Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
+1 to go directly as a TLP. Regards JB On 06/30/2012 02:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not provide as releasable code to the world at large. Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. Thx. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP? The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all the proposed PMC members except Chris. The commit counts for the first six months of this year are: 11 gstein 8 jim 4 rubys Same names show up also in previous years along with others. Thanks Jukka. The mentioned people know what they do. No problem with direct TLD creation. Thanks Jim for giving a pre warning; not that it would have been necessary, but it is always good to see what is going on. In addition I think it was a good signal that the board didn't deal this out alone. Cheers Christian BR, Jukka Zitting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP? The svn log of the voter tool shows consistent contributions from all the proposed PMC members except Chris. The commit counts for the first six months of this year are: 11 gstein 8 jim 4 rubys Same names show up also in previous years along with others. From the SVN history it looks like there are quite a few of those others who have done work on the code in the past, is there a reason they aren't on the proposed PMC, were they invited and declined or something? Seems a shame to change the code to be read-only to so many who've already worked on it in the past. Is it going to be easy for others to get commit access again, perhaps as easy as I'm led to believe Subversion partial committers is? ...ant
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Jul 2, 2012 11:20 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote: ... From the SVN history it looks like there are quite a few of those others who have done work on the code in the past, is there a reason they aren't on the proposed PMC, were they invited and declined or something? The idea of getting this code out to the public hasn't been broadly discussed yet. It will be pretty obvious as a TLP :-) I'll be doing the work to extract the Apache Steve code from the private repository and get it into the public one. I'll look to see who we're missing (eg. Roy). Seems a shame to change the code to be read-only to so many who've already worked on it in the past. Is it going to be easy for others to get commit access again, perhaps as easy as I'm led to believe Subversion partial committers is? Ha! As long as I'm on the PMC, you can count on that. I strongly believe most PMCs are too rigid with commit access. And the communities that do RTC via Jira... ridiculous with access. There is no way a person can screw up the project in RTC, yet they withhold access, and cite all kinds of reasons for doing so. In reality, they are simply excuses for *exclusionary* behavior. I have yet to see a valid reason from those communities, but I have little recourse to get them to fix their behavior. So Ant: you wanna be on the PMC or have commit? :-) Cheers, -g
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Jul 2, 2012 12:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP admission. The underlying requirement is an open, inclusive, long-term community. “Diverse is a way to demonstrate that inclusivity. Growing a community is a way to show long term health. 3 of the 4 proposed PMC members have been around the ASF for over a decade. I doubt they're going away :-P And while Chris may not have that duration, I think we're stuck with him for a long time, too :-) The Incubator is a mechanism for showing and growing a community, but it is not a requirement for that. Any group of ASF Members showing up with a TLP resolution would have my vote. They would have my confidence that they understand the ASF and how a community should be organized. Cheers, -g
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
Hey Guys, On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 2, 2012 12:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP admission. The underlying requirement is an open, inclusive, long-term community. “Diverse is a way to demonstrate that inclusivity. Growing a community is a way to show long term health. 3 of the 4 proposed PMC members have been around the ASF for over a decade. I doubt they're going away :-P And while Chris may not have that duration, I think we're stuck with him for a long time, too :-) Getting close to a decade -- 7 years so far ;) The Incubator is a mechanism for showing and growing a community, but it is not a requirement for that. Any group of ASF Members showing up with a TLP resolution would have my vote. They would have my confidence that they understand the ASF and how a community should be organized. Mine too. Cheers, Chris ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 2, 2012 12:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote: ... I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP admission. The underlying requirement is an open, inclusive, long-term community. “Diverse is a way to demonstrate that inclusivity. Growing a community is a way to show long term health. 3 of the 4 proposed PMC members have been around the ASF for over a decade. I doubt they're going away :-P And while Chris may not have that duration, I think we're stuck with him for a long time, too :-) The Incubator is a mechanism for showing and growing a community, but it is not a requirement for that. Any group of ASF Members showing up with a TLP resolution would have my vote. They would have my confidence that they understand the ASF and how a community should be organized. Ahh, and since you all have my trust, I can trust you guys to shut it down if there's nothing but crickets chirping. Ok, that makes sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. +1 for TLP Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
