Re: [VOTE] release cassandra 0.5.0-rc1

[ant elder]

+1

   ...ant

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Eric Evans  wrote:
>
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.5.0-rc1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling vote thread:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.cassandra.devel/728
> 0.5.0-rc1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.5.0-rc1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> We received only one (IPMC )binding vote[1] during the poddling vote, so
> we'll need two more. Any help with reviewing/voting from outside our
> mentors list would be appreciated.
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or longer if needed).
>
> Regards,
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.cassandra.devel/734
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eev...@rackspace.com
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Phil Steitz]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message 
> 
>> From: Phil Steitz 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 3:10:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> - Original Message 
>>>
 From: Phil Steitz 
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

 Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message 
>
>> From: ant elder 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
 A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]

 Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
 to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
 component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
 everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
 committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
 this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
 guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
>>> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
>>> that discussion here:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
>>>
>>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
>>> some objections.
>>>
>>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
>>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
>>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
>>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
>>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
>>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
>>> voting in the new committers.
>>>
>>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
>>> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
>> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
>> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
>> incubation process just for one commit access.
>>
>> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
>> worth pointing out this recent thread:
>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some 
> weenies 
 are
> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't 
> the 
 solution:
> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they 
> vote 
>> to
> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be 
> it.
>
 Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
 point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.

 In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
 contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
 stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
 with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
 their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
 but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
 grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
 examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
 in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
 code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
 past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
 least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
 we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
 committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
 would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
 regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.

 What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
 described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
 let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
 and is not as terrible as some seem to

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

> From: Phil Steitz 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 3:10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message 
> > 
> >> From: Phil Steitz 
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> >>
> >> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> - Original Message 
> >>>
>  From: ant elder 
>  To: general@incubator.apache.org
>  Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>  Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> 
>  On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
> >>
> >> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
> >> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
> >> component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
> >> everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
> >> committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
> >> this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
> >> guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
> > I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
> > that discussion here:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
> >
> > In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
> > some objections.
> >
> > All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
> > it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
> > that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
> > mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
> > podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
> > have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
> > voting in the new committers.
> >
> > The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
> > of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
> >
> > Niall
> >
>  From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
>  submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
>  straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
>  incubation process just for one commit access.
> 
>  Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
>  worth pointing out this recent thread:
>  http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
> >>> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> >>> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some 
> >>> weenies 
> 
> >> are
> >>> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't 
> >>> the 
> >> solution:
> >>> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they 
> >>> vote 
> to
> >>> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be 
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >> Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
> >> point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.
> >>
> >> In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
> >> contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
> >> stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
> >> with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
> >> their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
> >> but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
> >> grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
> >> examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
> >> in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
> >> code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
> >> past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
> >> least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
> >> we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
> >> committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
> >> would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
> >> regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.
> >>
> >> What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
> >> described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
> >> let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
> >> and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't rec

Re: [VOTE] release cassandra 0.5.0-rc1

[Matthieu Riou]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Eric Evans  wrote:

>
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.5.0-rc1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, eventually consistent, distributed,
> structured key-value store.
>
> Podling vote thread:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.cassandra.devel/728
> 0.5.0-rc1 artifacts: 
> http://people.apache.org/~eevans
> SVN tag:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.5.0-rc1
> Project home: http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/
> Incubation status: http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cassandra.html
>
> We received only one (IPMC )binding vote[1] during the poddling vote, so
> we'll need two more. Any help with reviewing/voting from outside our
> mentors list would be appreciated.
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or longer if needed).
>

+1

Matthieu


>
> Regards,
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.cassandra.devel/734
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eev...@rackspace.com
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Niall Pemberton]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> - Original Message 
>
>> From: Phil Steitz 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> > - Original Message 
>> >
>> >> From: ant elder
>> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>  A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>> 
>>  Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>>  to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
>>  component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
>>  everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
>>  committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
>>  this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
>>  guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
>> >>> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
>> >>> that discussion here:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
>> >>>
>> >>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
>> >>> some objections.
>> >>>
>> >>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
>> >>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
>> >>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
>> >>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
>> >>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
>> >>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
>> >>> voting in the new committers.
>> >>>
>> >>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
>> >>> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
>> >>>
>> >>> Niall
>> >>>
>> >> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
>> >> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
>> >> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
>> >> incubation process just for one commit access.
>> >>
>> >> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
>> >> worth pointing out this recent thread:
>> >> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
>> >
>> > Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
>> > own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some 
>> > weenies
>> are
>> > uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't the
>> solution:
>> > have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote 
>> > to
>> > incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be 
>> > it.
>> >
>>
>> Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
>> point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.
>>
>> In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
>> contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
>> stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
>> with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
>> their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
>> but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
>> grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
>> examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
>> in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
>> code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
>> past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
>> least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
>> we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
>> committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
>> would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
>> regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.
>>
>> What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
>> described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
>> let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
>> and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
>> a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
>> several successes over the past 6 years.
>>
>> I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
>> that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
>> it, part of the reason we have the Incuba

