I'm dropping the issue for now. I don't have time to work it out. I'm
strictly going
to focus on tapestry:
1. Getting all its license issues worked out - (which seems done)
2. Getting in gump (to fit in with Jakarta)
3. Getting to project status.
I am specifically not going to focus on:
4. Mak
The incubator will always be a cabbage. What does a cabbage have to
do with Tapestry's incubation? Exactly.
Why is this concept so hard to understand? Incubator is a project. It
is
not an entity. By definition, anything done by way of incubation falls
under the category of incubator. The on
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 06:01 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[..]
Making progress on getting infrastructural resources is always very
slow at Apache and probably always will be.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
-aaron
--
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground.
Obviously you have more of a passion for quitting than you do for
making progress. Why did you volunteer to be the shepherd?
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground.
Obviously you have more of a passion for quitting than you do for
making progress. Why did you volunteer to be the shepherd?
I think the incubator is a
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 20.43:
Jeff Turner wrote:
...
PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
disinterested Incubator PMC.
that was tried. it failed in practice.
I'd like to point out a thing. Incubation still means different things
to different peopl
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC didn't feel it was their
> jurisdiction.
and that some, though passionately interested, had real-
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
that was tried. it failed in practice.
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is
> > [..] I
> > promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> > opportunities arise. [ .. ]
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:29 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up
(though like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I
promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Av
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
not done goes to our demer
At 11:54 PM -0800 3/11/03, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly
>problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people
>associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have
>a bunch of unrelated volun
Again, IMO, I don't see the Incubator in the role you're thinking of. If the
Incubator is mostly about logistics rather than evaluation, then there is no
potential for rejection. They simply won't hit the Incubator if there wasn't
a sponsor PMC to say "we'll take them when you're done".
There
Infrastructure should have its own request tracker, but that is a completely
different story...
bugzilla.
Sander
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To Accept a project:
1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
However the board/etc have stated a preference to not have
Uber-projects. Therefore the above model seems
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground. I think the incubator is a waste. I try and work on something
constructive and you say "it must be done my way or it will be ingored"
well.. . In th
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:19:49PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>...
> Is there then any reason why project can't 'incubate' on non-Apache
> hardware? Sourceforge?
It doesn't sound as clean, but possibly. I'd be concerned with the oversight
that the Incubator needs to apply while getting everything
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:29 AM
>> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>
>>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>>> begged, both here and the incubator
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:21 AM
> No, accepting the donation of new code has to come though incubator.
> Unfortunately, the incubator PMC currently consists of the same people
> who have over-volunteered their time for all of the other pr
Greg,
...
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
committer for abo
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>> begged, both here and the incubator.
>
> I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
> request to infras
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:29:02AM +, Paul Hammant wrote:
>...
> Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
> like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
> answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> opportunities arise.
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:29 AM
> >The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
> >may have missed others.
> >
> >
> There was a very low vote, yes. The project is quite active though.
>
> >This lack of a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:54:02PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
...
> From a legal standpoint, the Incubator was created to ensure that we had our
> i's dotted and t's crossed. Beyond that, I have little opinion. IMO, the
> Incubator is more about process and checklists, than warm fuzzies and
> "teachi
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:07:12PM +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:33 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
> > projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
> > This means docume
The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
may have missed others.
There was a very low vote, yes. The project is quite active though.
This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
Perhaps.
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC
The usual way -- people wanting it to happen will make it happen. If
people
don't want it to happen, it won't happen. However, let me make this
perfectly clear: anyone who thinks non-action on the part of incubator
will result in this process being handed back to the PMCs is smoking
some very ba
Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has
exacerbated the mess.
No, it has simply made it a little more obvious. The problem we had was
that projects were being accepted without due diligence. The choice is
now either to perform due diligence or not accept the project. Sorr
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with
regards to the boards
Nope.
Okay. Well they are to me.
The board is capable of making any ASF decision and responsible for
everything. Incubator is responsible for what is listed in the STATUS
file
and capable of making decisions on t
With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
begged, both
here and the incubator.
I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
request
to infrastructure, which is where it should go.
Who is the RM for incubation of Tapestry? We have a STATUS file:
james
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 March 2003 03:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
>&
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
to the boards
Nope.
Okay. Well they are to me.
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
Thats a bit backwards.. So a new project coming has an i
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
to the boards
Nope.
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
I would rephrase this as:
"someone has to *champion* new requests"
Cheers Ste
Sure,
I'm happy to commit documentation we've gleaned from Tapestry.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/03/2003 01:29:44 PM:
> > The Incubator projec
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
to the boards
Nope.
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it a
What I see is Tapestry asking incubator to do things that only
infrastructure can accomplish (because we don't have the user privs)
and complaining here. Sorry dudes, but I tune out people who start
their message by pissing and moaning about the behavior of those
people from whom they wish a favor
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Andy,
Please don't miss the point. The point is not whether these are suitable
projects for Jakarta. That itself is an interesting question and you have a
valid opinion. I really don't mind if the conclusion to these proposals is
"Thanks, but we are not interested given
The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that
new
projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra
helper.
This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
People need to do that. Projects don't do anything. Incubator is
simply
a group of people
I have to agree. AFAICT, accepting subprojects in the raison d'etre of
the
Incubator. I was surprised by the statement that the incubator does
not want
subprojects. IIRC, the board has said that all subprojects must come
through
the incubator. If it's just a cork, what's the point of it?
No, ac
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:24 pm, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> but then
> came one of those mysterious silences.
>
> In any case. I do not regard this as fault of the incubator.
>
Andy,
Please don't miss the point. The point is not whether these are suitable
projects for Jakarta. That itself is an int
I'd add to the list the Pluto and Charon proposals. I haven't seen any
reaction from the incubator to these? I know there was some discussions and
issues/hurdles raised by Andy but some sort of acknowledgment would be
polite.
Note that as a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm -1 on the Pluto proj
The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
+1
I'd agree.
I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missi
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:33 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
> projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
> This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
I have to agree. AFAICT, acc
Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/03/2003 09:18:34 AM:
> I think that probably in case of subprojects it's quite obvious that
> PMCs should take the incubation into account themselves. One from us
> could simple monitor that project for some time and help needed, but
> only as
Michael Wechner wrote, On 11/03/2003 23.08:
...
But I think Jeff has a point. For instance in the case of Lenya,
discussions quickly moved to cocoon-dev, because we
proposed Lenya as a Cocoon subproject, and hence the Cocoon community
cared about it.
Yes, I also have seen this.
I'll see what I ca
Jeff Turner wrote, On 11/03/2003 6.04:
Feh.
Incubation was a dumb idea from the start.
Thanks, I like constructive attitude.
It is busy failing in practice.
It has failed for the first project, which it actually never incubated.
PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
di
I think Incubator is very fine for defining, refining and formalizing a
general Apache Incubation
process, which then should be applied by the various Apache top-level
projects, because else
you might end up with "Baby-Apaches" (but I guess this might be not just
because there are different opin
Jeff,
There is more than just Tapestry in incubator.
- Paul
--- Jeff Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
>
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:04 pm, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
>
> IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate
Feh.
Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
practice.
PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
disinterested Incubator PMC.
IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
without being further jerked around.
I feel I'm sta
50 matches
Mail list logo