- Original Message - From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com To: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de; general general@incubator.apache.org Another question: for which case do you like to use the voting tool? The idea is not to make it more widely used inside the ASF (we all have access to it and know where it is already). The idea is to make it more visible and accessible to external users. Ok, that's a very valid point. Thanks for clarifying! +0.7 for direct TLP (without incubation) +1.0 for TLP (with incubation) LieGrue, strub - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. Is there already a community in terms of a group of people who drive this forward and who are willing to continue? Or is this a random set of people who will likely go away after creation of the TLP? If there is no community it should go through incubation: the incubator is also about community building. In addition i think the incubator is a good way to initially set up resources. Also you reach other projects: the incubator ml are read by lots of people around apache, maybe you get some more committers from there. That all being said, as the code was developed from ASF people under the license and on ASF repositories, I have no problem with giving a +1 for direct tlp creation. Cheers Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
Incubation is unnecessary process in this case. I don't see any reason this should go through incubation. --tim On Saturday, June 30, 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote: For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not provide as releasable code to the world at large. Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. Thx. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgjavascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.orgjavascript:;
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Jun 30, 2012, at 5:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not provide as releasable code to the world at large. Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. While I agree that it does not make sense to vet the initial set of project members and I'm sure that the code provenance is clean, I had always thought that a big part of the incubation process was to make sure that there's a vibrant community behind it. I feel that I as a mentor I am placed in an awkward place as I put pressure on those podlings that do not have much community activity and now a bunch of board members expedite their project to a TLP. I hope that someone can help me understand the current thinking about the vibrant community aspect that seems to be a requirement for incubation/TLP admission. With that said, I am against accelerating this project directly into a TLP. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code *knows* about the Apache Way... Or is this simple non-sense ? My +1 to the TLP without going through incubation... -- 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: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code *knows* about the Apache Way... Or is this simple non-sense ? No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the Apache Way. Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra sanity check from the Incubator. Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good environment for a mass influx of new to Apache, interested parties to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other organizations like OpenStack can use immediately. +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a quick incubation. -- Best Regards, -- Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
+1 straight to TLP -- dims On Jun 30, 2012, at 7:23 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not provide as releasable code to the world at large. Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. Thx. - 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: Board will be proposing a new TLP
+1 on the proposal itself and how it will go directly through the board I also agree /w what has been said and replied to by both Emmanuel Alex On Jun 30, 2012 3:32 PM, Alex Karasulu akaras...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: Le 6/30/12 2:23 PM, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... Sure we should go through incubation, to make sure the peeps being STV code *knows* about the Apache Way... Or is this simple non-sense ? No I don't think this is non-sense. However note that as Jim pointed out, the difference here, that would favor the direct TLP route, is the fact that everyone working on the voting tool are already Apache Committers and Members. Conceivably they already know the Apache Way. Then again a quick incubation process might help get an extra sanity check from the Incubator. Your point makes sense considering outside participants to build a larger community around the tool. Incubation might be a good environment for a mass influx of new to Apache, interested parties to participate. But it does not sound like they're going to be directly involved, knocking on our doors immediately. Also there's no IP to vet. I presume this is more a matter of making the software an official Apache Product with PMC endorsed releases that other organizations like OpenStack can use immediately. +1 Setup TLP without incubation, yet I can understand arguments for a quick incubation. -- Best Regards, -- Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Board will be proposing a new TLP
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. +1 to proceed directly to steve.apache.org. Incubation is only one possible approach among many to fostering a healthy project which is likely to succeed as a TLP. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Board will be proposing a new TLP
+1 for straight to TLP given the individuals and code provenance. -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 8:24 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Board will be proposing a new TLP For those not following board@, the board is proposing the creation of a new TLP (tentatively called Apache Steve) which will serve as the project behind our STV and voting tools. The impetus behind this was when I suggested to the OpenStack people to use STV for their voting system, which kind of re-kicked the idea in my head that our voting tools were too good to not provide as releasable code to the world at large. Since all code was developed w/i the ASF, by ASF people, and is under the ALv2 (either implied/confirmed by the authors or explicit in the code itself), there is some debate on whether or not Incubation is even required... The board would like to recommend to the Incubator that the board simply proceed with the creation of this project at the next board meeting. Thx. - 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