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Phil Steitz]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message 
> 
>> From: Phil Steitz 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> - Original Message 
>>>
 From: ant elder 
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

 On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
 wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>>
>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
>> component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
>> everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
>> committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
>> this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
>> guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
> that discussion here:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
>
> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
> some objections.
>
> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
> voting in the new committers.
>
> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
>
> Niall
>
 From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
 submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
 straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
 incubation process just for one commit access.

 Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
 worth pointing out this recent thread:
 http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
>>> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
>>> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some 
>>> weenies 
>> are
>>> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't the 
>> solution:
>>> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote 
>>> to
>>> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be it.
>>>
>> Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
>> point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.
>>
>> In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
>> contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
>> stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
>> with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
>> their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
>> but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
>> grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
>> examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
>> in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
>> code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
>> past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
>> least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
>> we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
>> committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
>> would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
>> regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.
>>
>> What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
>> described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
>> let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
>> and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
>> a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
>> several successes over the past 6 years.
>>
>> I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
>> that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
>> it, part of the reason we have the Incubator is so that people who
>> have no experience with the ASF and have not earned merit can both
>> gai

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

> From: Phil Steitz 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message 
> > 
> >> From: ant elder 
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>  A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
> 
>  Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>  to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
>  component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
>  everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
>  committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
>  this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
>  guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
> >>> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
> >>> that discussion here:
> >>>
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
> >>>
> >>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
> >>> some objections.
> >>>
> >>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
> >>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
> >>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
> >>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
> >>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
> >>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
> >>> voting in the new committers.
> >>>
> >>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
> >>> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
> >>>
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
> >>>
> >>> Niall
> >>>
> >> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
> >> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
> >> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
> >> incubation process just for one commit access.
> >>
> >> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
> >> worth pointing out this recent thread:
> >> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
> > 
> > Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> > own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some 
> > weenies 
> are
> > uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't the 
> solution:
> > have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote 
> > to
> > incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be it.
> > 
> 
> Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
> point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.
> 
> In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
> contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
> stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
> with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
> their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
> but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
> grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
> examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
> in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
> code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
> past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
> least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
> we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
> committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
> would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
> regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.
> 
> What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
> described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
> let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
> and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
> a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
> several successes over the past 6 years.
> 
> I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
> that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
> it, part of the reason we have the Incubator is so that people who
> have no experience with the ASF and have not earned merit can both
> gain experience and demonstrate merit in a "mentored"

Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation

[Phil Steitz]

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message 
> 
>> From: ant elder 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
 A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]

 Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
 to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
 component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
 everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
 committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
 this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
 guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
>>> I raised this on priv...@commons and reported back to d...@commons on
>>> that discussion here:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
>>>
>>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
>>> some objections.
>>>
>>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
>>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
>>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
>>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
>>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
>>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
>>> voting in the new committers.
>>>
>>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
>>> of the vote held on d...@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
>> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
>> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
>> incubation process just for one commit access.
>>
>> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
>> worth pointing out this recent thread:
>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
> 
> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some weenies 
> are
> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't the 
> solution:
> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote to
> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be it.
> 

Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.

In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.

What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
several successes over the past 6 years.

I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
it, part of the reason we have the Incubator is so that people who
have no experience with the ASF and have not earned merit can both
gain experience and demonstrate merit in a "mentored" environment.
The mentoring and graduation requirements ensure that when projects
graduate, their committers have earned full ASF commit.

It could be that I have this wrong and just arriving with a lump of
code that a project wants to incorporate is enough to earn ASF
commit outside the Incubator nowadays.  If we collectively agreed to
that and I missed the conversation, then I apologize for t

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for December 2009 ("Log4php Developers" )

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Marvin - was this by accident, by tool or was this message intendent
> without body?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Marvin  wrote:
> >

I didn't send that message, and I have no connection to the project.  I wish
you all well, though.  :)

It looks like the Incubator PMC has sent out a bunch of messages with my
Apache email address in the From field:

http://apache.markmail.org/search/?q=incubator+pmc+december+2009+reminder

It seems that "Marvin" is some sort of email automation tool.  Maybe there's a
way to configure it so that it doesn't use "Marvin" to identify itself?  Can I
suggest "John" instead?  ;)

Marvin Humphrey


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org