On 10/9/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
No argument on the "every bloody name has to be on th
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 act
--On October 9, 2006 8:51:29 AM +0200 Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initi
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
On 10/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> bei
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
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
>> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
>> and
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
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 desir
Justin,
On Sunday October 08 2006 9:55 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, in that case I would really like to see it that
> > if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
> > and have a sincere interest in helping, that they
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
gold standard for creating this initial list:
---
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
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it he
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it helps
bootstrap the community
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical
requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm,
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> What I believe we've found works best over the years is to consider
> the entire behavior of the project over its incubation and raise
> questions about any trends pushing it in the wrong direction.
I agree. It is about people making decisions, not rules making decisions
f
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while.
ROFLMAO.
This has been an even longer thread for those who haven't been absent! :-)
> If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely
editable
> Wiki), then isn't it very straight
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active) committ
On 6 Oct 06, at 9:38 AM 6 Oct 06, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a
freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the estab
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established
etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's pro
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 02:46, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
> isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while...
It has been very interesting. I unde
clarification on the guidelines.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Eric,
> I realize we may have created some difficulties
Eric,
> I realize we may have created some difficulties in merging two existing
> projects - Celtix from ObjectWeb and Xfire from Codehaus
> But we are nonetheless simply trying to do the right thing, not
> stacking the deck to control the project.
OK, let's please stop right here. At least in
On Tuesday October 03 2006 2:09 pm, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> BTW, somewhere along the line people started calling this project CXF.
> That is a fine name, but isn't the one in the proposal.
All of the "apache resources" (svn repository, email lists, JIRA, etc...) are
using the abbreviation CXF.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is
natural for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
ator.apache.org
Subject: 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 ha
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
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
> the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and
people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with
the mentors.
IL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process,
and
> > then stating as a
006 2:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
> for
> a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
Eric Newcomer:
> No, let's be clear, this discussion is all about how someone knows the
> right thing to do, which is very hard when the rules keep changing.
Actually, no. There is relatively little (some, not much) debate on what is
the right thing to do. The real discussion is on HOW to do th
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> commit privs have always been a relatively high bar for people to
> meet
Although we've often suggested a relatively low barrier to entry for
projects in the Incubation. Low != none.
As for who should be a Committer, who better to decide than the active
community for whic
Mark Little wrote:
> Sure, but isn't that the process for if you join AFTER the project
> has started? If you're on the list of initial supporters/committers
> then it's a different policy I believe. It's certainly not the
> approach we were lead to believe when we were approach by IONA to
> suppo
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> -1 from Jim.
> I t
Leo Simons wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> I would say this is pa
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
> > then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in
> > a manner you find offensive.
> >
> > Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contribu
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list o
;s at least get CXF off to a good start!
Thanks,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How co
On Oct 2, 2006, at 2:19 PM, James Margaris wrote:
The project was approved with a certain committer list. What more
can be
said? The project was approved, the committer list was part of the
project proposal, hence everyone on the list should be committers. It
could not be more straightforwa
It is useful information and thanks for it. I was simply trying to
point out that there are other ways of managing an open source
project and probably no one right way of doing things.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 18:44, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
edge, use it or lose it. Just my two
cents as a lurker/observer.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:50 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
I was against that project
PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
> circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
> be do
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I was thinking I was living in a world with defined procedures for
submitting a project with a list of initial committers, getting the
project approved, and then arranging to have the committers on the list
participate in the project.
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example al
for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute,
and
> in some cases did not even receive a reply.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kulp, John Daniel
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
>
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:05 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given acces
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only be
done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked.
Right,
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
I said nothing about what constitutes a "true" open source project,
simply about what constitutes a suc
I understand that (now). Different approaches to the same problem.
Variety is good. However, where we have issue is in the definition of
"earning" I suppose: being on the initial committers list when the
proposal was formed was supposed to be good enough. Turns out it
wasn't. It only took 2
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to no
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked. It's for
this exact reason w
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
If that was the impression people were under, then they should break
themselves
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights. Even if that wasn't the case, the
interactions weren't "when's my commit coming" but "we're really
anxious to get involved" an
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there
4.daniel.kulp%40iona.com>
These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to
contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are others where the
communities thrive and g
allowed to contribute, and
> in some cases did not even receive a reply.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kulp, John Daniel
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
> Subject: Re: Policy on I
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Uhh, what kind of world are you living in where the on
@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting
for
> an explanation (as those discussions did not
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
communication on the
dev list, etc...)
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide
On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide an
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting for
> an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
> belie
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect "the peopl
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 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. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
> would accept
67 matches
Mail list logo
