On 10/30/15 8:40 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 30/10/2015 14:17, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 10/30/15 5:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> On 30/10/2015 00:42, Phil Steitz wrote: >>>> This is a VOTE to accept the code discussed in [1] and available for >>>> review using the git commands below. All are welcome to vote, votes >>>> from PMC members are binding. Assuming a positive vote, we will >>>> execute a software grant with the authors and use the code as the >>>> basis for a new Commons Sandbox component. >>>> >>>> This VOTE will close in 72 hours. More discussion on the code and >>>> its fit in Commons is always welcome, but please do not reply to >>>> this thread with discussion, other than embedded justification for >>>> negative VOTES. Use the thread from [1] instead. >>>> >>>> Git commands to grab the code: >>>> >>>> git clone g...@github.com:NormanShapiro/Naomi.git >>>> git checkout gh-pages >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/imoi5aipf63f7rsa >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Yes! >>>> [ ] +0 OK... >>>> [ ] -0 OK, but... >>>> [X] -1 We should not do this, because... >>> The Commons sandbox should not be used as a replacement for / way to >>> bypass the Apache Incubator. >> I don't see this as a case of that, as there are Commons committers >> (self included) interested in working on this code in Commons. > Who, exactly? I ask because the list of people from Commons who intend > to get involved in this has a very strong influence on whether I think > this should go via the incubator or not.
I would be one. Dave has already contributed, so I assume he will continue. There could be more. > > I'm a little concerned - based on the minimal input on the dev list from > the original contributors - that this is more of a code dump than a code > contribution. This is partly my bad. I had an offlist exchange with Norm, who confirmed intent to continue to contribute. I should have asked him to post to the list. I have consistently argued against accepting code dumps - even from within the ASF - and I would not be supporting this if I thought that were the case here. > >> If you and others insist, we will do the side trip through the >> Incubator, but I do not see it as necessary, nor consistent with >> what we have done with other code brought in through the sandbox. > I appreciate that. I don't want to put unnecessary hurdles in the way > but neither do I want to see essential processes (IP clearance, branding > etc. bypassed). AFAICT the critical thing is the software grant and the process for that is the same, either here or in the Incubator. I volunteered to handle that and I will personally make sure that nothing gets committed to Commons until the IP clearance process completes. Branding is a non-issue as we would just create a stock sandbox site for the thing and use our package names, etc. Trademarks could be a source of other wonderful fun, which we can avoid if we agree to change the name. That is a separate topic though which again I will take accountability for making sure we do not screw up. > >> For me, the litmus test on bringing externally sourced code into the >> Sandbox (or [math] or any other component) is are there ASF >> committers interested and willing to work on it and grow a community >> around it. > I set the bar higher for a new component. I'm particularly looking at > how many ASF members (i.e. people who grok how the ASF is meant to > operate) are involved. Note that what I am proposing is a new *Sandbox* component if that makes any difference to you. > >> I see the likelihood of healthy growth around the Naomi >> code base higher starting in Commons than the Incubator. > I tend to agree with you but, with the emphasis on the healthy aspect, > I'd like more detail on who plans to get involved. Valid point. > >> I am >> personally interested in working on this code. There appear to be >> others as well. My cycles and energy for administrivia are limited, >> so I would appreciate some flexibility on this. On the other hand, >> I respect alternative views and if the consensus is we have to side >> trip through the Incubator, we will do that. > My vote is not set in stone. More detail on who plans to be involved is > likely to change it. Hopefully others will chime in with interest. Phil > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
