Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:58:54PM -0800, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Neil, and incubator PMC, > > * I'm happy to serve as mentor on this project. > I would be too if there is a need for an additional mentor. > All in all, I vote +1 to accept this project into incubation, and I thank > you > for offering this project to the ASF. > +1 (from the peanut gallery) vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] @domain for Incubator mailing lists
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:49:14PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Please vote on the following: > > New mailing lists should be created under the > @incubator.apache.org domain, just as all of > the other project resources, e.g., the web > site and SVN subtree. > Absolutely - it is very important that a project under incubation isn't easily mistaken for a graduated project. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] @domain for Incubator mailing lists
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:11:05AM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > BTW would [EMAIL PROTECTED] or activemq-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] be ok, since they contain the word > incubate? > Nope - it still seems like you're trying to hide that a project is under incubation. Keeping projects under incubation in the incubator.a.o is a simple and clean way to seperate the projects and makes it a lot easier to clean up if they don't graduate. Sticking a project under a specific pmc up front also adds additional bother if it later shows to either merit going directly to tlp or to be a better fit with another pmc. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote: > The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on > this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that > a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too > quickly. I know that are some people who believe that the growth > that we are experiencing is indicative of our success. > Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the > incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the > Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing. Very much agreed - I've been worried about the same for quite a while. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:38:52AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > There is one thing that I think would be useful in > helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role > in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor > says "Yes" a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator > side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled > by the board, the Incubator should vote. > Absolutely! I'm surprised that this isn't the case already. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a "no graduate" option?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:51:42PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > Ok, so say we went with X=12. There are 13 projects that fit that > description. Of those, 3 have status updates that date within that X > month timeframe, leaving 10 that, at least to me, appear to be inactive > for more than X months. > > So, say we were to vote on their continuation. Then what? Do we list > them as "failed"? That seems really harsh. Is there another term that > can be used? > I'm not sure that "voting on their continuation" is the correct thing to do, but I would certainly hope that the incubator pmc will take the project up to revision at that point - probably even after 6 months of no apparent activity. Auto terminating after a set period would be too harsh, but reviewing and deciding wether to continue is reasonable. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors > +1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects > +1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports > yeah, sounds good to me. More mentors / oversight is likely to help quite a bit. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 08:23:48AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > I am +1 for dumping Forrest. I never grok why something so simple as > our static website needs something so complicated to build it. > I think you've nailed the difference between the forrest crowd and the rest of us. I totally agree with your wondering about the need for something that big and bloated to do something so simple that everyone else could do it in a moment with an editor and running a simple command. > I'd rather err in having less-than-perfect technology with the > benefit of trivial addition/edit/update. Granted, it requires having > Java running, but that's not so onerous in this day and age. > This model has worked just fine for www.a.o and the docs for httpd - it is simple, easy enough to use that anyone with a reasonable grasp of how editors work can easily use it and it has proven quite effective over a long period of time. The one thing I never understood is why incubator insists on placing the whole forrest burden on new projects - as if they don't have enough other things to worry about than learning a system that they're likely to ditch as soon as they have the chance? vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 09:54:44PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Either see what improvements we can get from Forrest, or convert to anakia > and have a less sophisticated site. > I don't see much sophistication in the current site - or is it the logo for Apachecon that finished more than two weeks ago that counts as sophistication? ;) > Personally, I'd like to see if the Forrest folks can "redeem" the product's > reputation here, and make people happy in a timely manner. > Incubator has been using Forrest for how long? So how long do you want to go on with something that seems to generate a lot of annoyance with anyone but you and the forrest committers (that is based on the comments in this thread - I see you liking forrest, and I see David and Ross trying very har at "damage control"). vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:34:04AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Mads Toftum wrote: > > the logo for Apachecon that finished more than two weeks ago > > Fixed the next time that David regenerates the site. > Whoa! so the workflow is tied to David watching for commits? When someone said that at apachecon, I thought it was a joke - I'm beginning to understand more and more of why people are annoyed. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Super Simple Site Generation Tool
