On 1/20/15 9:02 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>> ...Perhaps change CD10 to this?
>> The project produces royalty free Open Source software
>
> "for distribution to the public at no charge" is straight from the
> from
On 1/9/15 9:23 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2015 04:43 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> I think we also need to discuss whether we expect projects to
>> undertake self-evaluation and reflection, or whether we'd have a
>> process of review involving peers, mentors, shepherds etc.
>
> No, I abso
On 1/8/15 6:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system of
> binary providers.
I know I'm late to the party, but are we advocating that only having
binaries provided by third parties is a good thing, or a bad thing?
We provide software for the pu
Apologies for coming in late, my dev@ mail wasn't getting read, oops!
Have people considered:
* What is the definition of "Open Source"? Shouldn't we either define
this in detail, or explicitly reference the well-known OSI definition?
* Code
Adding a point noting that the project produces soft
VERY good! :)
On 01/16/2015 09:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I think Bertrand’s document is coming along nicely.
>
> This is half serious and half for fun, but while it will be great to have
> a maturity model and top-level authoritative documents on the Apache Way,
> to me, what would also help is
Hi -
CD20 should refer to the source code repository existing in Apache
Infrastructure.
"The project's code is easily discoverable and publicly accessible from an ASF
hosted repository."
Regards,
Dave
On Jan 20, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
> Sure, this should be on our web
Sure, this should be on our web site, thanks Bertrand for writing this maturity
model.
Antoine
On Jan 20, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to everybody who contributed, I think
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel is ready
> for prime time
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2015 04:43 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> I think we also need to discuss whether we expect projects to undertake
>> self-evaluation and reflection, or whether we'd have a process of review
>> involving peers, mentors, shepherds etc.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...No a real issue either way, just pointing out it might hinder adoption
> outside of Apache...
Right - people are free to pick and choose anyway, outside of Apache.
-Bertrand
Hi,
> "for distribution to the public at no charge" is straight from the
> from the ASF Bylaws at http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html so I'm
> not keen on changing that.
Understand. No a real issue either way, just pointing out it might hinder
adoption outside of Apache.
Thanks,
Justin
ssage-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 06:45
To: Bertrand Delacretaz
Cc: dev
Subject: Re: A maturity model for Apache projects
Hi,
Thanks to everybody who contributed, I think
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel is
Hi,
Thanks to everybody who contributed, I think
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel is ready
for prime time, as a first version that might still evolve.
(except maybe Justin's comments about CD10, let's see how you like the
current wording)
I suggest moving it under htt
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Lefty Leverenz wrote:
> Some trivial edits...
Thanks very much! Trivial edits give one that warm fuzzy feeling that
the content is generally ok ;-)
-Bertrand
Hi Justin,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...Perhaps change CD10 to this?
> The project produces royalty free Open Source software
"for distribution to the public at no charge" is straight from the
from the ASF Bylaws at http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html so I'
++
-Original Message-
From: jan i
Reply-To: "dev@community.apache.org"
Date: Friday, January 16, 2015 at 1:23 PM
To: "dev@community.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Oaths and Anthems (was Re: A maturity model for Apache
projects)
>On Friday, January 16, 20
Excellent!
As I see: "Scout un jour, scout toujours!" seems to be true in several
cultures. ;-)
Just as the two Steves did not anticipate that the "Apple" company they
initially created for computers would someday be involved with music (and
the legal problems with the "Apple" of the Beatles), I
Some trivial edits:
LC10
The code is released under the Apache License, version 2.0 <*needs
terminal period*>
QU20
The projects puts a very high priority on producing secure software.
<"project puts">
*Consensus building* <"Consensus *B*uilding" to match init caps on
"License and Copy
Hi,
> I thought that was part of the Open Source definition?
Not quite (AFAIK), there's no royalties allowed on redistribution but that
doesn't mean you can't charge for it either initially or when redistributing it
as part of a bundle.
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
On 16.01.2015 00:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some (very) minor things.
>
> CD10 - "distributed at no charge to the public." while this may be true at
> Apache it doesn't have to be the case. 3rd parties wanting to this model may
> find this a stumbling block.
I thought that was part of th
On Friday, January 16, 2015, Dan Haywood
wrote:
> On 16 January 2015 at 17:51, Alex Harui >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hope you like it.
> >
>
> I like it. A lot. And laugh-out loud funny (well, I thought, anyway).
>
> I'm imagining everyone attending a barcamp or ApacheCon solemnly standing
> up and re
On 16 January 2015 at 17:51, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> Hope you like it.
>
I like it. A lot. And laugh-out loud funny (well, I thought, anyway).
I'm imagining everyone attending a barcamp or ApacheCon solemnly standing
up and repeating that oath...
Good job, +1
Dan
> -Alex
>
> The Committer
I think Bertrand’s document is coming along nicely.
This is half serious and half for fun, but while it will be great to have
a maturity model and top-level authoritative documents on the Apache Way,
to me, what would also help is a way to make important things memorizable.
I sure hope I don’t ha
Hi,
Some (very) minor things.
CD10 - "distributed at no charge to the public." while this may be true at
Apache it doesn't have to be the case. 3rd parties wanting to this model may
find this a stumbling block.
CD40 - Perhaps a footnote? for code donated to Apache the history before Apache
ma
On 1/15/15 3:39 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> ...Missing Q or C thing:
>>
>> The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
>> Questions get answered on user lists...
> Thanks - I have reorganized Antoine's suggestions
On 1/15/15 3:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> ...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
>> their own ways to take security reports?...
