How do i unsubscribe from this mailing list? On 8 October 2015 at 08:07, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Remember, this is a release for legal reasons, not technical. Do not let > *any* technical concern block its release. If a valid legal concern > (e.g. it doesn't pass a RAT run) then fix and reroll immediately. > > The only thing that could take dev work is the removal of non-compliant > dependencies. But i don't believe we have any of those. > > Those who are on the PPMC (and those who are not), you will need to > demonstrate that you are here and attentive. You will need to look at > what Ali produces, read through Apache release docs, and confirm that, > to the best of your understanding, this release is good. Without three > people doing this and voting +1, this release will die once more. > > I will not be voting. > > The reason this work is required for the PPMC is because it is one of > the primary responsibilities of members of an Apache PMC, and is one of > the skills that projects must learn during incubation. > > Upayavira > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, at 03:58 AM, Ali Lown wrote: > > Upayavira, > > > > I do concede that after watching over Wave here for the last 3 years > > the project doesn't appear to have progress hugely far in terms of new > > user-visible functionality, but I don't think that this means the end, > > as there has been a slow-but-steady set of work on more underlying > > things - I would argue that 'we' have a tendency to the first 90% of > > the work, but then stop a bit short far too often. > > > > Yuri and I have put together 9 release candidates for general review > > under the name 0.4, which have received very varied quantities of > > responses from the community at large, though all positive - but > > ultimately all these RCs have had some form of bug we have > > (previously) considered to be show-stopping, prior to reaching the > > stage of sending the RC to the IPMC. I would say that this is due in > > part to the large time scales between (later) attempts, and the > > patches received in the interim time which caused a breakage, and more > > generally due to a lack of usage outside of release testing, resulting > > in these being the first time non-apparent bugs manifest themselves. > > > > It would appear that the best way to progress forward from this > > blocking point, is to simply cut RC10 from (roughly) where we > > currently stand on master. Say "we know it has bugs, but it > > sort-of-works if you do X and run only as Y, we will fix everything > > else in future releases" - which would prevent us getting stuck again > > at RC stage for anything short of "it doesn't work on any system > > because the RC is missing the build scripts" - allowing the project to > > meet the final criteria that has eluded this project for far too long > > now. > > > > Our next board report would be due in January, and assuming we would > > agree to make our initial release under the limited statement above, I > > think that making a release by then is perfectly achievable. > > > > I would be happy to put together an RC10 tomorrow, as long as there > > are still people on the Wave list interested in seeing its release? > > > > Ali > > > > On 7 October 2015 at 22:48, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > That is a reasonable response, Evan. > > > > > > So, let's look at what graduation might look like, then we can see > about > > > what goals might be reasonable: > > > > > > A podling must have: > > > 1. proven its ability to produce legally correct releases > > > 2. demonstrated its ability to vote in new committers and PPMC members > > > 3. a diverse community > > > 4. sufficient PPMC members to be able to command 3 or more votes on all > > > important matters, > > > notably new committers/PPMC members and on releases. > > > > > > So, the ONE thing this podling needs to do before our next board report > > > is due is make a release. > > > > > > This involves these steps: > > > * prepare a tarball containing the source > > > * validate that it is (to the best of our knowledge) legally correct > > > * get at least 3 +1 votes from PPMC members > > > * submit it to the Incubator PMC for checking > > > > > > I personally am hesitant to vote on such things as I have limited > > > experience of release vetting. My holding back should not be considered > > > as a negative in any way. > > > > > > The PPMC needs to be able to demonstrate its ability to do this in a > > > self managed way, i.e. without prodding from mentors. > > > > > > Note, I don't mention in that list "getting the Incubator PMC to accept > > > the release". That can sometimes be challenging. But having shown that > > > this PPMC can (a) produce a release tarball and (b) submit it to the > > > Incubator PMC having acquired 3 or more +1 votes from PPMC members > would > > > make a big difference in terms of moving us closer to meeting > graduation > > > requirements. > > > > > > Reasonable? > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, at 02:01 PM, Evan Hughes wrote: > > >> maybe instead of deciding the end instead you and Christian set goals > > >> that > > >> must be completed by the next checkpoint aka have x amount of submits, > > >> have > > >> x more active contributors to help gain momentum. If the tasks are not > > >> completed sufficiently or dismally fail then sure maybe its for the > best. > > >> > > >> On 7 October 2015 at 22:44, Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Well as the video discussion we had earlier this year, the main > problem > > >> > has been the complexity. We have been taking steps in this > direction with; > > >> > > > >> > * reducing technical debt (removing updating dependencies), can bee > seen > > >> > from patches last week and there has been work in a gradle or sbt > build > > >> > system which allows people to understand how the project works > together. > > >> > > > >> > I personally have been looking into giving the website a fresh coat > of > > >> > paint in the past couple of weeks (infrastructures docs on building > locally > > >> > are eh if not on a mac ;) but did get it working). We have also had > the > > >> > addition of the android project for wave. > > >> > > > >> > Progress might be slow but progress is still being made. > > >> > > > >> > On 7 October 2015 at 20:54, Upayavira <upayav...@odoko.co.uk> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Dear all, > > >> >> > > >> >> I need to sign off the Wave report, but find this difficult. > > >> >> > > >> >> The Apache Incubator exists to facilitate projects moving towards > being > > >> >> fully fledged ASF projects. Wave has been > > >> >> incubating since 2010, and in that time it has not yet been able to > > >> >> build a community that is likely to sustain itself as an ASF > > >> >> project. > > >> >> > > >> >> It does, therefore, seem to me that it is time for us to retire as > a > > >> >> podling, and allow people here to continue in a location more > fitting > > >> >> with the current level of effort, without the expectation that it > needs > > >> >> to meet some specific set of incubation requirements. > > >> >> > > >> >> Note that all of the source code is Apache Licensed, meaning it > can be > > >> >> forked elsewhere - the only discussion required is the name that > the > > >> >> relocated project would take. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thoughts? > > >> >> > > >> >> Upayavira > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
