Re: Jakarta [was: Effects on corporate backing withdrawals [was: Incubator Proposal: Pig]]
On 01.10.2007, at 18:43, Roland Weber wrote: Erik Abele wrote: Sure, am happy to help (as a satisfied user of both, HttpComponents and JMeter); just let me know where you'd like to see me subscribed... (I assume [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) That's great! Yes, those will be the interesting lists in terms of future directions for both subprojects. Done. If the traffic on either list is too high, you could subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. Already subscribed. I'll make sure to post there when discussions get on the way. For HttpComponents, we're planning to prepare the TLP proposal for the December board meeting. Nice. You can find some older discussions in the mailing list archives. Ok, will have a look, thx for the pointers. Cheers, Erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: How strict should podling release reviews be?
i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden style reviewer role. When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax in that regard. Some of the things that they need to do are identified by RAT, and would be non-issues if they would correct their build process to do them automatically, e.g., inserting the license and disclaimer files where they are supposed to go. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
On 10/1/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/30/07, Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Nominated Mentors -Bill Stoddard([EMAIL PROTECTED])... Are we willing to accept a podling with just one mentor? Although [1] doesn't set a minimum number, we usually (always?) have more than one. having only one mentor is likely to cause process issues for the podling: there will be no binding quorum - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
On Oct 2, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 10/1/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/30/07, Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Nominated Mentors -Bill Stoddard([EMAIL PROTECTED])... Are we willing to accept a podling with just one mentor? Although [1] doesn't set a minimum number, we usually (always?) have more than one. having only one mentor is likely to cause process issues for the podling: there will be no binding quorum Not necessarily. The initial committers plus the Mentor would form the PPMC, and in this case five members should be able to muster three votes. But I agree that it would be good to find two more volunteer Mentors. For many reasons we've discussed in the past. Craig - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
On 9/30/07, Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings from North Carolina on a bright, beautiful, sunny fall day! Thank You to all those who gave comments on the proposal. I made one small tweak; Tomcat, rather than Geronimo, should be one of the first bindings. Please vote on accepting project Imperius into the Apache Incubator. The vote will run 1 week, until Sunday, Oct. 7, 2007 or until all Incubator PMC members have voted. [X] +1 Accept Imperius project for incubation - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 28 September 2007 17:12, Guillaume Nodet wrote: On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we care about is that podlings get the legal stuff right, and letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to potential legal risks. I thought projects in incubator were not endorsed by the ASF, hence the ASF could not be responsible for the legal stuff in podling releases... Did I miss something here ? Yes, you missed the fact that Incubator is part of ASF, and the Incubator are doing the releases on behalf of the podling. AFAIUI, we are responsible of the legal aspects of the releases (i.e. upstream sources), but we have no practical responsibilities towards the downstream users. +1 the disclaimer is really aimed at informing users and has no force in law the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden style reviewer role. When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax in that regard. Some of the things that they need to do are identified by RAT, and would be non-issues if they would correct their build process to do them automatically, e.g., inserting the license and disclaimer files where they are supposed to go. i do believe that there's a definite problem here. there's too much energy wasted by everyone. the IPMC cannot actively oversee the code bases without automation. so, the only real oversight happens at release time. this is bad for everyone. really, we need to automatically scan and analyse the incubator codebases. i hope that http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal may help - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three IPMC'ers have voted in favor and the release vote passed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 10/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three IPMC'ers have voted in favor and the release vote passed. IMHO the liability rests with the Foundation but the responsibility with those who voted - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 10/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour Correction, the responsibility rests with the Foundation once three IPMC'ers have voted in favor and the release vote passed. IMHO the liability rests with the Foundation but the responsibility with those who voted :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RESULT] [VOTE] accept Pig into Incubator
Doug Cutting wrote: I would like to call the Incubator PMC to vote to incubate the proposed Pig project. Discussion on this list evidenced broad interest in this project, which bodes well for its ability to build a diverse developer community. http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PigProposal With 24 +1 vote, no votes against, and more than three Incubator PMC +1 votes, the Pig project has been accepted into the Incubator. As Champion and a Mentor, I will now work with the committers and the ASF infrastructure to get things going. Thanks! Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software-grant form is missing fax/mail address
