On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:15, Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > I actually like the way you ask for waivers for stuff that is required > by the Incubator. But this should be open to any podling, regardless
Never said it was specific to Subversion. You're just jumping up and down about procedures without waiting to see how this shakes out. > of the number of Members that are associated with the project, and > should be founded on hard fact (RAT reports, vote threads), not by > pointing at seniority or familiarity. The simple problem is that our time in incubation does not overlap with a scheduled release of Apache Subversion. So I am seeking a waiver of the "make a release" "requirement". And you can simply wait for me to send that, rather than continuing to speculate about whether I'm going to rely on seniority or on experience. > Would a waiver be possible for Diversity (large project dominated by 1 > or 2 vendors)? For the minimum required binding votes (small > communities of 2 committers)? Don't be argumentative. Any such waiver can and should be denied. >... >>> AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than >>> established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing? >> >> We have no release planned for the timeframe that I believe we will be >> within the Incubator. To force one does not make sense, as I've >> stated. > > Then don't call it a release but a proper (legal) code review. Feel free to perform a (legal) code review when it arrives at the ASF repository. That was never in question. The *only* question was putting together a bogus release for a non-existent audience. (if I were to guess, the code will arrive in a couple weeks; we have a lot to synchronize with Infra -- they're going to make the repo readonly for a while, so that requires some testing, review, and advance warning to the committers) >... >>> What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys >>> network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are >>> subjected to is no longer valid? >> >> That is just an unfair and unfounded accusation. > > I see a lot of finger pointing at the long list of established Members > of the ASF that are part of the proposal and using that as the reason > not to have to do an incubator release or follow established incubator > policies. While I appreciate the stature of the list of committers, I > can't help but notice a pattern: "Policy says we have to do X. We > don't have to do X because we have N long standing Members of the > ASF." This reasoning doesn't fly with me. I'd rather see: "Policy says > we have to do X. We already do (or have done) X as can be seen from > this and that." The implication of "long standing Members" is simply that they DO and HAVE DONE "X" over the years. It could be stated explicitly, but that's kind of redundant. But again: this is time-wasting speculation. Get off this subject, and wait for me to properly write up our waiver to skip a release. >... >>> Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal >>> organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden) >> >> Where did you ever see that we would do that? > > In the original proposal: "We will work with the Infrastructure team > to transfer the subscriber listings to the new destinations." Yah. And the answer is to invite people to the new list. You were just too busy raising a fuss rather than to simply *ask* what the final plans are. Of course, I would have said "dunno. I still need to ask the svn developers since we've only been in the Incubator for two days and don't have that answer." I want to get out of the Incubator with all extreme haste to avoid people who raise a fuss with all extreme haste. >... >> We have already conferred with Infrastructure, and they saw no problem >> with hosting old releases on archive.apache.org. > > I'm just referring to my experience, and that is that software > released by podlings built before they came to Apache doesn't belong > on Apache hardware. If that is not the case, I stand corrected and > will ask to host the old Wicket distributions in archive.apache.org > along with the non-Apache Wicket websites. This will make it less > confusing for our users. A win for all! Great. So stop being accusatory and instead say something like, "woah. that can be done? we didn't think so. if it is true, then we'd like to load on wicket stuff." I still want to double-check with legal-discuss, as stated, but I believe there is no problem. They may have differing opinions about types of content (releases under a clear license, vs websites). >... > Would you have considered waiving Wicket's community processes which > were already in line with ASF procedures? Did we really have to vote > in 2 additional committers before we could graduate? Are the waivers > only available for projects with N long time Members of the ASF, or > for any project? Would N == 0 be enough? A waiver obviously implies a case-by-case basis. So I can't possibly answer that. In general, if N==0, then I'd be very reluctant. If N > 3, then depending on the request.. sure. -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
