Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
+1 (non-binding) Small point: if a Mentor must be a Member, I can't be one, because I'm not. p On 08/09/2010 16:00, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: +1 (Notbinding) On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote: ... *Mailing Lists* kitty-dev kitty-commits kitty-user Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the community across dev/user does not make sense. You want to keep the users and developers on the same mailing list until one starts to overwhelm the other. By partitioning the lists too early, you risk never reaching critical mass on *either* mailing list. Cheers, -g 0x62590808.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
On 08/09/2010 13:44, ant elder wrote: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Hi, After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF community has voted (see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201008.mbox/browser) and would like to officially change our name to be the Apache Connectors Framework. We would like the Incubator PMC to vote to make this official. [] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework [] 0 Don't care [] -1 Don't change it Since this is a procedural vote (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html), it is a majority rule vote with binding votes coming from IPMC members. The vote is open for 72 hours. Here's my +1 (binding). Thanks, Grant -0 I agree with the comments from David and others such as [1] and the suggestion at [2] to call it something more abstract like Apache Connecto. Thats IMHO anyway, I'm not sure that the IPMC should be the ones with binding votes on this but it would be good if the poddling could take into consideration our views. -1 (non-binding) In short, the selection of an abstract name is a considerably better solution, as per the previous discussion on the topic. p 0x62590808.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal, rather than to my comment. Correct? And to clarify for myself: I have no opinion on the proposal itself. I timed out after Java and the next few buzzwords. Thankfully, this proposal didn't say framework or I may have timed out after the first :-P ... my comments were focused on the community aspects around mailing list management, and successfully growing a lively and sustainable critical mass. Cheers, -g On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 02:06, Pid p...@pidster.com wrote: +1 (non-binding) Small point: if a Mentor must be a Member, I can't be one, because I'm not. p On 08/09/2010 16:00, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: +1 (Notbinding) On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote: ... *Mailing Lists* kitty-dev kitty-commits kitty-user Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the community across dev/user does not make sense. You want to keep the users and developers on the same mailing list until one starts to overwhelm the other. By partitioning the lists too early, you risk never reaching critical mass on *either* mailing list. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
On 09/09/2010 07:15, Greg Stein wrote: Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal, rather than to my comment. Correct? +1 indeed, to the proposal +1 actually, to the mailing list comment, too. The Incubator PMC might consider that establishing sufficient interest which requires a user list is an indicator of a project approaching the exit criteria, or at least, making substantial progress. p And to clarify for myself: I have no opinion on the proposal itself. I timed out after Java and the next few buzzwords. Thankfully, this proposal didn't say framework or I may have timed out after the first :-P ... my comments were focused on the community aspects around mailing list management, and successfully growing a lively and sustainable critical mass. Cheers, -g On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 02:06, Pid p...@pidster.com wrote: +1 (non-binding) Small point: if a Mentor must be a Member, I can't be one, because I'm not. p On 08/09/2010 16:00, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: +1 (Notbinding) On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote: ... *Mailing Lists* kitty-dev kitty-commits kitty-user Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the community across dev/user does not make sense. You want to keep the users and developers on the same mailing list until one starts to overwhelm the other. By partitioning the lists too early, you risk never reaching critical mass on *either* mailing list. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org 0x62590808.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
I'm with James on this one. Many good points have been made on this, but we do have bigger things to worry about. On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 08:06 -0400, James Carman wrote: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:39 AM, dan haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: For the moment at least the dev community is more active (or at least more vocal), so their mailing list should be the main focal point. As I said in the other email, when we have more user traffic than dev traffic, then we can vote to split them out. Why are we even having this discussion? When did mailing lists become such a heavyweight operation that we have to discuss at length whether they should even exist? Just create the user/dev/commits/issues lists and be done with it. If nobody uses the user list, so be it. I think it's just more confusing to start moving traffic from one list to another. Keep things consistent. And another benefit of putting user traffic on the dev list is that it'll give the devs exposure to any probs that regular users are having with actually using the framework (ie so we can mature its documentation etc) The developers should be listening to the user list so that they can answer questions. They can't just hide in the dev list and not listen to the community. