Re: Request for write access to Incubator Wiki

[Nick Burch]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, aditi hilbert wrote:
I would like to be granted write access to the Apache Wiki for the 
Apache Incubator. I shall be posting the status report content on behalf 
of the new Mynewt project.


My username is ‘aditihilbert'


Karma granted, good luck with the report!

Nick

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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Martijn Dashorst]

> PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
> which is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar"
> should be. It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a 
> release,
> that has  considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally
> meets my definition of "belongs on the PMC".

We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
new projects
and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him to
continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
social manager!

We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time to
contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

Martijn

[1] https://twitter.com/apache_wicket

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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/05/2015 01:34 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Thanks Lenni.  If Joe will permit me to put some words in his mouth,
> he seems to be focused on how the project is solving coordination problems.
> Coming to agreement on things like what to include in a release for
> instance, which jiras get punted to which release schedules, etc, it's hard 
> to see
> the rhyme or reason why these things are happening with the timing you are 
> using.

Yes. This is accurate.

> I'm perfectly personally satisfied with the manner in which tickets are
> being resolved,
> but am inclined to trust Joe's instincts that more prior discussion about
> planning and
> such should be taking place on-list.  David has echoed these concerns as
> well.

Much appreciated. Thanks!

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
>> which is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar"
>> should be. It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a 
>> release,
>> that has  considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally
>> meets my definition of "belongs on the PMC".
> 
> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
> new projects
> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted him 
> to
> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
> social manager!
> 
> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time 
> to
> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.

You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
*not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
to projects. ASF projects need help in a lot of ways besides code - glad
you've found someone who is lending a hand there.

(I checked out the twitter feed, they really are doing a great job.)

Best,

jzb

-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain why.

And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
projects to complete.

We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is different.

Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin

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

Re: Question about proposal champions

[Christian Grobmeier]

Hi Greg,

from my experience it has proven to be very hard to start
single-man-shows here. The Incubator works best if there is an active
community already.

If you are a sole person, you might also consider labs.apache.org. Some
people say, Labs is for experiments, and when there is a community, go
to the Incubator.

Personally, if you have no plan how to get new people on-board, or if
nobody else here is interested in becoming a committer, or if your
project is not Hadoop related :-), then you should first start building
a community. 

If you don't have at least three committers, you will als not be be able
to cut a release.

Cheers,
Christian

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 14:53, Greg Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been out of the Apache loop for a while, but I have a new project
> I'd like to propose for incubation. I know new Incubator projects require
> a champion. As an ASF member myself, can I act as my own champion, or
> does another member need to act as champion on my behalf?
> 
> It certainly wouldn't hurt to have another champion for the project
> since, to date, I've been the only committer. Just wanted to ask the
> question before I got started on the actual proposal.
> 
> Thanks,
> Greg
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[larry mccay]

+1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.

A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.

While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done artificially.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me explain
> why.
>
> And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> projects to complete.
>
> We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> different.
>
> Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[larry mccay]

Hi Caleb -

I am glad that it is useful for your projects.

I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
podling.

"These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
- this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".

We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
community decisions or milestones.

As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
graduate or not.

thanks,

--larry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton  wrote:

> I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
>
> Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> need to be moving towards.
>
> Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> useful guidance.
>
> If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
> particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
> are missing?
>
> Regards,
>   Caleb
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:
>
> > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> >
> > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> develop
> > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
> >
> > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> natural
> > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > artificially.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > explain
> > > why.
> > >
> > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > projects to complete.
> > >
> > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > different.
> > >
> > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Caleb Welton]

I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...

Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
need to be moving towards.

Especially starting with an established team working on close source
project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
useful guidance.

If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are there
particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things that
are missing?

Regards,
  Caleb

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:

> +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
>
> A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually develop
> more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes checked.
>
> While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of natural
> growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> artificially.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> > wrote:
> > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> explain
> > why.
> >
> > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > projects to complete.
> >
> > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > different.
> >
> > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should be
> > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires from
> > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off is
> > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).

Yup. And that's why I felt like clarifying.

> It got shot down for many, many reasons.

