On 12/29/05, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must
provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling
and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator
can't refuse the project outright, but if
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/29/05, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must
provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling
and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator
can't refuse the
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not
sponsored (at the time) by any PMC.
Dims mentioned that they had planned to approve that proposal through the
WS PMC - so if it had been sponsored by them, there
Yes, I agree with Justin. More eyes the better. Especially ones with
outsider perspective will help.
-- dims
On 12/30/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:16:42PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
- the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to
accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to
bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they
otherwise meet the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
? approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a
part
of the ASF is a flat-out lie. (In the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator would
be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and the members.
As Geir noted, I can see the potential for the former, but of the latter,
I would hope not. The Members are the Incubator in many real ways, and the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to
accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) -
then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that
decision. When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing
Erik Abele wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
What you do have is the right to vote against their graduation if
you so desire.
The second sentence does exactly what the first sentence forbids, no?
It tells people what they cannot do at the ASF.
It is established that the Incubator is the sole
Steven Noels wrote:
The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah,
thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse
stuff.
Not true. If there is community development, the Incubator PMC had better
be involved. We're going to have to adjust things, such as
+1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports
thanks,
dims
On 12/28/05, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
The Incubator PMC only needs to care about
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports
yeah, sounds good to me. More mentors / oversight is likely to
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:45, Rich Bowen wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists
are created.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship
but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the
podling.
When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a
+1 to
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous. The foundation
should go where our PMCs and our members want. -- justin
I reckon that the way to handle it is to document our
processes properly. If each new podling got involved
in fine-tuning the content
On 12/23/05, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the
Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:43:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one
helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not
everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that
not
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to
accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources (people) -
then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that
decision. When a PMC
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
and I do have a
robert burrell donkin wrote:
IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship
but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the
podling.
When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a
+1 to mean something different?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another
Sam,
it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the insiders (WS
PMC) may be biased.
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:19 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF. It is not
some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation.
Everything
done at the ASF is an Apache project. Some are
On Dec 23, 2005, at 4:07 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people
are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects. How? On what
basis?
In my mind, there are 2 considerations: What is in the best interest
of the PMC, and what
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sam,
it's not just a question of content and significance. It's also a
question of fitting with existing projects and check to make sure that
the project still adheres to the the charter of the PMC. These are
better checked by outsiders (Incubator PMC), since the
Every TLP has an explicit charter when created by the board in the
resolution that creates them. How they interpret that and change
with the shifting sands of technology style is up to them
geir
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:31 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Sounds good to me (hopefully all
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as
a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from
others interested in this aspect of ASF life. It prevents one
individual or one PMC
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am going with this, if you read between the lines...
-- dims
On
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I am no longer convinced of this. Having the Incubator PMC there as
a check and balance is a good thing as it requires engagement from
others interested in this aspect
On Dec 23, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am going with
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:38AM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hmmm...But the deal is if the PMC wants a change to its charter it
needs to VOTE on it and formally adopt it. right? AND if the PMC does
not have one then it needs to adhere to the board resolution. right?
You know where i am
On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
...
I think that there's little downside to this. A check on the
Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the
board in the event that they believed their
On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
created. Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part
of the ASF is
On 21 Dec 2005, at 10:50, Ted Leung wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.I think that the incubation
process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache
brand name, and this is a bad thing. Corporations see the value of
the brand name, that's why they want to come
can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us
more control over that which we are charged with in the
first place :)
PS: IMO, in response to the actual subject line, I certainly
don't feel that the Incubator is out of control, or
on a certain path for disaster, or anything like
On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
proposed project, acceptance.
Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs?
I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs
If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a
problem for the project community.
regards,
Martin
On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
proposed project, acceptance.
You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets
that
On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the
comments of
both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's
authority
comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather
than when
another
On 12/22/2005 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the
comments of
both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's
authority
comes into play when we vote to release
(for the benefit of those joining the thread, here's the context)
On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake
both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to
a failure
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at
the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS
PMC.
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not
currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator
and who does not?
Not at all. No one (afaik) denies the fact that the Incubator is
the final arbiter of
Jim Jagielski wrote:
The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their
PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others,
nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :)
Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of the
Board can clarify the
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently
have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator
and who does not?
No, that is clearly an authority delegated by the Board exclusively to the
Incubator.
--- Noel
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Instead, the
question is whether it also has the authority (and
responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not.
FWIW, I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator
would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and
the members. I
On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their
PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others,
nor does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :)
Right, but there is clearly a difference of
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at
the raft of projects
On 23.12.2005, at 00:23, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a
project in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at
the raft of projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 21:19 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not
been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure,
so have little basis to complain about anything.
I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans,
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:50 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
Personally, I am less than happy at seeing yet another large project
proposed from a corporate source (and IBM at that), along with a
dozen new
committers who have not earned their merit at the
Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
Corporations see the value of the brand name, that's why
they want to come here and are willing to put up with all our overhead.
I can't speak for all corporations, but I can speak to the proposals
that I have dealt with
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
The merits of the particular proposal aside, I wanted to comment on
this paragraph. This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find that
a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too
quickly. I know that are
I Also share these concerns - is there currently a process to have
continuous reviews throughout the entire life-cycle of all new and
existing projects - to ensure that everything under the 'apache'
brand is and will continue to be 'worthy' ?
Sorry if there's already a process in place -
The merits of the particular proposal aside
We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing to do so
might well be part of the problem.
I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
low bar for access to the Apache brand name
And we require disclaimers and
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled
by the board, the Incubator should vote.
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:38:52AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
side. I think that no
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled
by the board,
Let's put htis to the board today
-- dims
On 12/21/05, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
side. I think
In theory, the sponsor and mentors are doing that continuously.
geir
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
I Also share these concerns - is there currently a process to have
continuous reviews throughout the entire life-cycle of all new and
existing projects - to ensure that
On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
There is one thing that I think would be useful in
helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
says Yes a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
side. I think
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The merits of the particular proposal aside
We should always be judging the merits of each proposal. Failing
to do so
might well be part of the problem.
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project
in without
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project
in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of
projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC. There's
not a thing I can do, regardless of the
Ted Leung wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The merits of the particular proposal aside
We should always be judging the merits of each proposal.
Failing to do so might well be part of the problem.
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project
in without approval of
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I see the Incubator as a gatekeeper almost.
See Roy's comments for an alternative view. As I understand his view, the
gatekeeper role is limited to projects leaving the Incubator, not entering.
PMCs, in general, don't have an idea of the number of
podlings within the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:57:59PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project
in without approval of the incubator PMC? Just look at the raft of
projects being brought in via Geronimo and
Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
low bar for access to the Apache brand name
And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
Incubator. Look at how the folks are
On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
low bar for access to the Apache brand name
And we require disclaimers and clear notice that
73 matches
Mail list logo
