating projects are taking advantage of the Apache brand. We wonder why the press and public aren't aware of the distinction of incubating projects, and yet we *require* these projects always preface their name with the same master brand we use on fully endorse projects, "Apache". We can't keep a low bar for incoming incubating projects and allow for this confusion. We may indeed need a multibrand strategy when it comes to incubating projects. I think that this thread has much merit and should be pursued further. Regards, Alan
Re: Corporations and the incubator
On 12/25/2005 6:03 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 13:00 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: Don't do a press release. An incubating project is not officially part of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is part of the ASF. This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't go here. -1 Press releases are a means for companies to announce noteworthy events to the public. ... Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating project's logo. See "Don't do a press release" for reasons. -1 I see nothing wrong with printing T-shirts or other promotional items as long as their design is approved by the ASF. I disagree on both counts - while going thru incubation it is important to recognize that a project is *not* part of the ASF until it completes incubation. If we allow people to do press releases, print t-shirts and coffee mugs etc., then the rest of the world has no way to distinguish between a real ASF project and an incubating one. We don't allow code releases from the incubator except with carefully minted words. Given we can't do that with t-shirts, its best to just say no. Press releases could have the disclaimer text- but the reality is that when the story gets carried by various folks they drop that stuff- the story simply isn't powerful enough with a disclaimer. So we end up losing. So I agree with Dain's proposals! These reflect my sentiments as well. Regards, Alan
ActiveMQ and ServiceMix status
The software grant forms have been completed and sent to the Apache Software Foundation. Can someone within ASF confirm that they have been received? The trademarks are in the process of being transferred. ETA for the transfer is about one week. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/27/2005 9:17 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 27, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: There has been some discussion on creating a Java specs project which would hold all the specs jars from the various JSRs as well as other standards, e.g. CORBA. Often, there are many duplicate "copies" of the source code for the same JSR floating around in different Apache projects. It would be a great idea to move them all into one project. This idea, so far, has been met with much enthusiasm. We've been talking about it for a while in geronimo - so yeah, might be a good thing to get started. (I took jcp-open off as this really isn't JCP specific...) How about here? How do we get this started on Jakarta commons? Should I file a proposal? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starting a java specs project
There has been some discussion on creating a Java specs project which would hold all the specs jars from the various JSRs as well as other standards, e.g. CORBA. Often, there are many duplicate "copies" of the source code for the same JSR floating around in different Apache projects. It would be a great idea to move them all into one project. This idea, so far, has been met with much enthusiasm. How do we get this started? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/27/2005 3:50 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 12/28/05, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah, I've forwarded this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well so I can get feedback from both sides. The above meant 'the commons community way' rather than the exact people. ie) I'm expecting the original coders to, in most cases, still be maintaining and working on the code. ... ie) Keep them as a part of Jakarta Commons [the community development at Jakarta] or make a third component in Jakarta [along with Jakarta General, the conversation place] called Jakarta Specs. +1 to a separate specs project at Jakarta that is its own area, but follows the same practices of commons (and if possible, shares the same committers set). I'd be happy to see this happen. I'm not overly concerned about developing non-Java specs in the same space. I don't see that there is a lot that those communities would have in common with other specs communities (other than practices which we could share). The only example I can think of currently is stdcxx and that is certainly large enough for its own tlp. Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] if the Incubator wants to hear about it later rather than sooner ;) Actually, I don't know why the incubator is involved at all. We're not talking about starting anything new - code is moving from other places (most of which has already had releases) and should be bringing people with it. Is there a concern that a community won't be formed? If that happened, the code would still have to go back to the original projects anyway as they need it. I think te worst case is that it becomes a set of specs with no other interaction with parts of Jakarta - which is exactly what we have now. I think the Jakarta PMC is equipped to deal with it on its own. I would think that given its very nature, specs, the community would not be very active at all. Regards, Alan
Re: Starting a java specs project
Seems like an oxymoron, community should be active, but the code may not, no? How can this be? Regards, Alan On 12/27/2005 4:04 PM, Brett Porter wrote: I'm no sure I agree. I think the community should be active, but the code may not be. Perhaps too optimistic :) - Brett On 12/28/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would think that given its very nature, specs, the community would not be very active at all. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/27/2005 4:25 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Discussion of upcoming specs, discussion of usage of the specs, a users list that helps people use the specs (this is necessary, but worries me about getting "how do I do servlets" type questions). I guess there is also scope to innovate in addition to the specs and work on commons components that do things the specs missed. Is there much non-code activity around specs in Geronimo right now? There is no activity. Once the specs have passed the TCK, people are really only interested in the implementation that's on top of the specs. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/27/2005 7:12 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/27/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Seems like an oxymoron, community should be active, but the code may not, no? How can this be? Two ways: 1) The conversation that Brett mentions. General pan-apache Java things. I'm a little worried about any authorization issues where only an EG is able to commit. If they get quiet, the community would be unable to make changes. I agree with Brett on the worry about 'how do I do servlets' questions. My recommendation would be to avoid a specs-users list until there are people asking relevant questions. Just make a specs-dev list to start with. 2) The commons community to the side provides a paralleling structure, with hopefully much of the same people in both; people who do pan-apache Java things. I still don't see #1. However, I still feel that this all belongs in Jakarta Commons. Regards, Alan
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/30/2005 6:54 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Dec 28, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On 12/27/2005 4:25 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Discussion of upcoming specs, discussion of usage of the specs, a users list that helps people use the specs (this is necessary, but worries me about getting "how do I do servlets" type questions). I guess there is also scope to innovate in addition to the specs and work on commons components that do things the specs missed. Is there much non-code activity around specs in Geronimo right now? There is no activity. Once the specs have passed the TCK, people are really only interested in the implementation that's on top of the specs. Right- and I don't think of it as the spec passing the TCK. The spec jars we're doing here are really (for the most part, for modern JSRs done by clueful EGs) just copying what we read in the API docs, right? Yep. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/30/2005 10:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/30/05, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/30/05, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Reasons for not Jakarta: *) Java specific. I wonder why it has to be Java-specific ? Aren't there any standards that contains bindings for several languages ? Good point. I originally meant that if we wanted specs from other languages to be there, Jakarta wouldn't make sense. However for something like SAX or DOM, it's less about another language spec and more about a cross-language spec. No idea to be honest. If we go with Jakarta or JCP as a location; I think we just treat them as exceptions to be dealt with. I think that we're over thinking this. Let's start w/ Java and cross the multi-language issue bridge when we come to it. Regards, Alan
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/30/2005 10:29 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: 2. There is no reason that I know of to restrict commit privileges on the javax code to expert group members. The TCKs typically include signature tests that verify that the interfaces and classes contain exactly what they are supposed to. I agree but, I don't think that anyone is proposing this. 4. Apache JDO (which notwithstanding information on the incubator web site has graduated;-) is a project that is implementing both the API and the TCK. It's not clear to me what the advantage is to putting the API part in another project. Other projects that want to access the API jar can simply reference it via maven or download the jar files. I think that there is something compelling about one-stop-shopping for APIs. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
Looks good to me. Guys, should we not begin to create a specs project in Jakarta? It seems that we have a consensus. What are the next steps? Regards, Alan On 12/30/2005 6:14 AM, James Carman wrote: Why not do like we do with the commons? spec-javamail -Original Message- From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:08 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Starting a java specs project On 12/27/05, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I think this would be great! I know it's silly, but I get annoyed at the fact that many of the J2EE spec jars that I use from apache have "geronimo-" in the jar name but It's just the ASL 2.0 spec jars that I'm using and not really a geronimo implementation. In general, I think that this would make a good TLP since it would provide a good area for cross project involvement. [presuming it was stored at Jakarta Specs] Do you think they should be apache- or jakarta-, or either would be fine? Would 'jakarta-spec-javamail' be too much of a mouthful? Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/30/2005 1:27 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: On 12/30/05, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looks good to me. Guys, should we not begin to create a specs project in Jakarta? It seems that we have a consensus. Well, maybe ... I have a couple of concerns about the practicalities here. First, at least for the set of standards that are JCP related (non-JCP standards will likely have a similar set of issues, however), let's divide the world of specs we might be interested in having API classes around for into two groups (a) JSRs that Apache also hosts implementations for (MyFaces, Tomcat, Geronimo, Pluto, a bunch of the web service ones, etc.) (b) JSRs that Apache does not host implementations for, but where projects might want to rely on implementations acquired elsewhere. For group (a), the current practice is to host the API classes inside the project that is also providing the implementation. That makes sense to me for a number of reasons, but the most important ones revolve around ensuring that the produced classes comply with the corresponding TCK tests to ensure spec complance. The people most familiar with the requirements, and the most motivated to watch for potential compliance-breaking changes, will be the folks doing the corresponding implementation. Even in the current situation, it's really easy for a committer to try to tweak API classes in a manner that will not be compatible ... but these cases get caught quickly, because the "in the know" developers are going to be watching. Note that if a primary goal of this effort is to have a common repository of API jars (and that's certainly a worthy goal), it doesn't require a separate project to accomplish that -- simply a mechanism for cooperation on what repository to post API jars into. (However, even there, we'd need to check licensing in each case whether the API jar can be published separately.) For group (b), the latter consideration will also apply -- the API classes for a JSR are licensed as described in each individual JSR. If a primary goal of this effort is to encourage the development of a community interested in the general issues of implementing Java based standards (also a worthy goal), that's great ... but it does not seem to me that sharing API code is a prerequisite for accomplishing this. There's an interesting idea. So there is a shared repo destination that all the respective projects public spec jars into? I would imagine that we would need some convention published in each project so that the spec jars can easily be found. Can you elaborate on your statement "we'd need to check licensing in each case whether the API jar can be published separately" since I am unaware of any such restrictions? Regards, Alan
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 12/31/2005 1:12 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: I haven't been involved in any history here, so please forgive my naivete. I think I understand the rationale for developing spec jars here at Apache. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In order to use a spec jar from the JCP, you have to click a license every time you download it. And this can be a real usability problem if every user of a project needs to manually download just to click a license that they don't read anyway (oops, gotta stop that). It seems like a real waste of energy to have more than one spec jar in Apache per spec. Bygones. Whether this was accidental or intentional, it seems that we mostly need to agree on where the jars live and make sure that everyone knows where that is. So if I'm interested in using the Servlet 2.3 jar, which project does this live in, and who manages it? I'd think that a well-known directory might be just the thing. Perhaps a TLP responsible to track where the JCP spec jars are being developed? [It might be that Jakarta is the right TLP.] And a pointer to the repository where the spec jars can be downloaded (automatically, maven-style). And some common naming scheme that everyone agrees on. I doubt that there is enough in common among the spec jar developers to build a community around "spec jars". But certainly there is a community among the developers of Servlet and a different community among the developers of JDO and a different community for MyFaces, etc. So it sounds straightforward to me to establish a TLP to house a "directory" of the spec jars and which projects they belong to and where the binaries reside. Craig, you hit the nail on the head with this. I am running into this now. The impetus for my attempting to start this is that I currently have to go on an easter egg hunt for spec jars. I have no strong feelings how the jars get into a central place for me to find them so long as they are in a central place. That central place cannot be the JCP web site. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 1/1/2006 5:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/31/05, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't been involved in any history here, so please forgive my naivete. I think I understand the rationale for developing spec jars here at Apache. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In order to use a spec jar from the JCP, you have to click a license every time you download it. And this can be a real usability problem if every user of a project needs to manually download just to click a license that they don't read anyway (oops, gotta stop that). Yep. Some are a real pain to find too; jdbc-stdext-2.0.jar springs to mind :) I doubt that there is enough in common among the spec jar developers to build a community around "spec jars". But certainly there is a community among the developers of Servlet and a different community among the developers of JDO and a different community for MyFaces, etc. You need community for two parts: 1) Someone has to work on said website. 2) There needs to be a place for people to talk about said specs; not in terms of development, but in terms of "is anyone working on a Foo spec yet?", "here's a patch for the website" and "what's the best way for us to handle the naming scheme?". The apache-jcp website is well on the way to this [http://www.apache.org/jcp/]. In addition to a simple site, browseable spec javadoc and download links(ibiblio?) would be nicer than having to dig into the particular TLP that happened to develop the code. Then we get onto the details: * Should the source be in a shared location, or in the original TLP. * Do we put it under JCP [ie: www.apache.org/jcp and [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Jakarta [ie: jakarta.apache.org/specs and [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm +1 to either. [sales pitch :)] Really the second question is less about specs and more about whether/how we want a Java Federation at Apache. JCP is effectively the 'Java Community Process Federation at Apache', so it's natural that we'll have overlap issues between the two. There are plenty of non-JCP specs, e.g. CORBA. I think that this should go into Jakarta. Regards, Alan
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 1/2/2006 10:20 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: There are plenty of non-JCP specs, e.g. CORBA. Do they have the same kind of "independent artifacts" like some of these JCP specs do? I've been thinking about this too - what other specs have a similar kind of mechanism? CORBA has sets of specs that create independent artifacts like JCP. There are others, e.g. OSGi. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
+1 Release the binary as 4.0-M4 Regards, Alan On 1/30/2006 12:06 AM, James Strachan wrote: On the developer list the committers voted to create a milestone release of ActiveMQ... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/ 200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] then the committers voted to approve the distro http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-activemq-dev/ 200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] the results were 8 +1s and no -1s. You can download and review the distro here http://people.apache.org/~chirino/incubator-activemq-4.0-M4/ So based on the incubation guidelines http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases I'd like to ask the Incubator PMC to approve the release http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases [ ] +1 Release the binary as 4.0-M4 [ ] -1 Veto the milestone release (provide specific comments) Incidentally those interested in the incubation status can view the status here http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/ActiveMQ_Incubation Here's my +1 James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 1/31/2006 7:43 AM: -1 * The paperwork has not been recorded by the ASF Secretary. If necessary, an ASF Officer can be used as an intermediary, e.g., if Ken wants to accept and ACK a FAX, we can operate on his ACK. * I don't see a Software Grant for any of the code that came over from codehaus. Re-sending all w/ Trademark Transfer. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
Results of the vote [1] on Yoko - A CORBA Server sub-project proposal [2]: +1 David Blevins +1 Jacek Laskowski +1 John Sisson +1 Alan Cabrera +1 Jeff Genender +1 Davanum Srinivas +1 Matt Hogstrom +1 David Jencks +1 Dain Sundstrom +1 Bruce Snyder +1 Greg Wilkins +1 Jan Bartel +1 Jason Dillon +1 Sachin Patel Non Binding: +1 Adinarayana Sakala +1 Aaron Mulder The proposal to accept Yoko - A CORBA Server sub-project for incubation has passed. Regards, Alan [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CorbaProposal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 1/31/2006 7:27 PM: Alan, Could you folks turn up some additional Mentors? We have not adopted a formal policy to require more than one --- yet --- but I'd like to see more than one. Sure, good idea. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: $project.xml files for ServiceMix and ActiveMQ
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 2/1/2006 9:29 PM: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Snyder wrote: Thank you very much for making us aware of this issue, Ken. I know that it was a learning experience for me. At any rate, I've fixed up the list of committers in each $project.xml file and gotten the final $project.html published to the respective Incubator sites. I hope that these files are up to snuff regarding the Incubator requirements. Please let me know if you find any faults. Excellent. I have set the karma access lists for the two podlings according to the committer lists in those files. Everything should be technically copacetic now. Thanks Bruce! Thanks Ken! I've just finished updating our STATUS files for AMQ and SM. IIUC these are the official status files but, I'll continue on to the $project.xml files. I will remove the wiki status pages that I erroneously created. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
On 2/2/2006 8:57 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Feb 2, 2006, at 7:29 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: How should the disclaimer be associated? Well, this is a bit of an issue. Why are the plain jars available? To allow automated downloads by Maven? I have an issue with that, since it could allow people to use the code without knowing that it is in the Incubator, but more to the point, we've had that discussion, and I don't recall the resolution. Even though it's not extremely descriptive, the maven group id that activemq is using is incubator-activemq. So most folks who add the activemq dependency will realize that it's a dependency that's coming from the incubator. I believe that this is the same thing that geronimo and derby did while they were in the incubator. This is exactly what Geronimo and Derby did. There are several projects that rely on ActiveMQ and most of these use Maven. It would be very painful to these projects to not have the jars available. One other point, any current user of ActiveMQ will have to modify their Maven project descriptor to change the groupId of activemq to incubator-activemq, which should be an clear sign that project is incubating. This reflects my sentiments as well. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