Well, that depends on what 'it' is. But that's a different conversation ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: Wave - download page links to nightly builds etc

[sebb]

On 5 November 2015 at 17:02, Ali Lown  wrote:
> Sebb,
>
> I have moved the nightly builds section to its own page only
> accessible under the releases section on the getting involved page.
> (It might be slightly too hidden for people to find it now).

The new page looks good, thanks.

> I have corrected that typo, thanks.

However the new page has a typo:

"loose" => "lose"

> Ali
>
> On 4 November 2015 at 01:02, sebb  wrote:
>> On 3 November 2015 at 15:38, Ali Lown  wrote:
>>> Hi Sebb,
>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
>>>
>>> I have updated the downloads page removing the link to the RC, and
>>> clarifying the differences of the available download options: 1) no
>>> official releases, get RC from mailing list, 2) or risk the automated
>>> build
>>>
>>> Is this what you had in mind? Let me know if you think it still needs 
>>> changing.
>>
>> Thanks, that's much better.
>>
>> However the downloads page is aimed at the general public, and nightly
>> builds should not be advertised there, see:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what - second paragraph
>>
>> So I think any mention of such builds needs to be placed elsewhere.
>>
>> For example, it might be useful to add a section to the "Getting involved" 
>> page.
>>
>> This could discuss providing feedback on release candidates etc, and
>> point to a separate page describing how to get nightly builds (and the
>> caveats of using them).
>> [That page should not be linked from the main menus]
>>
>> I think that would clearly signal that these builds are not for the
>> general public.
>>
>> BTW that page has a typo: "Requriements Discussion"
>>
>>
>>> Ali
>>>
>>> On 3 November 2015 at 11:32, Upayavira  wrote:


 On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 11:15 AM, sebb wrote:
> The Wave download page
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/wave/downloads.html
>
> specifically says that there have been no releases
>
> However it links to automated builds and an RC in a home directory on
> minotaur.
>
> That does not seem right.

 Wave has not made any releases. I agree that the RC should not be
 linked, and that there should be more signposting regarding the status
 of nightly builds.

 Wave has just completed a vote to make its first release, and you will
 hear more of that here shortly. Given the low energy in Wave right now,
 I'd suggest we roll the above fixes into the process of managing this
 release.

 Upayavira

 -
 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
>>
>
> -
> 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

maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer]

I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
document into a policy document.  Rather, some people are finding it a
useful
guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:35 PM, larry mccay  wrote:

> Hi Caleb -
>
> I am glad that it is useful for your projects.
>
> I think that the use of it that you describe is valuable.
> It should be used as guidance and interpreted by the mentors for each
> podling.
>
> "These sort of metrics can be used to indicate health in this way or that"
> - this is different from "these specific metrics must be met".
>
> We can certainly articulate requirements but they should be more specific
> to behaving in accordance to "the apache way" then dictating very specific
> community decisions or milestones.
>
> As mentor training, guidelines, etc - this is quite valuable and should
> help in guiding podlings to graduation rather than deciding whether they
> graduate or not.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Caleb Welton  wrote:
>
> > I am not in favor of bureaucracy, However...
> >
> > Having reviewed the maturity model and speaking as a member of a newly
> > incubating podling I would like to chime in to say that I find it very
> > useful.  It helps frame discussions around what we can be doing as a
> > community to embrace the apache way, move towards more inclusive
> > development and communication models, and gives a sense of direction we
> > need to be moving towards.
> >
> > Especially starting with an established team working on close source
> > project and bringing it into Apache requires some cultural change and
> > entering into a newly incubating podling can feel a bit like diving into
> > the unknown. Having some structured recommendations on what we can do to
> > help move things in the right direction is useful and helps provide
> > guidance.  For the communities that I'm engaged with I'm actively
> > encouraging us to voluntarily use this tool because I think it provides
> > useful guidance.
> >
> > If you think the tool as expressed enforces "rote learning" how would you
> > suggest improving it to account for differences in communities?  Are
> there
> > particular points within the tool that you find less useful, or things
> that
> > are missing?
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Caleb
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, larry mccay  wrote:
> >
> > > +1 - I am concerned by the trend that I see developing here.
> > >
> > > A set of interview questions for evaluation is one thing but criteria
> > > checkboxes that will encourage behaviors by rote will not actually
> > develop
> > > more healthy communities just communities that can get the boxes
> checked.
> > >
> > > While certain metrics like adding PMC members may be indicators of
> > natural
> > > growth they should not be required otherwise they will be done
> > > artificially.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <
> jus...@erenkrantz.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Correct. It is a tool, but not a requirement (at least not yet).
> > > > > And since I repeatedly suggested this tool on this thread let me
> > > explain
> > > > why.
> > > >
> > > > And, this is the root of my concern expressed in the other general@
> > > > thread: I fear that this is going to quickly evolve to yet another
> > > > bureaucratic form that the IPMC is going to quickly require all
> > > > projects to complete.
> > > >
> > > > We should not be trying to force rote learning.  Every community is
> > > > different.
> > > >
> > > > Trust the mentors or don't - but, I am very much opposed to more
> > > > overhead.  Forcing projects to feel like they have to report monthly
> > > > is against what we should be about.  I believe that the IPMC should
> be
> > > > imposing the barest amount of overhead to what the Board requires
> from
> > > > the full projects.  To that end, having mentors explicitly sign-off
> is
> > > > fair - but, additional paperwork is not.  -- justin
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question about proposal champions

