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]
[VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
I propose that we accept the CNET's Solr project into the incubator. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a developer community. The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SolrProposal +1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:21:49AM -0800, Doug Cutting wrote: I propose that we accept the CNET's Solr project into the incubator. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a developer community. The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SolrProposal Are there any other mentors? I think I saw some people say they would be interested, but I don't see their names on the proposal. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Doug Cutting wrote: The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. Doug, you can only make this statement with a vote by the Lucene PMC. I'd suggest that the Lucene PMC vote on incubating the proposal. In doing so, the Lucene project takes on the responsibility of mentoring this new podling, thereby integrating better once it has graduated. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Are there any other mentors? I think I saw some people say they would be interested, but I don't see their names on the proposal. -- justin Erik Hatcher myself are mentors. Do we need more? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Doug, you can only make this statement with a vote by the Lucene PMC. The Lucene PMC has already voted to sponsor this podling. My understanding is that the Incubator PMC must also vote to accept the podling. Is that not correct? Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
--On January 10, 2006 11:51:33 AM -0800 Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Are there any other mentors? I think I saw some people say they would be interested, but I don't see their names on the proposal. -- justin Erik Hatcher myself are mentors. Do we need more? I don't see Erik listed on the proposal as a mentor. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
On 1/10/06, Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Are there any other mentors? I think I saw some people say they would be interested, but I don't see their names on the proposal. -- justin Erik Hatcher myself are mentors. Do we need more? I believe there were a few people from outside the Lucene PMC who volunteered (Paul Querna did, and perhaps some others), it seems useful to get people from other parts of the ASF involved, just to encourage cross pollination of ideas. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I don't see Erik listed on the proposal as a mentor. -- justin I just added him. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Doug, I saw a number of ASF folks expressing interesting in participating. My quick take is that: (a) you should identify the additional ASF folks, and get them down either as comitters and/or Mentors. Was there a reason for excluding them from the proposal? (b) the Lucene PMC should be voting to sponsor the project for Incubation, including making sure that Mentors are all lined up. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Garrett Rooney wrote: I believe there were a few people from outside the Lucene PMC who volunteered (Paul Querna did, and perhaps some others), it seems useful to get people from other parts of the ASF involved, just to encourage cross pollination of ideas. That would be great. I did not understand these as offers to mentor, but rather as interest in becoming Solr developers. If they're in fact offers to help mentor, then I encourage interested Incubator PMC members to add themselves to the proposal on the wiki. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: (a) you should identify the additional ASF folks, and get them down either as comitters and/or Mentors. Was there a reason for excluding them from the proposal? None whatsoever. If their statements of willingness to help meant that they'd like to be initial committers or mentors, that's fine with me. I just did not understand them that way. (b) the Lucene PMC should be voting to sponsor the project for Incubation, including making sure that Mentors are all lined up. The Lucene PMC has already voted in favor of this. Erik noted that around the original proposal. The incubation documentation only mentions a single mentor, so we thought that was covered too. But we're open to more mentors and more initial committers. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Collecting Proposed changes
--On December 31, 2005 2:38:48 PM -0500 Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, Please review the items here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ProposedChanges Please feel free to add/modify/delete or start a new thread here on any issue that you care about. Let's give it a week and then ask the incubator PMC to VOTE on items on that page. Can we make progress on this? Here are my votes (majority rules, no vetos). -- justin +1 / Yes: - Any proposal should hit [EMAIL PROTECTED] first, No PR before that. - Any PR should be vetted by PRC, No Excuses. - A sponsoring PMC should hold their VOTE to sponsor a proposal or IP Clearance 72 hours *AFTER* it is posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Any existing committer from any Apache project should be able to volunteer to work on the proposed project within the 72 hours. Any later, it would be through regular karma process. (To promote inclusion/diversification from day one) - IP Clearance has to be OK'ed by Incubator PMC VOTE (before code gets checked in to a sponsoring project's SVN) -1 / No: - Any new proposal should have 3 ASF Members / Officers as mentors (without regard to affiliation) - Any new proposal should list at least one person as a infrastucture volunteer. - IP Clearance needs to be preceded by a proposal posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Hi, I mentioned I'd be interested, I still am. I'd like to be a committer (I think I am automatically, at least through the incubation period, by virtue of being on the Incubator PMC), but it seemed to me like having the entire Lucene PMC group as mentors was enough, so I didn't add myself as a mentor formally on the proposal. If another mentor is needed, I'll be glad to help in that capacity as well. Yoav On 1/10/06, Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Rooney wrote: I believe there were a few people from outside the Lucene PMC who volunteered (Paul Querna did, and perhaps some others), it seems useful to get people from other parts of the ASF involved, just to encourage cross pollination of ideas. That would be great. I did not understand these as offers to mentor, but rather as interest in becoming Solr developers. If they're in fact offers to help mentor, then I encourage interested Incubator PMC members to add themselves to the proposal on the wiki. Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
--On January 10, 2006 3:11:28 PM -0500 Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I mentioned I'd be interested, I still am. I'd like to be a committer (I think I am automatically, at least through the incubation period, by virtue of being on the Incubator PMC), but it seemed to me like At a minimum, you should add yourself to the proposal page as an initial committer. =) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Doug Cutting wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: (a) you should identify the additional ASF folks, and get them down either as comitters and/or Mentors. Was there a reason for excluding them from the proposal? None whatsoever. If their statements of willingness to help meant that they'd like to be initial committers or mentors, that's fine with me. I just did not understand them that way. Well, they were offering something that seemed like at least interest (I took it as more), and since one of the main goals is to community building, my own suggestion would be to be pro-active, and follow up whenever you see someone expressing interest. Clarify what they'd like to do. (b) the Lucene PMC should be voting to sponsor the project for Incubation, including making sure that Mentors are all lined up. The Lucene PMC has already voted in favor of this. That's is sufficient for entry. The incubation documentation only mentions a single mentor, so we thought that was covered too. But we're open to more mentors and more initial committers. We have recently discussed pushing that to more like three, but it hasn't been formalized. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Collecting Proposed changes