If I understand correctly, this will be a code donation like http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/geronimo-762-ibm-console.html. Regards, Alan On 2/2/2006 1:12 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Cory, Could you please get James' help and draft a complete proposal? Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=incubator+proposal+site%3Awiki.apache.org&btnG=Search for a list of proposals, their format and their content. Once the proposal is ready, please post it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, please take a peek at the documentation on the http://incubator.apache.org/ site especially w.r.t to the incubation process, what to expect and steps involved. thanks, dims On 2/2/06, cory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, BPEL 1.1 is supported. The code works with Axis 1.3. Sybase wants this code to be successful within the community and is going to work to support it. Cheers, -cory On 2/2/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Folks, There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like. *PLEASE* CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Which specific version of the spec is implemented? - Where are the list of known issues? - Where is the TODO list? - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we forget that the current version is Axis 1.3) - Is there any relation to workflow? - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation project Agila? - Are there people from sybase who will be working? - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to be one too? - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL (Quoting greg - "there is no need to develope a community around this code") (Quoting Rob - "If you've looked at the proposed donated code, this BPEL engine is complete, I can't see any sense in combining it with something else ?" ) - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code inside out? - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole then why should it be accepted? thanks, dims On 2/2/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have received the generous donation of a complete and working BPE engine to the ServiceMix project... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/ 200602.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] the contributor has offered to donate to Apache & complete the necessary software grants & IP clearance and to work with us on integrating it into ServiceMix. For those of you maybe not aware; ServiceMIx is an ESB project defined around JBI (JSR 208) the JCP standard API to integration components along with being the standard container model for a BPE. ServiceMix already has the JBI container and has a suite of JBI integration components already for smart routing, transformation, rules, scripting, auditing etc... http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components So it makes complete sense to add a BPE to that component suite. Note that since ServiceMix already has integration components to Apache Axis and Apache Tuscany, the integration of the BPE with ServiceMix should benefit those projects too (with Apache Synapse possibly too via the Axis integration - though we need to work on that one a bit). Also having a BPE fully integrated into Geronimo via the JBI container would mean that we could start to orchestrate pretty much everything in the Geronimo stack! I'm certainly very excited by this move... [ ] +1 accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project [ ] 0 don't mind either way [ ] -1 I object because: ... Here's my +1 James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Are there risks to making this a TLP, i.e. do we know that there will be enough traction to get it out of the incubator on its own? Wouldn't it make sense to incubate it in an existing project and if the community grows, graduated it to a TLP? I think that we've seen many TLP projects struggle to get out incubation and sub-projects grow into TLPs. If it goes into Geronimo, is there sufficient Geronimo membership from the Axis group to ensure broad adoption? If not, can they be easily added? Regards, Alan On 2/3/2006 1:52 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: I was determined to stay of this, but alas! i could resist asking this: Would you be ok to having a stand alone project with committers from servicemix, your team, people from other backgrounds (could be existing ws committers) working on this code base, bring it up to say BPEL 2.0 from BPEL1.1, upgrade it to say Axis2 from Axis 1.3 etc.etc...OR are u insisting that this code has to go into servicemix and nowhere else... If it is the latter, why? If it is the former, why is there so much resistance? As they say, i'll take your answers off the air. thanks, dims On 2/3/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dims, I'll take Cory off the hook since he was acting in good faith on behalf of Sybase :-). As we are learning, there are a variety of ways to work within the Apache process as long as the community is supportive. From the Sybase perspective, we are interested in working with a vibrant community in a meaningful way that balances the needs of the community with that of our own. when we first started thinking about the open source path, we looked at Agila and communicated with the developers. While the Agila developers were quite helpful, the project was not open to our contribution and our assessment was that their existing code line would take substantial work to bring it up to where we thought we already were. When we looked at ServiceMix, we found a mature community that not only appeared open to a contribution such as ours but one which would help us establish a good affinity with the ESB. The Sybase folks working on this code line will continue to vigorously support the orchestration component and provide help in adjacent areas related to SCA. At this point, we feel comfortable in our contribution to the ServiceMix project based on the positive uptake. Under the rules of meritocracy, we will work to ensure that the interfaces remain clean and the build granular enough to be reused and hope to work with you in the future. Best Regards, Bill ---Original Message--- From: Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project) Sent: 02 Feb '06 21:12 Cory, Could you please get James' help and draft a complete proposal? Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=incubator+proposal+site%3Awiki.apache.org&btnG=Search for a list of proposals, their format and their content. Once the proposal is ready, please post it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, please take a peek at the documentation on the http://incubator.apache.org/ site especially w.r.t to the incubation process, what to expect and steps involved. thanks, dims On 2/2/06, cory < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > BPEL 1.1 is supported. The code works with Axis 1.3. > > Sybase wants this code to be successful within the community and is > going to work to support it. > > Cheers, > > -cory > > On 2/2/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, > > > > There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a > > clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like. *PLEASE* CC > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - Which specific version of the spec is implemented? > > - Where are the list of known issues? > > - Where is the TODO list? > > - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we > > forget that the current version is Axis 1.3) > > - Is there any relation to workflow? > > - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation > > project Agila? > > - Are there people from sybase who will be working? > > - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to > > be one too? > > - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL > > (Quoting greg - "there is no need to develope a community around this code") > > (Quoting Rob - "If you've looked at the proposed donated code, this > > BPEL engine is complete, I can't see any sense in combining it with > > something else ?" ) > > - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code inside out? > > - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole > > then why should it be accepted? > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On 2/2/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have received
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Cc'ing the incubator list since Dims is no longer on the Geronimo and ServiceMix lists. Regards, Alan On 2/3/2006 2:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Holy crap! What a mess this thread is! I'm not used to being like the cool voice of reason. :) For my 2 cents, a JBI container without BPEL is a hard sell, so I'd go a long way to see one available for ServiceMix. Based on our Geronimo experience, I suspect it would be easier to build the two together and then spin off a working BPEL engine down the road, rather than call them nominally independent projects but in truth have them so tightly linked during development that you can't realistically use one without the other and there's a lot of fuss about having the latest SNAPSHOT of this not work against HEAD of that and so on. So here's my +1 to include the BPEL donation in ServiceMix, but I won't argue too strenuously if people want to bring it into Geronimo instead (assuming we get the latest Geronimo/ServiceMix integration code from Guillaume! :) On the other hand, I think it might be a bit awkward as a standalone project from day 1. Thanks, Aaron On 2/3/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After some thought about this, I will give it a +1. We're seeing a lot of overlap lately between the WS-* folks and the J2EE folks. Like lots of projects lately, I don't think this code donation fits strictly into one category. And to say that it strictly belongs one place or another is a mistake. I think the Sybase and ServiceMix people have made it clear that they are dedicated to working on this. I know the ws-* people are stretched with the many many specs to implement, so from a practical standpoint I think the ServiceMix location works. Lets closely monitor the community and see where it goes. At a future date we can readdress the location. Regarding other developers and overlapping projects, I would just like to make it clear that we still definitely welcome other people and their involvement. Accepting this donation into ServiceMix does not preclude any involvement with others. If we need to package things different or provide different interfaces or whatever, its all up for discussion and patches - Dan James Strachan wrote: We have received the generous donation of a complete and working BPE engine to the ServiceMix project... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] the contributor has offered to donate to Apache & complete the necessary software grants & IP clearance and to work with us on integrating it into ServiceMix. For those of you maybe not aware; ServiceMIx is an ESB project defined around JBI (JSR 208) the JCP standard API to integration components along with being the standard container model for a BPE. ServiceMix already has the JBI container and has a suite of JBI integration components already for smart routing, transformation, rules, scripting, auditing etc... http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components So it makes complete sense to add a BPE to that component suite. Note that since ServiceMix already has integration components to Apache Axis and Apache Tuscany, the integration of the BPE with ServiceMix should benefit those projects too (with Apache Synapse possibly too via the Axis integration - though we need to work on that one a bit). Also having a BPE fully integrated into Geronimo via the JBI container would mean that we could start to orchestrate pretty much everything in the Geronimo stack! I'm certainly very excited by this move... [ ] +1 accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project [ ] 0 don't mind either way [ ] -1 I object because: ... Here's my +1 James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions LLC http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
On 1/31/2006 8:23 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 1/31/2006 7:27 PM: Alan, Could you folks turn up some additional Mentors? We have not adopted a formal policy to require more than one --- yet --- but I'd like to see more than one. Sure, good idea. The only person who's stepped up and volunteered is Geir. Is there anyone else? Are two mentors enough? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting a java specs project
On 2/7/2006 7:23 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 14:54 +0100, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: What happened to the "Starting a java specs project" thread? Um, probably the same thing that happens to many threads- like a firework .. goes up with heat, blows up in great color and then falls down silently .. ;-). We should pick this back up, no? I can file a proposal. Will this have to go through the incubator given that the code is already in Apache? Regards, Alan
CCLA