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 09:31 +1000, Gav... wrote: -Original Message- From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 10:18 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework Hi, After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF community has voted (see http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors- dev/201008.mbox/browser) and would like to officially change our name to be the Apache Connectors Framework. We would like the Incubator PMC to vote to make this official. I have mentioned before, the wording of your request to change suggests that your are removing the word 'Lucene' and replacing it with the word 'Apache' . This is misleading and wrong. 'Apache' is a given, in both scenarios. You are changing from: 'Lucene Connectors Framework' to 'Connectors Framework' That could also be written as: 'Apache Lucene Connectors Framework' to 'Apache Connectors Framework' One or the other, don't mix the two, its misleading. That said, heres my vote: [] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework [] 0 Don't care [] -1 Don't change it +1 I don't care for the name but my view is I'll leave it to the project to decide. Thinking this through, while the Incubator PMC may have /some/ say in the name of a project, the real test is when it comes to graduation. At that point, the project creation resolution will go in front of the board, and they will have final say as to whether this project gets created, and whether with the name proposed (see resolution for Axis project, nee Axis2). So, the big question about a podling name is really not a question of what is the project called during incubation, but rather what will it be called once it has graduated. (Another interpretation: it ain't finally up to the incubator PMC.) Just a reflection that I hope helps in some way. Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
I think the name is too generic and don't care for it - but as long as its not offensive or in use elsewhere then this should be up to the project to decide and the IPMC should stay out. [X] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework Niall On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Hi, After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF community has voted (see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201008.mbox/browser) and would like to officially change our name to be the Apache Connectors Framework. We would like the Incubator PMC to vote to make this official. [] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework [] 0 Don't care [] -1 Don't change it Since this is a procedural vote (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html), it is a majority rule vote with binding votes coming from IPMC members. The vote is open for 72 hours. Here's my +1 (binding). Thanks, Grant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
I'm -1 (don't know if it's binding or not. I requested to join the PMC, but didn't hear anything back). I think the name is too general. Why not just choose some animal name or something like everyone else is doing? On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Hi, After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF community has voted (see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201008.mbox/browser) and would like to officially change our name to be the Apache Connectors Framework. We would like the Incubator PMC to vote to make this official. [] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework [] 0 Don't care [] -1 Don't change it Since this is a procedural vote (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html), it is a majority rule vote with binding votes coming from IPMC members. The vote is open for 72 hours. Here's my +1 (binding). Thanks, Grant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Role of Incubator PMC Votes
I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the IPMC really get anything more than an advising role in these sorts of matters (and why is that healthy)? Thanks, --tim [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
Perhaps some clarification is in order, explaining where we are and how we got here, and the procedures the podling followed to come up with the current proposal. I especially want to address the concern that we've been ignoring the advice of the incubator. Here is a short history, for those unfamiliar: (1) Lucene Connectors Framework was voted into incubation in January of this year, ostensibly as a future subproject of Lucene. (2) At Lucene/Solr Eurocon, in May, Grant let it be known that in his (and other people's) opinion, LCF was too broad to be properly just a Lucene subproject, and that its status as a planned Lucene subproject would probably need to change. (3) In August, I was approached to write a book on this project, and I realized that that would be very difficult to do if the name issue was not settled. Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses, and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed that all was well, and went ahead with an extensive renaming exercise. (4) In late August, several folks from this list raised strong objections to the name. Our podling recognized that, and began gathering many suggestions for names both descriptive and abstract. It became apparent to me at that time that the Apache community is actually quite strongly divided between those who prefer abstract names and those who prefer descriptive ones. Indeed, the Apache naming guidelines also play homage to both approaches. (5) In early September, the gathered names were put to a vote on the connectors-dev list. The number of naming candidates was roughly 15, and included descriptive names, abstract names, and animal names - the best we could come up with in two weeks' worth of discussion. Everyone on that list was informed of the incubator concerns about descriptive names. Everyone was also informed that Apache is always the first part of the name. Nevertheless, the final results still