[Greg Brown]

Hi guys, 

Thanks for the info. My primary goal in proposing this project for incubation 
is to build a developer community. If Apache Labs is a better place to start, 
that's fine - I'll look into that.

FYI, the current source code for the project is here:

https://github.com/gk-brown/WebRPC

If anyone is interested in contributing, please let me know!

Thanks,
Greg

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> from my experience it has proven to be very hard to start
> single-man-shows here. The Incubator works best if there is an active
> community already.
> 
> If you are a sole person, you might also consider labs.apache.org. Some
> people say, Labs is for experiments, and when there is a community, go
> to the Incubator.
> 
> Personally, if you have no plan how to get new people on-board, or if
> nobody else here is interested in becoming a committer, or if your
> project is not Hadoop related :-), then you should first start building
> a community. 
> 
> If you don't have at least three committers, you will als not be be able
> to cut a release.
> 
> Cheers,
> Christian
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015, at 14:53, Greg Brown wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I've been out of the Apache loop for a while, but I have a new project
>> I'd like to propose for incubation. I know new Incubator projects require
>> a champion. As an ASF member myself, can I act as my own champion, or
>> does another member need to act as champion on my behalf?
>> 
>> It certainly wouldn't hurt to have another champion for the project
>> since, to date, I've been the only committer. Just wanted to ask the
>> question before I got started on the actual proposal.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Schaefer]

IIRC you Roman were on the list of "undersigned" ;-).
It got shot down for many, many reasons.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> > I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very
> nice
> > document into a policy document.
>
> To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
> It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..
>
> > Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> > guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be
> encouraged.
>
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> I don't think anybody is pining to make compliance with Bertrand's very nice
> document into a policy document.

To be fair, one offshoot of the 'undersigned' epic had that implication.
It got shot down with 'trust the mentors' argument. And..

> Rather, some people are finding it a useful
> guide to gauging project maturity, which is great and should be encouraged.

...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.3-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

+1 (binding) but only if you raise a JIRA and fix up LICENSE and NOTICE issues 
for the next release.

 Everything here is permissive so it's more a documentation issue than an 
licensing error.

For the next release could you mind mentioning the git/svn hash that the 
released code corresponds to.

I checked:
- file contains incubating
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE have some issues
- NOTICE has incorrect year
- All source file had Apace headers (except a couple of shell scripts)
- No unexpected binary files
- Can compile from source

As per [1][2] LICENSE should include:
 - bootstrap (MIT)
 - normalize.css (MIT)
 - datetimepicker (MIT)
 - fontawesome (MIT)
 - font awesome fonts (SIL open font licence)
 - angular (MIT)
 - JQuery (MIT)
 - moment.js (MIT)
 - ng-grid (MIT)
 - RequireJS (MIT or BSD)
 - angular-ui-bootstrap (MIT)
 - jquery.flot (MIT)
 - raphael (MIT or BSD)
 - jquery.tablesorter (MIT)
 - morris.js (BSD)
 - angular-bootstrap-nav-tree (MIT)

I may of missed one or two from a quick glance I took. Basically anything 
that’s  MIT or BSD licensed that's bundled in this source release needs to be 
added to LICENSE. [2] None of these need to be mentioned in NOTICE. [3]