Totally agree with Justin straight down the line. One additional thought; -1 / No: - Petition the Board to require Incubator PMC VOTE to begin incubation process even for projects that other PMC's want to sponsor. Now, we are the Board's committee to found new projects. That said, we can't (generally) interfere with any other PMC's activities. That said, there will come times when the incubator sees a serious concern with a proposal. There is no reason for the incubator not to hold an 'advisory vote', following a controversial code base, and present the Board with the results of the PMC vote to incubate and a negative advisory vote by the incubator, with links to both threads so that the Board can do some high bandwidth digesting of the issues that are raised. But what I expect to see more often is that the incubator raises specific concerns with a new proposal that the presenters are willing to remedy, and that the sponsoring PMC didn't anticipate. That would be goodness. So I'd suggest, within 72 hours of a new project hitting the incubator, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented by the sponsoring PMC. The most important bullet, however, is that this is *advisory*. This committee will not block action by another PMC, but if needed, it will perform it's job of oversight by reporting discrepancies to the board. And then, wash our hands of the objections and let the board sort it out. Remember that PMC's do not answer to this committee, they answer to the board. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Collecting Proposed changes
--On January 10, 2006 2:29:25 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what I expect to see more often is that the incubator raises specific concerns with a new proposal that the presenters are willing to remedy, and that the sponsoring PMC didn't anticipate. That would be goodness. So I'd suggest, within 72 hours of a new project hitting the incubator, that any incubator PMC member can call for an advisory vote and comment period if they see issues with what's been presented by the sponsoring PMC. The most important bullet, however, is that this is *advisory*. This committee will not block action by another PMC, but if needed, it will perform it's job of oversight by reporting discrepancies to the board. And then, wash our hands of the objections and let the board sort it out. Remember that PMC's do not answer to this committee, they answer to the board. Agreed. I've mentioned this before under structure, not content. If another PMC likes the content, then the Incubator PMC can *not* block it because it disagrees with the project - but it should ensure that the proposal is complete. Like with the Solr proposal, it'd be ensuring that there are mentors listed and that the initial committers list is accurate. Or with Tuscany, defining the scope appropriately. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
On 1/10/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (a) you should identify the additional ASF folks, and get them down either as comitters and/or Mentors. Was there a reason for excluding them from the proposal? I didn't list any mentors myself on the proposal because it looked like that authority rested with the sponsor (in this case the Lucene PMC). -Yonik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
This is as clear as day: +1. Otis - Original Message From: Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tue 10 Jan 2006 12:21:49 PM EST Subject: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator I propose that we accept the CNET's Solr project into the incubator. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a developer community. The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SolrProposal +1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
Hi, +1 from me. Yoav On 1/10/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is as clear as day: +1. Otis - Original Message From: Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tue 10 Jan 2006 12:21:49 PM EST Subject: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator I propose that we accept the CNET's Solr project into the incubator. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a developer community. The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SolrProposal +1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator
+0 (would be +1 but I am trying not to +1 anything which I cannot commit time to help with) I will use it, though =) -Brian On Jan 10, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi, +1 from me. Yoav On 1/10/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is as clear as day: +1. Otis - Original Message From: Doug Cutting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Tue 10 Jan 2006 12:21:49 PM EST Subject: [VOTE] accept Solr into incubator I propose that we accept the CNET's Solr project into the incubator. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a developer community. The Lucene PMC would be happy to accept Solr as a Lucene sub-project once it graduates from the incubator. The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SolrProposal +1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Clearance vs Full incubation
On 12/29/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/28/05, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, I was browsing the ip-clearance documents (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/). IMNSHO, I don't like what's happening. It *SHOULD* be incubator PMC's call whether an incoming donation can take IP Clearance route or whether it needs undergo full incubation. A sponsoring PMC should not call the shots on which mechanism is to be used. I don't remember how/who decided on some of the ip clearance things that happened so far. Does anyone agree/disagree? does IP clearence require some sort of vote from the incubator pmc? if not then the process seems a little wrong to me if so then 'needs full incubation' would be a valid reason for a -1 From the sponsoring PMC point of view, they are two options that I see: 1) Write up a proposal, submit it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], get told that it doesn't need incubation. 2) Inform Incubator that code ABC is software granted and they plan to commit it within T time period. I'm in favour of the latter. Took me 3 months to get to a point where I grokked that :) Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Notice of code donation: OSJava Norbert - Jakarta HttpComponents
I must apologise for not doing sending in a notice prior to doing the commit. I sent in a software grant for http://www.osjava.org/norbert/ a couple of weeks back. Jim recorded it. It had previously been voted as becoming a part of Jakarta HttpComponents. I hold all the IP, and have a ICLA and CCLA on file. There are no dependencies. Week or so ago I committed the code. I'll continue to keep Norbert there until a release within HttpComponents happens. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/httpcomponents/trunk/norobots-rfc/ I should have sent this a few days before performing the commit; won't happen again. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