Hi, This probably belongs on a different list, but incubator seems to be a good place to get the answer. The software grant form http://www.apache.org/licenses/software- grant.txt does not have a fax number or address built in, unlike the ICLA form http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt and CCLA http:// www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt. Is this done on purpose, or should someone update the software grant to match the others? Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Software-grant form is missing fax/mail address
CC'ing secretary, that's under their purvue and shouldn't be changed arbitrarily by us. Bill Craig L Russell wrote: Hi, This probably belongs on a different list, but incubator seems to be a good place to get the answer. The software grant form http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt does not have a fax number or address built in, unlike the ICLA form http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt and CCLA http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt. Is this done on purpose, or should someone update the software grant to match the others? Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
Craig Russell wrote: having only one mentor is likely to cause process issues for the podling: there will be no binding quorum Not necessarily. The initial committers plus the Mentor would form the PPMC, and in this case five members should be able to muster three votes. Unless they are members of the Incubator PMC, their votes are not binding. --- Noel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 9/28/07, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 28 September 2007 17:12, Guillaume Nodet wrote: On 9/28/07, Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we care about is that podlings get the legal stuff right, and letting releases out without this being ok is not an option, due to potential legal risks. I thought projects in incubator were not endorsed by the ASF, hence the ASF could not be responsible for the legal stuff in podling releases... Did I miss something here ? Yes, you missed the fact that Incubator is part of ASF, and the Incubator are doing the releases on behalf of the podling. AFAIUI, we are responsible of the legal aspects of the releases (i.e. upstream sources), but we have no practical responsibilities towards the downstream users. +1 the disclaimer is really aimed at informing users and has no force in law the responsibility for the release rests with those IPMCers who vote in favour I think most people would agree that reviews should be strict -- as many problems as possible should be identified during a release review. However, there seem to be some who feel that voting for incubator releases can be a bit more lenient. If I understand the Incubator process correctly, there is some relaxation of standards for incubator releases. Perhaps there is some confusion on just what requirements are relaxed for incubator releases. The following summarizes my understanding. Is it more or less correct? IIUC, the external dependencies of an incubating project need not strictly conform to Apache policy. For instance, a project may enter incubation with dependencies on artifacts that have an excluded license (http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x). It's my understanding that incubator releases could be created with these dependencies. However, the project would be expected to be working to remove these dependencies (certainly would be expected to be removed prior to graduation). Is my understanding correct? This relaxation of Apache policy towards external dependency policy does not translate to a relaxation of licensing requirements. Any Apache release must observe and follow the license requirements of the artifacts that it contains (no matter what category the license falls under). Failure to adhere to the license requirements of these dependencies are non-negotiable. Once identified, they must be addressed prior to release. --kevan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Soliciting mentors for Imperius project ... [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: Anyone care to join me mentoring the Imperius project? I'd be interested in helping out. However, IIUC, mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. So I couldn't act in an official capacity... --kevan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Soliciting mentors for Imperius project ... [VOTE] Accept project Imperius into the Incubator
Kevan Miller wrote: On Oct 2, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: Anyone care to join me mentoring the Imperius project? I'd be interested in helping out. However, IIUC, mentors must be members of the Incubator PMC. So I couldn't act in an official capacity... I'm sure Imperius is absolutely looking for ALL contributors, not just the one (still) missing mentor :) Please sign on to the initial project if you plan to participate! Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Tuscany Java DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2)
+1 from me Paul On 9/28/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 from me. I can't see any issues that haven't already been mentioned here or over on tuscany-dev. ...ant On 9/27/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Apache Tuscany project request IPMC permission to release the Java DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2). The vote thread is here ... http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg24045.html The artifacts, including the binary and source distributions, the RAT reports, and the Maven staging repository, are available for review at : http://people.apache.org/~lresende/tuscany/das-beta2-rc1/ The SVN tag for the release is: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/das/1.0-incubating-beta2-rc1/ Thanks in advance -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