The requirement for iCLAs is pretty straightforward. What is the rule for requiring CCLAs? How do I, on the Apache side, perform due diligence? Do I just point the candidates to the license page and ask them to carefully read the material? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
Noel, I think that these issues have now been addressed. I have gathered up the information from subsequent replies in this thread below. Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 1/31/2006 7:43 AM: -1 * The paperwork has not been recorded by the ASF Secretary. If necessary, an ASF Officer can be used as an intermediary, e.g., if Ken wants to accept and ACK a FAX, we can operate on his ACK. I believe that these have been now sent and confirmed. * I don't see a Software Grant for any of the code that came over from codehaus. I believe that these have been now sent and confirmed. * I have no problem with the tarballs, but the plain jars do not have the disclaimer associated with them. Any current user of ActiveMQ will have to modify their Maven project descriptor to change the groupId of activemq to incubator-activemq, which should be an clear sign that project is incubating. This is what was done for Derby and Geronimo. * http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/ActiveMQ_Incubation is not a substitute for http://incubator.apache.org/projects/activemq.html. I removed the confusing wiki pages. The incubator web pages have been updated. I have added a STATUS file to the SVN repo. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/5/2006 2:32 PM, David N. Welton wrote: Leo Simons wrote: *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. Ok, I added /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance/ofbiz.xml - although I only cut the lines to be cut and changed the title. More later... Don't forget to check in the HTML files that are generated and update the web site: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html Regards, Alan
CORBA Incubation setup procedures
I think I need: * SVN o http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/yoko * Jira * Mailing lists o [EMAIL PROTECTED] o [EMAIL PROTECTED] o [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Alan
Re: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
On 2/8/2006 5:16 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: The only person who's stepped up and volunteered is Geir. Is there anyone else? Are two mentors enough? I'm there also. Yep. Thanks Ken! Regards, Alan
Re: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
On 2/8/2006 5:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan, Please note that this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that: Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation. Amongst other issues, we want to be inviting and inclusive of whomever wants to participate, including other ASF projects. Pre-supposing that it is a sub-project of any particular TLP can be contrary to community building. Cool. So Geronimo is merely the sponsoring PMC which will help it through the incubator? At graduation, the community will decide its final resting place? Hmmm ... I think that we should work this into our docs. Thanks. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CORBA Incubation setup procedures
On 2/8/2006 5:41 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I think I need: * SVN o http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/yoko * Jira * Mailing lists o [EMAIL PROTECTED] o [EMAIL PROTECTED] o [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hang on a moment. I see that Geronimo is cool with it, but I don't see any discussion of this proposal on [EMAIL PROTECTED] just the message saying that Geronimo wants to sponsor it. Before we start setting things up, I'd really like to call for some opinions about the proposal from *outside* the sponsoring TLP. Alan's message points out that the proposal is at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CorbaProposal Anyone on general@incubator.apache.org have any comments to make on the proposal? Even just 'yeah, looks good to me' ? CRAP. CRAP. CRAP. CRAP. I could have sworn that I sent this to general@incubator.apache.org as well. Sorry, my bad! (Sorry Geir, I was wrong!) Mine is that 22 seems a rather large number (!) of initial committers for a podling.. A real CORBA server is as complicated as a J2EE server. If nothing further comes from this message within a couple of days, let's go ahead. Cool. Regards, Alan
Re: CORBA Incubation setup procedures
On 2/8/2006 7:27 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: ALL incubator requests for infrastructure MUST be reflected in an appropriate status file under http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html before they are requested. There are no exceptions. Roy I shall do this. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
What's the current vote at? IIUC, if Noel remove's his -1 vote, the release is good to go. Regards, Alan On 2/9/2006 2:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: I don't see any further issues with the ActiveMQ M4 release. I think we should we restart the release vote. Regards, Hiram On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:56 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Noel, I think that these issues have now been addressed. I have gathered up the information from subsequent replies in this thread below. Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 1/31/2006 7:43 AM: -1 * The paperwork has not been recorded by the ASF Secretary. If necessary, an ASF Officer can be used as an intermediary, e.g., if Ken wants to accept and ACK a FAX, we can operate on his ACK. I believe that these have been now sent and confirmed. * I don't see a Software Grant for any of the code that came over from codehaus. I believe that these have been now sent and confirmed. * I have no problem with the tarballs, but the plain jars do not have the disclaimer associated with them. Any current user of ActiveMQ will have to modify their Maven project descriptor to change the groupId of activemq to incubator- activemq, which should be an clear sign that project is incubating. This is what was done for Derby and Geronimo. * http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/ActiveMQ_Incubation is not a substitute for http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ activemq.html. I removed the confusing wiki pages. The incubator web pages have been updated. I have added a STATUS file to the SVN repo. Regards, Alan - 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: IP clearance page broken
On 2/13/2006 11:04 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: The all of the links on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ index.html seem to be broken. I'll try to figure out what is wrong, but if someone has an idea or is already working on it, please let me know. Fixed and released. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BPEL contribution from Sybase
On 2/13/2006 6:43 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: Sybase wants to donate to the service-mix community In other words, they *don't* want to contribute it to Apache. They want it to go into a specific and particular niche *at* Apache. Why the specificity? Why does Sybase care where it goes? I think that Sybase has or had an opinion as to where would be a nice place to start but is not married to it. I'm certain that they will be happy w/ what ever the community decides. Regards, Alan
Re: [VOTE] approve a milestone release of ActiveMQ?
On 2/13/2006 6:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan, * I have no problem with the tarballs, but the plain jars do not have the disclaimer associated with them. Any current user of ActiveMQ will have to modify their Maven project descriptor to change the groupId of activemq to incubator-activemq Please note that we have recently discussed that all ASF packaged java archives ought to have /META-INF/license.txt in them, and that Incubator projects should put the disclaimer in there, too. Should be nothing more than a simple change to an ant or maven script. I've placed a DISCLAIMER.txt file so that they will get placed in /META-INF when the jars get built. Regards, Alan
Ode Proposal
Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. Please feel free to comment. Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork faxed in? Any other ASF committers want to jump in? We need some more mentors. Anyone? This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Done. Feel free to amend. Regards, Alan Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/15/2006 2:15 PM: Welcome aboard Alan, James, Could you please update the wiki proposal? thanks, dims On 2/15/06, Ismael Ghalimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good afternoon, My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company would be interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine and the dedication of development resources to the project. The PXE BPEL 2.0 engine is currently licensed under the CPL open source license, and has been integrated into third-party products/projects such as Sun's Java Studio Enterprise and LogicBlaze's ServiceMix. We understand that multiple implementations of BPEL might be contributed to the project, and are willing to support the one that will be selected by the Ode community. We believe that Apache is the right community for the development of a solid implementation of the latest BPEL specification, and our goal is to participate to this project as actively as we can, so that the community at large could benefit from it. Ideally, we would like to contribute to the development of a BPEL engine that could be deployed on top of any J2EE application server, integrated with any ESB, and support the most current version of the BPEL specification. Alongside our donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine, we are also willing to contribute an AJAX-powered management console for the BPEL engine and an XForms-based workflow engine that implements the concepts of the BPEL4People proposal from IBM and SAP, without relying on any extension of the BPEL specification. We believe that the BPEL management console should become part of the Ode project, while the BPEL4People workflow engine could either become part of the Ode project, or be developed through a separate project. Additionally, the following people would participate to the project: * Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED], co-author of the BPEL specification * Alex Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer * Jacques-Alexandre Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer * Holger Hoffstaette [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer * Iwan Memruk [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer * Maciej Szefler [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Chief Architect * Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED], Agila + PXE Developer * Nazar Stasiv [EMAIL PROTECTED] Console developer * Olexandr Zakordonskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE & Console developer * Oleg Zenzin [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer Beyond our open source work on PXE, Intalio has developed a good experience with Open Source projects in general and the Apache community in particular. For example, we were the original developers for OpenEJB, which served as one of the building blocks for Geronimo. We also developed the original codebase for Slide and donated OpenXML to the Xerces project, alongside IBM's donation of XML4J. We also developed the Castor, OpenJMS and OpenORB projects under Apache license. These projects are now being developed by communities such as CodeHaus or ObjectWeb. Today, we wish to share our experience and resources with the Apache community, and look forward to a very successful and exciting project. Best regards -- Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com weblog.itredux.com -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - 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: Ode Proposal
Welcome aboard! Regards, Alan Paul Fremantle wrote, On 2/16/2006 9:28 AM: Alan I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking forward to it. Paul On 2/14/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan, I would like to throw my name in the hat and become actively involved. Bill Flood Sybase [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/14/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. Please feel free to comment. Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork faxed in? Any other ASF committers want to jump in? We need some more mentors. Anyone? This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. Regards, Alan -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