had Apache Connectors Framework as the lead choice. Given the informal response this choice had received before, Grant chose to present it for a formal vote, with the understanding that should it fail, we would then call votes on other high-scoring candidates from the voted list. Hope this helps. If our procedures seem incorrect, please advise. Karl On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:06 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.comwrote: I'm -1 (don't know if it's binding or not. I requested to join the PMC, but didn't hear anything back). I think the name is too general. Why not just choose some animal name or something like everyone else is doing? On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Hi, After much debate both here and on the connectors mailing list, the LCF community has voted (see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201008.mbox/browser) and would like to officially change our name to be the Apache Connectors Framework. We would like the Incubator PMC to vote to make this official. [] +1 Change the Lucene Connector Framework to the Apache Connector Framework [] 0 Don't care [] -1 Don't change it Since this is a procedural vote ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html), it is a majority rule vote with binding votes coming from IPMC members. The vote is open for 72 hours. Here's my +1 (binding). Thanks, Grant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
name=trademark On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the IPMC really get anything more than an advising role in these sorts of matters (and why is that healthy)? Thanks, --tim [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:32 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: name=trademark Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to think through these things... in other words, the basis for us challenging the vote is trademark concern rather than I don't like that name, it's too broad... ... but I haven't seen a mark concern brought up... --tim On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the IPMC really get anything more than an advising role in these sorts of matters (and why is that healthy)? Thanks, --tim [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
Presumably, the PMC's job is to be the eyes and ears of the Board, so if project is doing something wrong, the PMC should let it know. In this case, the project specifically is asking for guidance from the PMC as to whether the name change is acceptable to the PMC and thus to the ASF, assuming the Board doesn't intervene. We really do not want to go through another name change, so I really would hope all people view this as a speak now or forever hold your peace kind of thing and we can move on to the matters of graduation. -Grant On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote: I'm watching the renaming vote thread and I find it odd that folks are -1-ing the project's vote. I've read the role of the IPMC[1] and the policy[2] and can't find the basis for our (IPMC) doing anything other than ack-ing they're vote. It seems like votes from the IPMC should only be relevant/binding when the matter in question is release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues that could [legally] effect the foundation. I dunno, this seems purely a project matter to me (like a logo, code, etc.) - second-guessing a project team on these sort of subjective things seems counter-productive to grooming self-sustaining projects to me. So, is this normal - why does the IPMC really get anything more than an advising role in these sorts of matters (and why is that healthy)? Thanks, --tim [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Incubator+Project+Management+Committee+%28PMC%29 [2] - http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Incubation+Policy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Grant Ingersoll http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Tim Williams william...@gmail.com wrote: Are you suggesting there are trademark concerns with the name the project has chosen? If so, then yes, that's a valid reason for the IPMC to challenge a project's vote - as a part of 'grooming' them to think through these things... in other words, the basis for us challenging the vote is trademark concern rather than I don't like that name, it's too broad... ... but I haven't seen a mark concern brought up... No, you were saying that the IPMC has no say in this naming matter and that they should only be concerned with release/legal/trademark/etc-type issues. My point is that the name is the trademark. So, that would fall under the IPMC's jurisdiction. That's all I was saying. As far as there being a trademark issue with the name, I would think it would be pretty hard to go after someone for using the term connectors framework. That's way too general. I don't really think there's a mark concern, per se. I voiced my opinion because the person opened up the vote and said only IPMC members have a binding vote. As someone pointed out before, it's eventually up to the board to decide if the project makes it out of the incubator with that name. If there are a lot of folks on the IPMC that think the name stinks, then it's a fair chance that there will be some on the board who think it stinks too. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses, and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed that all was well, That may be the cause of all this - there was a concern raised but instead of being taken on board it was ignored. Looking at the vote result of options [1] Apache Manifold is the second highest choice and has a good amount of support and is far less contentious than ACF so why not just go with that? I agree with Upayavira's comment [2] - while it may not be down to the IPMC to veto a name the board may well do so. So if you want to reduce the chance of a book title being messed up when the project goes TLP then i'd go with something abstract like Apache Manifold now (or else atleast ping the board now to see if they'll comment). ...ant [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201009.mbox/%3caanlktikd9fglbnyybrha6emr8ordzdlejaf85qvpf...@mail.gmail.com%3e [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/vbuq6hqfpuodouyp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