> We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to be usable by
> non-Ap
On 01/15/2015 02:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> ...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
>> their own ways to take security reports?...
>
> We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to be usable by
>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> ...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
> their own ways to take security reports?...
We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to be usable by
non-Apache projects as well I'm trying to focus on the core
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> ...Missing Q or C thing:
>
> The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
> Questions get answered on user lists...
Thanks - I have reorganized Antoine's suggestions about this to be
QU50 The project strives to process
Phil,
I added your points on the wiki page
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel
Antoine
On Jan 14, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
> Questions get answered on user lists.
On 1/14/15 8:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages...
> I've written a first draft at
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel
>
> I tried to take the
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages...
I've written a first draft at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel
I tried to take the comments of this thread into account, while
keeping the mode
On Jan 8, 2015 6:56 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system
> of binary providers.
>
> >
This has worked out really well for httpd, as well as for several
successful companies.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> ...I imagine this as a function of ComDev, not of the
> board. That is, it's a community/project strengthening exercise, not a Big
> Hammer...
+1
-Bertrand
On 01/07/2015 04:43 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
I think we also need to discuss whether we expect projects to undertake
self-evaluation and reflection, or whether we'd have a process of review
involving peers, mentors, shepherds etc.
No, I absolutely don't want to create another stack of overhe
But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system
of binary providers.
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
> wrote:
>
> I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources
> without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to build
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:04:32AM +, Scott Wilson wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2015, at 08:55, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> >> ...I understand the value of measuring maturity after a project has left
> >> the
> >> Incubator, but I also don't know
On 6 Jan 2015, at 17:28, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
> related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
> be useful.
>
> So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
>
> Code: open, disc
On 7 Jan 2015, at 08:55, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>> ...I understand the value of measuring maturity after a project has left the
>> Incubator, but I also don't know that we want to put an additional set of
>> checkboxes on projects. Either you
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> ...I understand the value of measuring maturity after a project has left the
> Incubator, but I also don't know that we want to put an additional set of
> checkboxes on projects. Either you're ready to graduate, or you're not
Agreed, and this
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Vincent Keunen wrote:
> On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...Yeah that's what I meant, convenience binaries are not Apache
>> Releases...
> ...Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
> source code *may* reduce the i
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
wrote:
> ...I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having
> sources without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to
> build it, it makes the sources quite useless
That might something for a footnote, agree
Sent from a miserable mobile device
> On 07/gen/2015, at 09:26, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> With regard to "competitors," I just remind myself that forking is a
>> feature and that community before code means not acting like a
>> competitor. One shou
On 06/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
With regard to "competitors," I just remind myself that forking is a
feature and that community before code means not acting like a
competitor. One should not accept the so-called competitor's terms
of debate, no matter how much individuals might see and e
From: Ted Dunning<mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Sent: 1/6/2015 5:33 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A maturity model for Apache projects
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jan 2015, a
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:09, jan i wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> >
> >> These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private
> list
> >> has no place in Apache projects. Private
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:09, jan i wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>> These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
>> has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
>> appropriate uses and that policy has served Apa
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning wrote:
> These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
> has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
> appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
+1
jan i
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 20
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote
org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 11:48
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: A maturity model for Apache projects
On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote:
> projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for
> much more than committer votes and security issues, which I
I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources
without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to build it, it
makes the sources quite useless.
I had some troubles recently with a project. Its build depends on a resource
which is not available anymore
On 06/01/2015 Tim Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
The binaries OpenOffice makes available for download from its official site
are "convenience binaries" as per Bertrand's description. We are not going
to ask users to build it themselves!
We're heading off-
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
>
> > How much of this is already covered by the Incubation process? Hopefully
> > projects don't revert to improper licensing or closed development after
> > they graduate.
>
> The absence
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 14:48, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for
>> much more than committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad
>> practice.
>
> If you as a project had a competitor, poss
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Mike Drob wrote:
> How much of this is already covered by the Incubation process? Hopefully
> projects don't revert to improper licensing or closed development after
> they graduate.
The absence of clear documentation harms projects both during and after
incubati
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
>>
>> Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
>> source code *ma
On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
source code *may* reduce the installed base. ;-)
The binaries OpenOffice makes available
On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote:
projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for
much more than committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad
practice.
If you as a project had a competitor, possibly a proprietary one, would
you discuss marketing strategy in pu
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
> related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
> be useful.
>
> So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
>
> Code: open,
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 14:05, Vincent Keunen wrote:
>
>
> On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi Marcel,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
>> wrote:
>>> ...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
>>> statement “source code only” probably app
On 6 January 2015 at 18:31, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> ...How about a compromise:
>> distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
>> according to foundation guidelines?...
>
> Works for me.
Does not work for me.
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that it should not contain any bin
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> ...How about a compromise:
> distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
> according to foundation guidelines?...
Works for me.
-Bertrand
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that it should not contain any bin
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> ...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
> statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
> release, meaning that it should not contain any binaries. Since
> convenience binaries are not of
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only". Maybe
>> say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem to have
>> some projects also release b
On 6 Jan 2015 at 19:01:01, Daniel Gruno (humbed...@apache.org) wrote:
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
> Good idea.
>
> I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only".
> Maybe say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem
> to have some projects al
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
Good idea.
I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only".
Maybe say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem
to have some projects also release binaries, is it?
Releasing binaries have, to this point, always b
Good idea.
I would just remove the "only" from "Releases: source code only". Maybe
say "Releases: source code at the minimum" ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release binaries, is it?
Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not
necessarily doc on sour
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented provenance
Quality: security,
69 matches
Mail list logo