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 08:41:35AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > The fact that we have to rely on a human being means to me (and probably > where Mads is coming from) that the entire workflow is broken. -- justin > Exactly! Depending on a 3rd party as part of the process is what really blows my mind. I also begin to understand part of the frustration on Davids side for spending so much time keeping an unappreciated workflow up and running. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:30:01PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > A final concern was raised, TMCg2 stands for (???). I've read it as 'The > Management Console generation 2'. Now from an OSS standpoint, there's no > first generation, so I'd suggest dropping the g2 designation. But was I > badly > mistaken? Someone's suggested that the M is Merck, but I've seen no such > ref. > I tend to agree that the name isn't very good. TMC is not a very good choice either - Apache The ... wouldn't really work. It would be nice to find something more appropriate before starting to create too many mailing lists. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:45:52PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Although TMC is fairly bland (and therefore, fine ;-) I rather like both > of the proposed alternatives. Kowa, unlike alot of other Native American > names proposed on this list, is simply the name for a structure, so I don't > find it offensive. > As I've said it before, TMC doesn't do the trick for me - plain MC would do better to remove the Tomcat reference and eventually avoid Apache The ... Of the two alternatives, I think the second is the better choice. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
-1 (non-binding) - I think this proposal is too different from our other projects to be a good fit for the ASF. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BPEL contribution from Sybase
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:19:56PM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote: >If any project inside or outside of Apache wants their own copy > of this code to develop they can always fork the code (as is allowed > by any open source project). > Whoa! Are you actively suggesting forks inside the same community? code duplication and competition between tlps? Somehow that doesn't sound like something that should happen within the ASF - and certainly another point in favor of Ken's suggestion of keeping it outside servicemix. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
I'm sorry, but I'll have to withdraw my offer to help mentoring this project. I need to focus my energy elsewhere and do not wish to spend time on incubator in its current form - please note that it has nothing to do with TMCg2. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubation Process and PPMCs
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:49:13PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > -- We should require 3+ Mentors for each project > -- Upon acceptance, we should establish the initial > PPMC as consisting of the Mentors. > -- Upon project acceptance, we should immediately > create the [EMAIL PROTECTED] > mailing list. Or -private if there is a consensus > to switch to that nomenclature. > -- Once established, the PPMC shall > -- work to make sure that the other resources >are put into place. > -- vote on other PPMC members (only those on >the Incubator PMC have binding votes) +1 to all of the above > -- vote on Committers (see above) +1 too, although I would prefer to have it read: -- vote in committers based on merit shown after the code has been imported to the asf repo. > -- ensure that the quarterly report is provided >to the Incubator PMC > +1 - although I wonder if it would be worth letting new projects report each month for the first 3 months? vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubation Process and PPMCs
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:31:05AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > Considering the number of proposals coming at the incubator > these days, and the concerns raised about that fact, perhaps > needing multiple ASF people with enthusiasm about each is > precisely a reasonable governor. > - -- I think this is a good point - a project that can't raise the interest of more than one member is likely to struggle with generating enough interest and attracting enough of a community in the future. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:54:14PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: > I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 (binding). > I very much agree with Garretts concerns - and would be much in favor of not bringing the project into incubation before they have proven an actual community and that they can work the standard the "apache way". I feel it would look very much as an ASF endorsement of a standard that we may not have any influence on at all - maybe things will look different in a few months time, but right now I'm far from convinced. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:32:02PM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: > Spec process concerns (without voting): > Mads, Leo > Mine would be a -1 if I was on the incubator PMC (but no thanks, I'd rather not). I don't find the excuse that a mistake has been made in the past sufficient to repeat it. I'm also far from convinced that we should use the ASF name to promote this specific spec - I'd much rather give them a while longer to prove that it is the right choice. But, not my call - and kind of useless to object anyway because they seem to have aquired plenty of support already. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members > - The PPMC elects Committers > +1 a step in the right direction. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we > would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further > access: that is completely unfair. > > If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxx? or are you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies stacking their employees in to "own" a project? I for one find it quite worrying that it is entirely possible to list something like 10 or 15 of your employees on a proposal and sidestep the whole meritocracy issue. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:01:31PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Yes, we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access > to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on the > verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for > communities (like Wicket) where people have earned their access elsewhere, > we are saying that we do not respect that as we will let the mentors by fiat > decide who is worthy or not. Oh, this is something slightly different - you're talking of a project where development was done in the open and it is easy to figure out who contributed before. In that case, I think that the ppmc should pretty much automatically accept anyone who has been committers before if they _personally_ ask for it. This just isn't as clear when something comes out of a company ... it has shown itself as a bit too easy to be "creative" in those cases - and that's what I support putting a stop to. > > I don't care much about the sidestepping of meritocracy: the community will > not be able to graduate until they are diverse - hence the problem is > self-correcting. If they can't gather a diverse collection of people, then > no dice. > You're putting an awful lot of trust in that final review - it has slipped before and it will slip more often in the future. I'm sorry, but I just don't share your plans for world domination^W carefree attitude towards letting all sorts of potential nightmares into the incubator. There's always talk about one company or the other controlling the ASF - and with people getting paid to mentor, people putting their names on a project as mentors without even bothering to vote for it and with companies dumping code and a very large number of "committers" on us, who's to blame people for speculating like that? > I am concerned that we may permit PPMCs who view it as their right to refuse > access to people who have actively contributed in the past and want to > continue contributing because they don't like them personally or their > employer or feel that they are not leadership material. Those aren't > grounds for barring access. -- justin No more or no less than it would be in a non-incubating project. If you see any hints of that, that should be fixed by hitting the mentor with a very large cluestick, not by leaving the doors open for everyone else to abuse as they see fit. just my $.02 vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] -- [Vote] accept UIMA as a podling - #2
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 12:09:24PM +1000, Ian Holsman wrote: > I hope I get this part of process correct. > > a reference to the results of the vote (so as to provide an audit > trail for the records) > > Vote Tally: > 3 binding votes (all +1) > 5 non binding votes (all +1) > Could you please list who the binding votes were? that seems to be common practice around here. With such a slim vote, I think it even more important to get the names listed. > the Mentors, nominated by the Sponsor, who will guide the Candidate > through the Incubation Process: > - Sam Ruby > - Ken Coar > - Ian Holsman > I don't remember seeing Ken or Sam voting or in any other way participating - are they even aware that they're listed as mentors? vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote: > I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on > the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced > that the individual had either (1) contributed previously to either > Celtix or Xfire or (2) expressed a genuine, specific interest in a > potential contribution of value to the new project. > People that really do fall under (1) should be fine, but I can't get my head around why you think that sticking the people in (2) on the proposal should be fine. Let them show merit like any real committer would by contributing to the project and then hold a vote. In fact, (2) reeks of stacking the deck to gain the upper hand by putting enough people on the project to have a majority vote. (and yes, I really wish that the people who sit on proof that this has already happened would make it public). vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [JiniProposal at Apache] Name options
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:51:16PM -0400, Jim Hurley wrote: > We have settled on a final list of 12 options: > It is a shame that the Jini name couldn't be carried over. Just my $.02 vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:55:47AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm > okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with > that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire > that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with > that too. > Why even bother with that? it is usually so much easier to give out commit access to people who already are committers - if we hold off on that type of "piling on" until after the proposal has been accepted, then we're sure that the podling want those people on there, and we don't risk voting on a proposal that is skewed by various people adding themselves because they can. Sure, I think podling should be open to taking active committers (from non-incubator projects) onto the list without much fuss, but that's different from opening the gates to everyone, will get roughly as many people committing on the project and doesn't have the same avenues for abuse as your position. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:32:56AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: > --- > As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty > neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the > actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status > file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did > this for two reasons > > 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of > activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn) > 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our > moving to apache and want to participate > > We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some > old committers active again, so that was a big plus. > --- > +1 especially if this is carried out _before_ the proposal is voted on. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:52:56PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote: > I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an > incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how > I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's > being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former > contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the > ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the > code again. At the very least we should have some provision for > preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can > come back at any time. > So you want to give commit to people who don't even ask for it? That seems like taking it a step too far for me. If someone turns up 6 months down the line, I'm sure the people who came with the podling will be quick to get a vote going and the formality in place. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:50AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Those people can be seeded as an 'initial > emeritus list' and can simply regain access by asking for it again without > having to prove themselves all over again. -- justin > I still think that's a bad idea. If they don't actively ask to be put on the proposal, then we'd be voting for someone who may or may not turn up. Horror scenario no. 1 - a project like php - we vote it in with with a few handfuls of active people and then at a later date all people who have had commit over the years turn up to get accounts... If you _really_ want to add this extra backdoor, then at least make it a requirement that every bloody name has to be on the proposal and make this backdoor expire at the end of incubation. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Name for UIMA Podling?