IIUC, you must be a made man to be a mentor. Regards, Alan Paul Fremantle wrote, On 2/17/2006 1:26 AM: Folks I have added myself in the wiki as a mentor and committer. I hope thats ok with everyone. Paul On 2/17/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: really. I thought he was joking or some other Paul Brown... Davanum Srinivas wrote: You kidding me? Please join us. "relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase" is the understatment of the year. -- dims On 2/16/06, Paul Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/16/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking forward to it. How can a member of the community at large participate in the process? (I'm relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase...) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - 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] -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Apache licensed source(Sybae donation)
cory wrote, On 2/17/2006 9:05 AM: Hello All, An Ode Apache licensed tarball is available at: ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/ode-src.tar.gz The grant was faxed in on 2/9. The package name is org.apache.ode, all the source files have an Apache license and an Apache LICENSE file is included in the tarball. Let me know if we need to change anything else. Jim, Did this get processed? I'm wondering if we could have a policy of confirming receipt of faxes. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ode proposal
I've placed a tentative version of the proposal up onto the incubator site. The Software Grant has been received. There is obviously a lot of good discussion that still needs to take place. I think we should move this to the new mailing lists. I think that we need to create: - mailing lists - svn repo - jira project One thing that should be resolved as soon as possible is how we will bring in new members. At the moment there are 17 proposed new committers for a total of 37 committers. I think that this list might rival that of Geronimo in terms of size; it seems excessive. I propose that people are brought in using the standard method of submitting patches. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode proposal
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/17/2006 12:01 PM: Hmm...Can we apply the same criteria to *ALL* committers (including those listed in the status page now?) One more question, Since Noel (as the PMC Chair) talked about Incubator pmc sponsoring this, can we please reflect that and ask for a ppmc mailing list as well? Cool. Will do. What's the format of the ppmc mailing lists? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode proposal
Sorry, that's what I meant. What are the domains for the lists? Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/17/2006 1:19 PM: harmony-ppmc...Also dont' forget to change the domains for the lists.. -- dims On 2/17/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/17/2006 12:01 PM: Hmm...Can we apply the same criteria to *ALL* committers (including those listed in the status page now?) One more question, Since Noel (as the PMC Chair) talked about Incubator pmc sponsoring this, can we please reflect that and ask for a ppmc mailing list as well? Cool. Will do. What's the format of the ppmc mailing lists? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - 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: Ode Resources
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/17/2006 1:49 PM: Alan, I've set up the following. Mailing listdev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing listcommits [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing listppmc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug trackingJIRA http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ODE Source code SVN http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ode/ Right now only the 3 mentors and you are on the ACL for ode's SVN. Can i add u as moderator for all the mailing lists? Yep. > FYI, you can tweak the JIRA as u have privs. Cool. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
On 2/17/2006 9:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: IIUC, you must be a made man to be a mentor. Actually, Paul is on the Incubator PMC, so he's on the Ode PPMC, and has chosen to actively participate. ASF Members are automatically eligible for the PMC, others, such as Paul, are elected. Does this also specifically also apply to the role of Mentor? Regards, ALan
Re: Ode proposal
On 2/17/2006 8:12 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 11:42 -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: One thing that should be resolved as soon as possible is how we will bring in new members. At the moment there are 17 proposed new committers for a total of 37 committers. I think that this list might rival that of Geronimo in terms of size; it seems excessive. I propose that people are brought in using the standard method of submitting patches. -1 .. given that only a handful of the 37 committers (from Sybase and Intalio) have touched that code, I see one of two possible paths: - start with *just* those people as committers - start with everyone who wants to be a committer at this stage as committers The latter has been the traditional starting point for incubating projects. What you're proposing is some weird middlepoint which biases towards the few who signed up in the first few days/whatever. IMO that's not a good model! OT: I dislike the current trend of people using +1, -1, for simple conversations. It confuses people and should be reserved for votes. With that said, I disagree with your proposal Sanjiva. It has been my experience that on occasion corporate people who are listed w/ a donation frequently do little or nothing to build the community or the product. Sometimes, corporations see a donation as a quick and easy means to get their people ASF committer karma. I trust the mentors on this project. I trust the Incubator PMC that is ultimately charged with the oversight of this project. In a few days, the the ranks of the commitership will be filled with active developers. Regards, Alan Regards, Alan
Re: Mentors, PMC, and oversight.
On 2/18/2006 10:24 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: [X] is on the Incubator PMC, so he's on the Ode PPMC, and has chosen to actively participate. ASF Members are automatically eligible for he PMC, others [can be] elected. Does this also specifically also apply to the role of Mentor? The role of Mentor is an Incubator specific notion, having no existence in the ASF legal structure. Members, Officers and PMC Members, on the other hand, do. The Incubator PMC needs to maintain legal oversight over all of its constituent projects, and as the Incubator grows, it becomes vital that we be able to scale that oversight. This is, in part, why I have been pushing to have at least three Mentors per project. Sure, the entire PMC has a binding over over the entire Incubator, but no one can watch every project. So we need the Mentors to be active in the community. Not only are they there to provide guidance, but to provide oversight. Only PMC members have binding votes, as per the ASF bylaws, so Mentors need to be on the PMC in order to have that binding vote. So really. a Mentor is a PMC member who is choosing to be active and help in guiding the community. Thanks for the clarification. Should I update http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html to reflect this change? Regards, Alan
Re: Unsorted projects in the "Currently in incubation" list
Jacopo Cappellato wrote, On 2/18/2006 10:44 PM: Hi all, just a side note... I've noticed that the projects recently accepted into the Incubator (Ode and Yoko) have been added to the top of the list of "Currently in incubation" projects (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html). I think that the convention there was to sort projects alphabetically. Should this be fixed? (Also the Tobago project is in the wrong position there). Fixed. Sorry about being so sloppy. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode proposal
Craig McClanahan wrote, On 2/18/2006 11:46 PM: On 2/18/06, Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: OT: I dislike the current trend of people using +1, -1, for simple conversations. It confuses people and should be reserved for votes. The use of +1/-1 for conversations (as apposed to votes) is very common through the ASF. I've always rather liked it personally. It's a very "ASF" thing. +1. :-) What's been quite interesting is to see this convention being used in contexts outside the ASF as well ... the underlying message is that consensus building is important, plus the ability of contributors to consisely indicate "yes I agree" or "no, I disagree," plus the ability to express shades of opinion between these extremes. IMHO, that is absolutely the best social impact of this concept ... if you make a +1 or -1 comment, you have to be pretty totally commited to (or against) a particular approach. On the other hand, *not* expressing a +1 or -1 gives you lots of opportunities to build consensus in the middle, by recognizing that both extremes will often have perfectly valid points to have been made, and that compromise is a reasonable strategy. Nicely put Craig. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "GrandCentralProposal" by AlanCabrera
On 2/22/2006 7:39 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Grand Central, a home for Java Specs. I'd suggest that we just use Jakarta for this purpose. And I don't believe that we need anything more than a map, and a package distribution point. What about the issue w/ project names in jars, e.g. geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec? There could be issues of circular dependencies as projects start relying on other projects spec jars. Regards, Alan
Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "GrandCentralProposal" by AlanCabrera
On 2/22/2006 8:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On 2/22/2006 7:39 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Grand Central, a home for Java Specs. I'd suggest that we just use Jakarta for this purpose. And I don't believe that we need anything more than a map, and a package distribution point. What about the issue w/ project names in jars, e.g. geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec? There could be issues of circular dependencies as projects start relying on other projects spec jars. Also, there are non-Java specs as well. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Account requests for Incubator projects
On 2/23/2006 9:16 AM, Upayavira wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Thursday 23 February 2006 15:46, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Why not just modify incubator procedure to make it clear that 1) Mentors make the requests and 2) They sign the email w/ the title "$PODLING_NAME Mentor" Now #2 don't prevent someone from misrepresenting themselves - which would have to be dealt with - but rather it allows us to not act on but simply reply back to those that ask for accounts w/o representing themselves as mentors... Infra doesn't want emails with requests. They want JIRA issues for better tracking of progress et al. Make a list what the issue must contain, for instance; * Proper title according to some template. * URL to VOTE SUMMARY, * Name of Mentor * Incubator General and/or PMC mailing list as a subscriber, so that someone can step in and hit the breaks if it wrong. * List of Resources. and whatever else the Infra people like to see... Then keep a template somewhere, which the Mentor copy/paste into the Jira issue, fills in and off we go :o) No. Account requests should go by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's their preferred route. Jira requests will likely be ignored. This strikes me as odd. Jira can be setup so that only authorized people can post requests. We can also create issue types that have the required data that needs to be suppiled. It also allows us to track the outstanding requests. Regards, Alan