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 05/11/15 13:48, Joe Brockmeier a écrit :
> On 11/05/2015 03:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>>> PMC membership has nothing to do with technical mastery of the codebase,
>>> which is why I cringe every time I see people talking about what "the bar"
>>> should be. It's about trust.  If you trust someone to work the gears on a 
>>> release,
>>> that has  considerable impact on the well-being of a project, and personally
>>> meets my definition of "belongs on the PMC".
>> We have a new PMC member who hasn't done much (if any) work on the actual
>> code base of Wicket, but runs an awesome twitter account [1] posting
>> new projects
>> and applications using our framework, posting job listings etc. We wanted 
>> him to
>> continue to do so and acknowledged that he found sites and jobs we were not
>> doing, so it was only logical to ask him to become a PMC member and our true
>> social manager!
>>
>> We *trust* him to do good with the twitter account and wanted to give him the
>> official seal of trust by inviting him to the PMC. If and when he finds time 
>> to
>> contribute in other ways, we will be welcoming.
> You have no idea how glad I am to hear that this sort of thing is
> happening. Having a deep technical understanding of the code base should
> *not* be a blocker for people to be recognized for their contributions
> to projects. 
It never was. On Directory or MINA, we voted in people who focused on
documentation or other non-coding things. Three of them have been added
to the PMC. Use your jugement, you will quickly see when someone is
beneficial to your community !


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

Re: maturity guidelines (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> ...that brought us to our current, much less forceful, treatment
> of the maturity model. Which is what I (and a few others including
> it seems yourself) have been advocating on *this* thread.

I took the tenor of the conversation as heading in a direction where
mentors would be expected to fill it out or the IPMC would stop any
graduation conversations.

If a podling chooses to voluntarily fill it out, great.  But, don't
put the burden on mentors to fill out some crazy paperwork.  -- justin

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

Question about proposal champions

[Greg Brown]

Hi all,

I've been out of the Apache loop for a while, but I have a new project I'd like 
to propose for incubation. I know new Incubator projects require a champion. As 
an ASF member myself, can I act as my own champion, or does another member need 
to act as champion on my behalf?

It certainly wouldn't hurt to have another champion for the project since, to 
date, I've been the only committer. Just wanted to ask the question before I 
got started on the actual proposal.

Thanks,
Greg


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

Private PPMC discussions and archives (was Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation)

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 11/04/2015 03:55 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur wrote:
> One question on discussing candidature of a person for PPMC on private:
> I know that private is only for PPMC, but I believe the new elected PPMC
> can always get the digest for older messages (or not?). If that is the case
> wouldn't it defeat the purpose of having these discussions on private?

New PPMC/PMC members *can* access private list archives where their
candidacy is discussed, absolutely.

And yes, this means that when they're added to the PPMC (or PMC, or as
an ASF Member) they can see where they've been discussed 'privately.'
So, when discussing this sort of thing, assume that eventually the
person you're discussing will be able to see it.

If the purpose were simply to do this out of sight of the prospective
PPMC member, then it would defeat the purpose.

However, AIUI, it serves a few additional purposes:

- It doesn't have an immediate impact on the project or person. Someone
who is contributing well but not quite ready for PPMC duties, for
example, may get immediately discouraged if they're discussed publicly
and found wanting.

- You don't wind up with a publicly searchable discussion of someone's
suitability (or lack thereof) that might turn up when someone google's a
person's name. So - it might hurt my feelings eventually to learn that
someone -1'ed me for some reason, but it shouldn't impact my job
prospects, etc.

But I recommend assuming that when you discuss anyone for PPMC (etc) on
a private list that the odds are they will eventually see it. I'm not a
fan of this, because I suspect it inhibits fully candid discussion.

On the flip side, I don't think PPMC folks should shy away from
objectively discussing folks and being willing to say "this person may
be a great PPMC member someday, but I don't think they are ready today.
Here's where I feel they need to improve." One hopes that our PPMC, PMC,
etc. folks can handle objective (if retroactive) feedback, and be happy
that they've since addressed concerns.

But if a person goes on a personal rant against someone who is later
added to the PPMC, then... they can probably expect to be dropped from
the new PPMC person's holiday card list.

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

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