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:58:53PM +0200, Leo Simons wrote: > Note UIMA is a fine name for an apache project. We have projects like > +1 - there seems to have started some sort of fascination with changing names where there is no need. In general I'm not really a fan of naming things so that it is impossible to guess what a project is (that's hard enough as it is already). vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:44:22PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > The PPMC of the Apache Harmony incubator podling has voted to ask for > graduation from the Apache Incubator. We have enjoyed our time here > with you, but feel that we don't want to overstay our welcome. We want > to do our part to help make sure the ASF has more projects than the > Incubator :) > On the surface everything appears fine to the point of graduating minus the proving that you can do a release. But given past experiences with graduating large projects too fast, I'd be much in favor of keeping Harmony in incubation for another 6 months - it worries me slightly that you seem to be in haste to move on almost immediately after all requirements look ok, not giving it a bit of time to prove that this is not just a temporary state. Also there's the whole issue of Sun and opensourcing java - sure, it shouldn't affect Harmony directly, but on the other hand I see a risk there (not great, but they may surprise us). Just my EUR.02s worth on non-binding -1. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:10:37PM +0200, Mads Toftum wrote: > On the surface everything appears fine to the point of graduating minus > the proving that you can do a release. But given past experiences with > graduating large projects too fast, I'd be much in favor of keeping > Harmony in incubation for another 6 months - it worries me slightly that > you seem to be in haste to move on almost immediately after all > requirements look ok, not giving it a bit of time to prove that this is > not just a temporary state. Also there's the whole issue of Sun and > opensourcing java - sure, it shouldn't affect Harmony directly, but on > the other hand I see a risk there (not great, but they may surprise us). > Just my EUR.02s worth on non-binding -1. > Gah, that went out a bit too fast. I missed saying that I'm biased by thinking that the project should never have happened in the first place. Not so much that there shouldn't be an a free implementation of java - but that a project like this is bound to grow to a size where it doesn't fit with the rest of the foundation. Implementing a whole language is big enough that there's plenty of foundations out there doing nothing but a language implementation (perl, python, ) - I think that would be the best for a project like Harmony as well. The other bit is the speed at which it happened - I'd expected Harmony to be in the incubator for years and now it is aiming for graduation less than 18 months later without having even neared the first release. So, that's what my reluctance to letting Harmony graduate is about - feel free to ignore it. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Checkpoint on Harmony (Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation)
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 06:32:04AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > If we can reach consensus (with the exception of Mads who doesn't want > to see Harmony here, and Roy for other good reasons due to my > stupidity), I'd like to then move to the ratification vote. > I'll withdraw most of my reservations after having seen the comments from Leo and Stefano. I'll stick with my original objection that I'd rather not have seen a project aming to do what Harmony is doing at the ASF, but putting that aside, it appears that Harmony is otherwise in a lot better shape than some of the other things that have been railroaded through the incubator. As Stefano mentioned, he'd expected something like 3 years in the incubator and to be honest, so had I and I would have been much more comfortable if that's how long it had taken. The longer the window for trouble to brew, the higher the chance for having gotten through all that. But on the other hand, Harmony is a different type of project and deserves a different set of standards to be measured against. At least this time we do not have to worry about someone with a business plan pushing to get the brand/graduation. As for my comments with regards to Sun and their opensourcing of java, I sincerely hope that they opt for a model that will make nothing more than a historical curiosity. So fwiw here's my s/-1/+1/ on letting Harmony graduate from the incubator and I'll also add that in the case of Harmony specifically, I find the pushing for a release nothing more than delay tactics (a delay I wouldn't object to, but a release in itself seems rather pointless at this time). vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony graduation vote on harmony-dev
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:34:02PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Just so no one misunderstands this - the only way a podling can graduate > is if it has enough IPMC votes. The model in mind was that there are > IPMC members engaged with the community, so that it's their votes that > make it official (not the other community votes). > > (So come and vote...) > I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work for me - you're essentially moving the vote further away from those who have the binding votes. That's very much the wrong direction to go. I'd be fine if you were to hold Harmonys vote about if they should ask for graduation on harmony-dev, but the incubator pmcs vote should be on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really don't like this one bit - adding extra hoops to make voting more cumbersome for certain people - and don't want to take the thought about historical parallels any further. I'm sorry for the ranting, but I get very annoyed when someone tries to prune out voters up front that may not have the "right" opinions. I'm sure that it wasn't the direct intention, but it will be the effect. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony graduation vote on harmony-dev
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 11:13:44AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Clearly having every IPMC member on ever dev list for the life of the > project doesn't scale, but I do think we need to rethink the model to > get better IPMC engagement in podlings in a scalable way. Honestly, Simple solution - stop accepting so many projects / code dumps that there's no way to keep up. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony graduation vote on harmony-dev
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:30:35AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: > Mads: Stop being such a pain in the butt. If you disagree, then do it > nicely. Practically every email from you is ranty and obnoxious. Ease > up. > Sure, hint taken. I do strongly disagree with a number of the projects that is currently being brought in here and the way it is done, and to be honest I think it is getting considerably worse. And that's the last bit I have to say before unsubscribing. vh Mads Toftum -- http://soulfood.dk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