Yoko
I think that Yoko is good to go. ASF Infra has set up the mailing lists, SVN, and created accounts for our new committers as well as adding the existing interested ASF committers to the proper Unix group. I will notify the new committers of their new accounts. There are some stragglers and they will be added as soon as possible. I have set up all the project status files at the incubator site. The Software Grant from IONA has been received and I have loaded up their donation onto the incubation SVN. It is ready to get scrubbed. I have moved the TriFork work over as well. One question, do we need a PPMC? I think that we should start one since this project has a very real possibility of becoming a TLP. Everyone is invited to join the party at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Yoko
On 2/23/2006 11:32 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: One question, do we need a PPMC? I think that we should start one since this project has a very real possibility of becoming a TLP. It's not really a matter of choice. Incubating podlings have PPMCs regardles of where they *might* end up. So, yes. Next question, who should be on it? The mentors have to be, but whom else? I'm in favour of all of the committers, but that's just me. :-) Works for me. Regards, Alan
[VOTE] Proposal for Apache Ode
Where are we with this vote? Can we form the PPMC? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Yoko
Alan D. Cabrera wrote, On 2/23/2006 12:59 PM: On 2/23/2006 11:32 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: One question, do we need a PPMC? I think that we should start one since this project has a very real possibility of becoming a TLP. It's not really a matter of choice. Incubating podlings have PPMCs regardles of where they *might* end up. So, yes. Next question, who should be on it? The mentors have to be, but whom else? I'm in favour of all of the committers, but that's just me. :-) Works for me. Ken, It seems that this is the way to go and has been "seconded" by lazy consensus. I will file a Jira to create the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. This will be the last Yoko posting that crosses over to Geronimo and Incubator General. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Noel J. Bergman wrote: ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? If I have to troll another mailing list to keep abreast of what's going on in ASF, I'll shoot myself. How can we minimize the amount of work to be done? Regards, Alan
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open JPA
Thomas Dudziak wrote: Mhmm, I have one major problem with this (as much as with Cayenne), and this is that IMO we (will) have too much ORM engines in Apache (with JPA and Cayenne it will be 6 or 7 ?) with little to no cooperation (esp. on the code level) between the ones already here. So in short, there is no focus and much duplication. Not to mention that OJB is planning to add EJB3 persistence (as it happens, done by me - I was going to start in May). That being said, I think there is a big case for bringing it to DB (with much the same arguments as for Cayenne) and for starting a joint effort of unifying these projects as much as this is possible/useful (e.g. it does only make sense so much to unify JDO and OpenJPA/EJB3). Is duplication really that bad? So long as the communities are vibrant, why should we care? Also, have you factored in different requirements and different implementation strategies for the projects in your list of duplications? I've always liked the idea of software Darwinism. Many different exciting ideas with the community deciding which ones are the good ones. IMHO, having unified projects stifles that diversity. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] Proposal for Apache Ode PASSED
+1: Jim Jagielski, Noel J. Bergman, Davanum Srinivas, Paul Fremantle 0: none -1: none Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubation Process and PPMCs
IIUC, they all contributed code to the AMQ project. Regards, Alan Davanum Srinivas wrote: What i'd be interested to know is how many of the 17 Non-Apache Committers noted on the proposal[1] got Apache id's and of them how many of them actually made any commits to the Apache SVN repo. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ActiveMqProposal On 3/14/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Jencks wrote: I think I'm seeing too much incipient dogmatism here. A little while ago I remember reading about how it was possible for code to zip through the incubator on its way to become part of an existing project, resting only long enough for the legal/provenance questions to be resolved. I think this is still a good path to keep open, and don't see the use of a PPMC for it. Except ActiveMQ isn't just code, it's code+people. If all the people are already associated with the ASF when the podling enters incubation.. well, then why isn't it being handled as a grant of code? The need for a podling implies the presence of people new to the ASF. For instance, my understanding is that ActiveMQ is coming to be part of geronimo. Most likely, yes -- but it's not a certainty. (Just close to it.) The eventual disposition is made at graduation. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBbFR5rNPMCpn3XdAQKqOAQAtm4gWzEgdP9FZKknZWVbszAbIBafgvvn 4wfPatOdUpy577axawHnFDq3i6OG3poPqYn7OecqZkCXSimSIf3Hp7CsijzHnL/x rsluUCyPkW11/zs/lvlkXhpIWjNmpTV0T4EkiadZfIPK704qUE3CHpkKT0uYS7lk xsA1obdLoes= =3klG -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubation Process and PPMCs
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: -- Once established, the PPMC shall -- work to make sure that the other resources are put into place. - -0. Mentor's job, not a PPMC one. While I think that the mentors should be ultimately responsible for this, it has been a great learning experience for me to push along Yoko. I gained a better understanding of all the work that goes on in the background and have a better appreciation for all the hard work that people do around here. Maybe this is what you meant and I am merely adding color to your statement. Regards, Alan
Incubator PMC membership
I'm curious, how does one get into the Incubator PMC? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] Incubation Policy -> "Acceptance of Proposal by Sponsor"
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 3/14/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm resurrecting the thread that fell off into /dev/null after http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] So this sentence in http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Acceptance+of+Proposal+by+Sponsor doesn't match current reality and confuses TLP sponsors who think they need to wait for an Incubator PMC vote: The Incubator PMC MAY immediately accept the Candidate, or may (at the discretion of the Incubator PMC) require a successful VOTE by the Incubator PMC. Here are a couple replacement suggestions that give the Incubator PMC an opportunity to voice any objections: a) Sponsor may proceed with podling creation if the Incubator PMC raises no issues within three days. - or - b) Sponsor may proceed with podling creation after the Incubator PMC acknowleges the request. a+b. =) We're talking about two PMCs so I've made it a little more explicit: How about following the board's system for acknowledging new PMC members: 1. The *chair* of the Sponsoring PMC sends in notification to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Any Incubator PMC member can then send an ACK and start a 72hr clock. 3. If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before 72hrs are up, a formal discussion/vote is then conducted. 4. If no Incubator PMC member has any negative comment at the end of 72hr clock, then the Sponsor PMC chair can commit the status file and 'start' the podling. I have a concern about item 2. It has been my experience that the Incubator PMC can be a bit tardy in replying to emails. May I suggest that the 72 hour window starts w/ item 1? Given that, then item 2 seems superfluous. My next concern is in regard to 3. It implies that if the Incubator PMC does not positively vote for the incubation, then it does not get incubated. IIUC, the Incubator PMC cannot block the start of the incubation of a project that has been sponsored by another PMC. Maybe that changed, I may have missed that exchange. If my understanding is correct, I propose: 1. The *chair* of the Sponsoring PMC sends in notification to [EMAIL PROTECTED] At that time a 72 hour clock starts. 2. If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before 72 hours are up, a formal discussion is then conducted with the goal of consensus. In the unfortunate circumstance that a consensus cannot be built, the Sponsoring PMC is free to proceed to start the podling; this should only be done in extreme cases. 3. If no Incubator PMC member has any negative comment at the end of 72 hour clock, then the Sponsor PMC chair can commit the status file and 'start' the podling. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of ActiveMQ from the Incubator. Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server, and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view. Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one issue, and is being addressed. Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them. I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. 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, to be done to graduate as a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate? IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at this time. Regards, Alan
Re: Incubator PMC membership
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I'm curious, how does one get into the Incubator PMC? It's open to all members now with a simple ping - ack - short wait cycle. All members interested in contributing to this effort are welcomed if they would help provide the mentoring and oversight that Incubator requires. Since the Incbuator PMC is the 'gateway' of projects (people+code) into the ASF - the Incubator PMC actually is a small mirror of the members and the foundation itself. We had previously added folks as traditional PMCs grow their members, but something distinctive in the incubator is that once contributors succeed, their efforts -leave- the incubator into their own TLP or subproject :) Although it's possible to nominate a non-member into the Incubator PMC, I'm expecting that, most often, folks will find their way back here as their own efforts around the projects they've helped launch are recognized - their name is floated for ASF membership - and they choose to return to the Incubator PMC to help other new efforts succeed. Along the way, obviously the contributor becomes very familiar with the entire mission of the ASF, which helps to make them an effective mentor. So, ASF corporate members can become members. That fits in with my understanding as well since, IIUC, ASF corporate members can join any PMC that they wish. It's interesting that non-ASF corporate members can be brought into the Incubator PMC. The outcome of this is that they virtually have the same rights as an ASF corporate member with regards to incubating projects. They can add themselves as mentors and, as a result, automatically become members of that project's PMC. I'm not complaining, just making an observation which may be incorrect. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [doc] Incubation Policy -> "Acceptance of Proposal by Sponsor"