There may be trademark issues with Manifold, so although it enjoys support in the community, it may be unacceptable for that reason. Also, it was not the actual winner of the vote, and so we do need to go through the proper process, seems to me. If ACF is rejected, then we'll have to properly vette Apache Manifold as the next step. http://www.manifold.net/index.shtml Karl On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:57 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses, and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed that all was well, That may be the cause of all this - there was a concern raised but instead of being taken on board it was ignored. Looking at the vote result of options [1] Apache Manifold is the second highest choice and has a good amount of support and is far less contentious than ACF so why not just go with that? I agree with Upayavira's comment [2] - while it may not be down to the IPMC to veto a name the board may well do so. So if you want to reduce the chance of a book title being messed up when the project goes TLP then i'd go with something abstract like Apache Manifold now (or else atleast ping the board now to see if they'll comment). ...ant [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-connectors-dev/201009.mbox/%3caanlktikd9fglbnyybrha6emr8ordzdlejaf85qvpf...@mail.gmail.com%3e [2] http://apache.markmail.org/message/vbuq6hqfpuodouyp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
+1 on the mailing lists issue. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Pid p...@pidster.com wrote: On 09/09/2010 07:15, Greg Stein wrote: Just to clarify: I'm assuming you're saying +1 to the proposal, rather than to my comment. Correct? +1 indeed, to the proposal +1 actually, to the mailing list comment, too. The Incubator PMC might consider that establishing sufficient interest which requires a user list is an indicator of a project approaching the exit criteria, or at least, making substantial progress. p And to clarify for myself: I have no opinion on the proposal itself. I timed out after Java and the next few buzzwords. Thankfully, this proposal didn't say framework or I may have timed out after the first :-P ... my comments were focused on the community aspects around mailing list management, and successfully growing a lively and sustainable critical mass. Cheers, -g On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 02:06, Pid p...@pidster.com wrote: +1 (non-binding) Small point: if a Mentor must be a Member, I can't be one, because I'm not. p On 08/09/2010 16:00, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: +1 (Notbinding) On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks matt...@matthewsacks.comwrote: ... *Mailing Lists* kitty-dev kitty-commits kitty-user Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the community across dev/user does not make sense. You want to keep the users and developers on the same mailing list until one starts to overwhelm the other. By partitioning the lists too early, you risk never reaching critical mass on *either* mailing list. Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour Author of (WebSphere Application Server Community Edition 2.0 User Guide) http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247585.html - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour - Blog: http://tadabborat.blogspot.com Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving - Albert Einstein Writing clean code is what you must do in order to call yourself a professional. There is no reasonable excuse for doing anything less than your best. - Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship Stay hungry, stay foolish. - Steve Jobs - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Change name of Lucene Connectors Framework to Apache Connectors Framework
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, ant elder wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote: Grant proposed that we simply go from LCF to ACF at that time, and posted accordingly to this group. He received several positive responses, and only one that raised any concerns. After a week's delay, we presumed that all was well, That may be the cause of all this - there was a concern raised but instead of being taken on board it was ignored. What was ignored? I don't follow you here. We discussed at length both here and on the connectors mailing list. Just because someone has a concern doesn't mean they overrule everyone else. -Grant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if they did... They asked. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
Not only did we ask, we've asked more than once. We're going that extra mile to call a vote to resolve this issue specifically because there seems to be a wide range of opinion as to whether the name is acceptable to the incubator, and by implication, the board. It's quite clear that there's also a wide range of opinion as to whether or not it's a good name or a bad name, but hopefully people who care deeply about the quality of our name choice would find time to subscribe to connectors-dev and vote on issues of this kind. It seems to me that that is the proper forum for discussions about naming aesthetics. Karl On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:54 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.comwrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if they did... They asked. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if they did... Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving the wrong vote. Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the opinion, don't put it up for a vote. Kalle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 14:11, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 08:47, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: I haven't followed this particular issue because it seems like a slamdunk easy thing. If the podling wants to change their name, then fine. Sounds easy enough. I would see no reason for anybody outside the podling to -1 that choice, and might even say that I'd be upset if they did... Sure, the podling can change the name and it can be completely dealt with an internal matter. However, in this case, the name change was put up for a procedural/opinion vote on the incubator general list. As such, I might be upset if people are criticized for giving the wrong vote. Most non-positive votes in the thread are non-binding so the project can ignore them if they like, but if you don't want the opinion, don't put it up for a vote. As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure... definitely no problems with that! Cheers, -g - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Role of Incubator PMC Votes
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, I haven't followed it. I meant if the -1 was a veto. If the IPMC was vetoing a podling's choices on stuff like this. If you're only using a vote as a preference/opinion marker, then sure... definitely no problems with that! The vote was stated to be a majority-rules vote, so my -1 was merely an indication of my opinion about the name. I normally wouldn't get into the podling's business (I don't troll their lists), but they did ask for the votes on the general list. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to casually sweep under the rug. Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community. If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user community, then sure. Create separate lists. But small communities should (IMO) stick to a single dev@ list until you can't handle the traffic any more. If you started elsewhere with two lists, but your list traffic is still small, then I would recommend combining them when arriving at the Incubator. It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate. Cheers, -g On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 04:42, Robert Matthews rmatth...@nakedobjects.org wrote: I'm with James on this one. Many good points have been made on this, but we do have bigger things to worry about. On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 08:06 -0400, James Carman wrote: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:39 AM, dan haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk wrote: For the moment at least the dev community is more active (or at least more vocal), so their mailing list should be the main focal point. As I said in the other email, when we have more user traffic than dev traffic, then we can vote to split them out. Why are we even having this discussion? When did mailing lists become such a heavyweight operation that we have to discuss at length whether they should even exist? Just create the user/dev/commits/issues lists and be done with it. If nobody uses the user list, so be it. I think it's just more confusing to start moving traffic from one list to another. Keep things consistent. And another benefit of putting user traffic on the dev list is that it'll give the devs exposure to any probs that regular users are having with actually using the framework (ie so we can mature its documentation etc) The developers should be listening to the user list so that they can answer questions. They can't just hide in the dev list and not listen to the community. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate I think this sums it up best, totally agree with Greg here - including making this a recommendation. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator
The dicussion of how proposals should be addressed might be a better issue for the Wiki page on proposals. It is off topic of this original proposal, and I vote that it be moved to a separate thread. We have agreed and noted to use a single mailing list for the purposes of this proposal. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate I think this sums it up best, totally agree with Greg here - including making this a recommendation. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
James Carman wrote on Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 15:33:53 -0400: If users are interested in the development goings-on, then they can subscribe to the dev list. A standard argument against this: Having it in the same list makes it easier to pull users in to become developers. Some folks, like us mentors, might not be interested in user issues, because we're really not necessarily capable of answering the questions. I don't want that junk in my inbox (or label/folder). Mentors should evaluate the healthiness of the community --- and that includes users support (whether by the developers or by the community) --- no? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
On 9/9/10 9:33 PM, James Carman wrote: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote: The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to casually sweep under the rug. Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community. If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user community, then sure. Create separate lists. But small communities should (IMO) stick to a single dev@ list until you can't handle the traffic any more. If you started elsewhere with two lists, but your list traffic is still small, then I would recommend combining them when arriving at the Incubator. It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate. And I'm all about consistency. Most (if not all, I haven't checked) ASF projects have separate user/dev lists. We, at Directory, created the users mailing list 2 years *after* exiting from incubation. Until then, we had mainly interaction with developers, not users. Eventually, some of those early adopters became committers. In fact, it's hard to get real users before the project is well established. In restrospect, it was a damn good idea : having an empty user list gives your potential users a bad feeling. Once you have enough real 'users' (quite unlikely if your project is just in incubation without an installed base), then creating a separate list where you actually have daily posts is good. Consistency is one thing, being pragmatic is probably a better idea. So +1 to Greg opinion. my 2 cts... -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