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have a concern about item 2. It has been my experience that the Incubator PMC can be a bit tardy in replying to emails. May I suggest that the 72 hour window starts w/ item 1? Given that, then item 2 seems superfluous. Well, given that we haven't tried this policy, I don't think it's fair to say that the Incubator PMC will be tardy on issuing the ACK - that'd be a fine complaint to make if you witness it after the policy is in effect. I can extrapolate from past behavior on important podling votes. My reservations are fair and based on past behavior. The Incubator PMC is delegated with the authority to approve code imports. No other PMCs have the authority to approve code imports or podling creation. I agree with your statement about code imports but I didn't realize that they could stop a podling from being created. IIUC, the Incubator PMC has final say on graduation but not on initiation. Am I wrong in this understanding? My next concern is in regard to 3. It implies that if the Incubator PMC does not positively vote for the incubation, then it does not get incubated. IIUC, the Incubator PMC cannot block the start of the incubation of a project that has been sponsored by another PMC. Maybe that changed, I may have missed that exchange. By and large, I would not expect #3 (someone saying 'no') to happen very much. The only valid complaints are about the form and procedures being followed. All other complaints by Incubator PMC members about a podling (such as that they don't like technology 'foo') should be bit-bucketed. If people try to vote against a podling sponsored by another PMC because of personal non-procedural reasons, they're going to get hit with a cluebat. -- justin While I agree that this would be unlikely and that common sense should govern the behavior of good cooperative communities, are we not writing policy? Regards, Alan
Re: Incubator PMC membership
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: So, ASF corporate members can become members. That fits in with my understanding as well since, IIUC, ASF corporate members can join any PMC that they wish. Correct. Although the 'ASF corporate member' is generally expressed as just 'ASF member.' It's interesting that non-ASF corporate members can be brought into the Incubator PMC. The outcome of this is that they virtually have the same rights as an ASF corporate member with regards to incubating projects. Correct. They can add themselves as mentors That I'm not sure about. Yeah, I thought that only made men could do that as well. Apparently that rule has been changed. I can dig up the email if you'd like. and, as a result, automatically become members of that project's PMC. Members of the podling's PPMC, yes. Members of any TLP's PMC, no. Understood. I think that I restricted my observation to podlings though. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Davanum Srinivas wrote: Alan, There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on. - The large # of committers who don't really commit This is a perennial issue w/ incubation, IIRC. Do we give commit to all original committers and take it away from inactive ones or do we go the route of Ode and make the initial committer set small. Personally, I like the latter but that would cut out people like Brian, who doesn't write crappy code. ;) Maybe there's a written policy in the incubator on this. I think that this is a topic worthy of a separate discussion. FWIW, of the 20 who actually have karma, 15 have committed code so far. Most of the remaining 5 work on Geronimo and have committed work in the past when we integrated AMQ into Geronimo. - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't see a separate jar). These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. - The constant unrelenting pressure to make activemq part of Geronimo so that all the 27 people become Geronimo committers I'm on the fence on this one. I just would like to see AMQ graduate, soon. If it's a TLP, great. If it's a sub-project, fine. If ACLs are created so that these committers stay in their sub-project pen, that's cool too. At Geronimo, we don't jealously guard membership to the committer table; any motivated competent person is welcome to the table. These people have worked hard on AMQ and are competent coders. I want to point out that I don't see 27 committers, I see 20. When I look at the list of committers I see that a large chunk, almost half, already are Geronimo committers. - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion on it. Are people talking offline? OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings. However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++. - People commenting on the silence on the dev mailing list.[2] Probably IRC. It's a bad addictive habit that should be stomped out, but it happens everywhere, not that that's an excuse. You'll notice that the email is about OpenWire. It also seems that our email activity is on a par with other graduated projects. Somehow all of this is making me queasy... Get some sleep! ;) (Some of you may not know that Dims has been recently blessed w/ a new baby) There are some good points here on where we can improve. Thanks for the detailed list. I'm glad to see that you are consistently expending a lot of effort in this. The amount of time that you have spent scrubbing the subversion logs and reading the email archives really sets you apart from the rest of the Apache community. It really makes a big difference. Would you consider being one of our mentors? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: James Strachan wrote: What other issues are there? A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time. Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months; JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3 months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need to rush to judgment? I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do? Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if there is no real need other than historical precedence of previous podlings' matriculation? There were concrete reasons for the duration of their incubation. If they are the same issues as AMQ, then let's focus on those concrete issues. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
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
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Henri Yandell wrote: On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Davanum Srinivas wrote: - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't see a separate jar). These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion on it. Are people talking offline? OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings. However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++. Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not apply :) A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC don't even know that they exist. Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an architectural component of AMQ. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ and ServiceMix reports
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Henri Yandell wrote: Interesting reply - I'd been assuming that when an incubatee graduates into an existing project, it's PPMC automatically get added to the PMC. So I was a bit confused as to why Noel was even asking the question. Case-by-case basis. Personally I think it's a good idea, but there are lots of opinions. When Derby graduated, some of the PPMC was invited to the DB PMC, and more over time. And it's not just the PPMC/PMC issue; there's commit access, too. And I think that's thornier. If a podling graduates and joins an existing TLP, is it equitable for the people listed as committers on its proposal, with no accumulated Apache merit, to automatically keep commit access? While people who get involved directly with the parent TLP have to earn merit over months? That's the sort of scenario I was envisioning when I referred to 'fast-tracking' commit access. The answer is clearly, 'Maybe, maybe not,' and possibly relates to the amount of merit accumulated while in the podling. Do these really have to be "Apache" credits accumulated? Let's do a hypothetical situation. Let's say that some guy puts in a few years of his life into a CodeHaus project. Then, he has a kid. At that time the project moves to ASF and he's MIA. Is it fair that he doesn't get commit karma when it graduates? IMO, no, it is not fair. Is it fair that he does not make it into the project PMC? Yes, it is fair, IMO. Not providing commit karma seems to be a bit like forced retirement because of inactivity. Something that ASF frowns upon. Let's do another scenario. Someone works very long and hard on one component of the project. That component becomes very mature and rock solid so, we really don't hear from him very often. Is it fair that he doesn't get commit karma when it graduates? IMO, no, it is not fair. Is it fair that he does not make it into the project PMC? Yes, it is fair, IMO. Not providing commit karma seems to be a bit like forced retirement because he completed the task that he set out to do. So, what about the receiving community? If they voted to sponsor the project, then they knew what the probable outcome would be, that the group could become committers of their project. If no one inside that community complained about it, would it be a fair assumption that the group on a whole thought that the arrangement was equitable? Should we care if both parties are happy? Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ and ServiceMix reports
This is my understanding as well and what was communicated to me by Incubator PMC people. Regards, Alan Davanum Srinivas wrote: I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or not. Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has incubating all over it. Same with derby, if someone needed derby they won't download Geronimo. They will download Derby. Does not mean that derby jar should not be in Geronimo. It could be, but needs to be marked properly (incubating sth or other in the jar name) Anyway that is my understanding... [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think there is such a restriction. Where did you come across that? in other words, who said that? "we are apparently not allowed to use the incubating ActiveMQ" See this thread... http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that this was a suprise - I'd like clarification if this is actually really the case. It seems silly for the incubation process to actually stop other Apache projects using the code. e.g. I remember us using Apache Derby for a very long time during its incubation on Geronimo - which resulted in some Geronimo folks contributing back to Derby; we also considered its releases to be real things we built software from, not just "milestones". Though I guess back then, Geronimo was still in incubation itself which is why it was maybe allowed to use incubating code? -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Preventing exclusionary practices in Incubating projects
James Strachan wrote: On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan/James dredged up a thought process which i want to ask all of you about. For a concrete example, I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have been talking about coming up with a single framework for IO. James hinted in a prev message and there have been some references in emails on [EMAIL PROTECTED] list[1] and no traffic on activemq list (as far as i can tell) Thats kinda the point - as up to now most of this code has not been part of Geronimo and so wouldn't have been discussed on the Geronimo lists. Once all the code has made it to the incubator, then we can start discussing this on the Geronimo list but right now there have not been any discussions and AFAIK is no action plan - these things have so far only come to light when meeting in person at ApacheCon & other conferences and realising that there's lots of things we could do to consodiate code within the Geronimo family of projects - once they are all at Geronimo. The incuabtion of OpenEJB and WADI is progressing and we'll be able to tackle this soon - but rest assured it will happen on the Geronimo lists. Yeah, I tried to facilitate discussions between the various ASF java projects. There were some interesting ad hoc discussions w/ Geronimo, Trifork, WADI, ActiveIO, and Directory people. No plans were made, just a lot of ideas exchanged and an agreement to work together. Regards, Alan
Re: Non-final materials in final ASF materials
Henri Yandell wrote: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, James Strachan wrote: BTW we are currently calling all the artifacts incubator-activemq-*, the jars are all called incubator-activemq*.jar, we include disclaimers in the distro highlighting the incubator status and also include these inside the manifests of the jars. So its very clear I think to any would-be-user that the code is in the incubator - unless you can think of something else we can do? So it seems our options for working with Geronimo while ActiveMQ is under incubation are (i) don't use the incubator code, but fork it elsewhere (say to codehaus) and make releases there if Geronimo needs bug fixes (ii) Geronimo use incubator release candidate releases (iii) ActiveMQ performs actual releases that Geronimo can depend on and use but put sufficient warnings in the jars that these are still in the incubator Would you prefer us to follow option (i)? I guess (ii) might be a good compromise given the circumstances? +1 to (iii). I see no reason why a project in the Incubator that has been making releases prior to joining the Incubator cannot continue to make those releases. It's damaging to the community we are trying to incubate to suddenly stop their momentum and leave their users in the lurch. To do that it definitely needs to have passed some of the checks on the STATUS page. The one that springs to mind is the legal one - it must be legally distributable from the ASF. It needs to ship with incubator comments (see Roller releases - which due to not being legally distributable is doing your (i) option). Having a name of incubator-activemq seems fine - with a maven2 groupId of org.apache.incubator. On Leo's suggestion that in the incubator there are RC releases and it only goes final when it leaves - I don't think that will help anybody. If the mentors and the Incubator PMC believe that the piece of software being released is production quality - it should be released. Incubation is about the community education and growth - and making sure the code is legally distributable; but not the quality of the code. This reflects my feelings as well. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC1 release of ActiveMQ
James Strachan wrote, On 3/30/2006 5:46 AM: On 3/30/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: James Strachan wrote: ERROR BrokerService - Failed to start ActiveMQ JMS Message Broker. Reason: java.io.EOFException java.io.EOFException at java.io.DataInputStream.readFully(DataInputStream.java:268) [snip] Hmm, just tried it for me to double check and it worked perfectly. You're on a mac right? I'm on windows. Doh - forgot you'd switched. It worked for Gullaume on XP. I wonder if any other XP-ers can reproduce? I tried both on my WinXP box, cmd.exe and cygwin, JDK142 and JDK150, all work fine. Regards, Alan
AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment
I believe that these forms were sent in a while back. Has this been accepted and signed by the ASF? Regards, Alan -- Alan D. Cabrera VP Engineering Simula Labs - The Open Source Venture Partners p: +1 510 225 5588 f: +1 800 822 0471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.simulalabs.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment
Great. Thanks. Should LogicBlaze get a copy of the signed document? Regards, Alan Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 4/7/2006 7:30 AM: Yes, it appears so from the trademark-assigns.txt file. On or before February 18th. --- Noel -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:31 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment I believe that these forms were sent in a while back. Has this been accepted and signed by the ASF? Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment
Thanks Jim. It seems that LogicBlaze may have misplaced this copy. Would it be possible for it to be sent again? How, exactly will this be sent? Via fax or postal mail? Regards, Alan Jim Jagielski wrote, On 4/7/2006 1:01 PM: It was signed and a copy sent to the address on the assignment the day it was logged in the file (Feb 3rd). On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Great. Thanks. Should LogicBlaze get a copy of the signed document? Regards, Alan Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 4/7/2006 7:30 AM: Yes, it appears so from the trademark-assigns.txt file. On or before February 18th. --- Noel -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:31 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment I believe that these forms were sent in a while back. Has this been accepted and signed by the ASF? Regards, Alan - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment
Sounds good. Many thanks! Regards, Alan Jim Jagielski wrote, On 4/10/2006 7:50 AM: It was sent via postal mail. I can make another copy and send it out. Most likely later on this week. On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Thanks Jim. It seems that LogicBlaze may have misplaced this copy. Would it be possible for it to be sent again? How, exactly will this be sent? Via fax or postal mail? Regards, Alan Jim Jagielski wrote, On 4/7/2006 1:01 PM: It was signed and a copy sent to the address on the assignment the day it was logged in the file (Feb 3rd). On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Great. Thanks. Should LogicBlaze get a copy of the signed document? Regards, Alan Noel J. Bergman wrote, On 4/7/2006 7:30 AM: Yes, it appears so from the trademark-assigns.txt file. On or before February 18th. --- Noel -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:31 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: AcitveMQ and ServiceMix trademark assignment I believe that these forms were sent in a while back. Has this been accepted and signed by the ASF? Regards, Alan - 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] - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Curator as an Apache Top Level Project
+1 Regards, Alan On Aug 28, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > Please cast your vote: > [ ] +1 Graduate the Apache Curator podling from Apache Incubator as a TLP > [ ] +0 Indifferent to the graduation status of Apache Curator podling > [ ] -1 Reject graduation of Apache Curator podling from Apache Incubator > because ...
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Apache Curator as an Apache Top Level Project
Not sure if this is a big deal but a bunch of the people in the "lower 13" are IPMC members. Regards, Alan On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: > The vote to graduate Apache Curator as a Top Level Project has passed: > > +1 binding (7) > Chris Mattmann > Enis Söztutar > Suresh Marru > Arvind Prabhakar > Matt Franklin > Roman Shaposhnik > Chip Childers > > +1 (13) > Patrick Hunt > Jordan Zimmerman > Jay Zarfoss > Eric Tschetter > Luciano Resende > Mahadev Konar > Ioannis Canellos > Henry Saputra > Ashish Paliwal > Ant Elder > Andrei Savu > Alan D. Cabrera > Evaristo Josec > > +0 (none) > > -1 (none) > > I will send an email to the Board asking to include the resolution in the > agenda for the next Board meeting. Thanks to everyone! > > -Jordan > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Storm for Apache Incubator
Are we voting? Regards, Alan On Sep 4, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > +1 binding > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Suresh Srinivas wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Sent from phone >> >> On Sep 4, 2013, at 1:07 AM, Nathan Marz wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'd like to propose Storm to be an Apache Incubator project. After much >>> thought I believe this is the right next step for the project, and I look >>> forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and feedback! >>> >>> Here's a link to the proposal: >>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StormProposal >>> >>> The proposal is also pasted below. >>> >>> -Nathan >>> >>> >>> = Storm Proposal = >>> >>> == Abstract == >>> >>> Storm is a distributed, fault-tolerant, and high-performance realtime >>> computation system that provides strong guarantees on the processing of >>> data. >>> >>> == Proposal == >>> >>> Storm is a distributed real-time computation system. Similar to how >> Hadoop >>> provides a set of general primitives for doing batch processing, Storm >>> provides a set of general primitives for doing real-time computation. Its >>> use cases span stream processing, distributed RPC, continuous >> computation, >>> and more. Storm has become a preferred technology for near-realtime >>> big-data processing by many organizations worldwide (see a partial list >> at >>> https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/wiki/Powered-By). As an open source >>> project, Storm’s developer community has grown rapidly to 46 members. >>> >>> == Background == >>> >>> The past decade has seen a revolution in data processing. MapReduce, >>> Hadoop, and related technologies have made it possible to store and >> process >>> data at scales previously unthinkable. Unfortunately, these data >> processing >>> technologies are not realtime systems, nor are they meant to be. The lack >>> of a "Hadoop of realtime" has become the biggest hole in the data >>> processing ecosystem. Storm fills that hole. >>> >>> Storm was initially developed and deployed at BackType in 2011. After 7 >>> months of development BackType was acquired by Twitter in July 2011. >> Storm >>> was open sourced in September 2011. >>> >>> Storm has been under continuous development on its Github repository >> since >>> being open-sourced. It has undergone four major releases (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, >>> 0.8) and many minor ones. >>> >>> == Rationale == >>> >>> Storm is a general platform for low-latency big-data processing. It is >>> complementary to the existing Apache projects, such as Hadoop. Many >>> applications are actually exploring using both Hadoop and Storm for >>> big-data processing. Bringing Storm into Apache is very beneficial to >> both >>> Apache community and Storm community. >>> >>> The rapid growth of Storm community is empowered by open source. We >> believe >>> the Apache foundation is a great fit as the long-term home for Storm, as >> it >>> provides an established process for community-driven development and >>> decision making by consensus. This is exactly the model we want for >> future >>> Storm development. >>> >>> == Initial Goals == >>> >>> * Move the existing codebase to Apache >>> * Integrate with the Apache development process >>> * Ensure all dependencies are compliant with Apache License version 2.0 >>> * Incremental development and releases per Apache guidelines >>> >>> == Current Status == >>> >>> Storm has undergone four major releases (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8) and many >> minor >>> ones. Storm 0.9 is about to be released. Storm is being used in >> production >>> by over 50 organizations. Storm codebase is currently hosted at >> github.com, >>> which will seed the Apache git repository. >>> >>> === Meritocracy === >>> >>> We plan to invest in supporting a meritocracy. We will discuss the >>> requirements in an open forum. Several companies have already expressed >>> interest in this project, and we intend to invite additional developers >> to >>> participate. We will encourage and monitor community participation so >> that >>> privileges can be extended to those that contribute. >>> >>> === Community === >>> >>> The need for a low-latency big-data processing platform in the open >> source >>> is tremendous. Storm is currently being used by at least 50 organizations >>> worldwide (see https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/wiki/Powered-By), >> and is >>> the most starred Java project on Github. By bringing Storm into Apache, >> we >>> believe that the community will grow even bigger. >>> >>> === Core Developers === >>> >>> Storm was started by Nathan Marz at BackType, and now has developers from >>> Yahoo!, Microsoft, Alibaba, Infochimps, and many other companies. >>> >>> === Alignment === >>> >>> In the big-data processing ecosystem, Storm is a very popular low-latency >>> platform, while Hadoop is the primary platform for batch processing. We >>> believe that it will help the further growth of big-data community by >>> having Hadoop and Storm aligned
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Jake Farrell joins the Incubator PMC
Congrats! Regards, Alan On Sep 5, 2013, at 5:54 PM, David Nalley wrote: > Hi Folks, > > The IPMC has VOTEd to add Jake Farrell as an Apache Incubator PMC. > > Welcome Jake! > > --David > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept Storm into the Incubator
On Sep 12, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > [ ] +1 Accept Storm into the Incubator > [ ] +0 Don't care. > [ ] -1 Don't accept Storm because... +1 - binding Regards, Alan