btw, regarding consistency: some projects have a us...@a.o (plural) list, others have u...@a.o (singular). I most certainly take the wrong one whenever I write a mail to some u list ;) LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: From: James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com Subject: Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator) To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:33 PM On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to casually sweep under the rug. Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community. If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user community, then sure. Create separate lists. But small communities should (IMO) stick to a single dev@ list until you can't handle the traffic any more. If you started elsewhere with two lists, but your list traffic is still small, then I would recommend combining them when arriving at the Incubator. It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate. And I'm all about consistency. Most (if not all, I haven't checked) ASF projects have separate user/dev lists. That's just how we do things. It's really not that much trouble to have two different lists and just subscribe to both (if you're a developer). That way, development stuff (votes, board reports, etc.) doesn't bleed over onto the user lists. I've always subscribed to both lists for every project I'm on. If users are interested in the development goings-on, then they can subscribe to the dev list. Some folks, like us mentors, might not be interested in user issues, because we're really not necessarily capable of answering the questions. I don't want that junk in my inbox (or label/folder). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator)
Knowing Roy he'd probably want to see them all renamed u...@. - Original Message From: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thu, September 9, 2010 6:31:05 PM Subject: Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator) btw, regarding consistency: some projects have a us...@a.o (plural) list, others have u...@a.o (singular). I most certainly take the wrong one whenever I write a mail to some u list ;) LieGrue, strub --- On Thu, 9/9/10, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: From: James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com Subject: Re: No dev-, user- lists for small podlings (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator) To: general@incubator.apache.org Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:33 PM On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: The formation of your community is a BIG DEAL. Not something to casually sweep under the rug. Partitioning the community between users and devs makes it very difficult to establish a large, viable, sustainable community. If projects arrive at the Incubator with an already-built user community, then sure. Create separate lists. But small communities should (IMO) stick to a single dev@ list until you can't handle the traffic any more. If you started elsewhere with two lists, but your list traffic is still small, then I would recommend combining them when arriving at the Incubator. It is obviously a call for each podling to make, so I'm simply recommending that all podlings consider the impact of dividing your community when you ask for separate dev/user lists. I believe it is rarely appropriate. And I'm all about consistency. Most (if not all, I haven't checked) ASF projects have separate user/dev lists. That's just how we do things. It's really not that much trouble to have two different lists and just subscribe to both (if you're a developer). That way, development stuff (votes, board reports, etc.) doesn't bleed over onto the user lists. I've always subscribed to both lists for every project I'm on. If users are interested in the development goings-on, then they can subscribe to the dev list. Some folks, like us mentors, might not be interested in user issues, because we're really not necessarily capable of answering the questions. I don't want that junk in my inbox (or label/folder). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
how to edit Incubator documents
Author: billgraham Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010 New Revision: 995581 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581view=rev Log: fixing links to chukwa site Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html Bill, thanks for trying. However need to edit the source documents and re-build, rather than editing the generated HTML files. Those changes will need to be re-done. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html#Edit+your+project+status+report Anyway, thanks again. It is great to see project devs updating the docs. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: how to edit Incubator documents
Ahh right, of course. Thanks for the heads up. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:53 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote: Author: billgraham Date: Thu Sep 9 21:33:13 2010 New Revision: 995581 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995581view=rev Log: fixing links to chukwa site Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-publish/projects/chukwa.html Bill, thanks for trying. However need to edit the source documents and re-build, rather than editing the generated HTML files. Those changes will need to be re-done. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html#Edit+your+project+status+report Anyway, thanks again. It is great to see project devs updating the docs. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
