Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I don't see a reason that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented Incubator policy however, but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member and 2) the project should have active guidance from the community where it is destined to end up (esp important in a commons situation). I am planning to start a thread on these kind of situations on incubator general to gather thoughts. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I don't see a reason that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented Incubator policy however, but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member Replace member with mentor :) People who are allowed are normally members of the ASF. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. Niall On another note : If there will be no mentors for the project from Jakarta, I don't see a reason that Jakarta be the sponsor of the project. Not that this is a documented Incubator policy however, but since 1) we have a lot of people who are allowed to be a member and 2) the project should have active guidance from the community where it is destined to end up (esp important in a commons situation). I am planning to start a thread on these kind of situations on incubator general to gather thoughts. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I envision this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we don't accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I envision this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we don't accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. You're right going the incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with the code which would be more desirable. Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? -Matt --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I envision this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we don't accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. You're right going the incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with the code which would be more desirable. Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? No need to forget it if you don't find a champion soon. Patience and continued development of the project and the community around it can pay off. More interest may come in time. For instance, i've no time to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using at work, but you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When next i need conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure to investigate Morph more deeply as an alternative to just BeanUtils. Then, schedule permitting, i might be willing to help with incubation, as it would be more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if others are thinking much as i am here. -Matt --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I envision this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we don't accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. You're right going the incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with the code which would be more desirable. Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe,
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? No need to forget it if you don't find a champion soon. Patience and continued development of the project and the community around it can pay off. More interest may come in time. For instance, i've no time to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using at work, but you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When next i need conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure to investigate Morph more deeply as an alternative to just BeanUtils. Then, schedule permitting, i might be willing to help with incubation, as it would be more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if others are thinking much as i am here. Thanks for chiming in with that. :) I do intend in any case to continue to help Morph develop to the point of being the serious contender that it deserves to be; I just would rather do it in the setting of the ASF. br, Matt [SNIP] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? No need to forget it if you don't find a champion soon. Patience and continued development of the project and the community around it can pay off. More interest may come in time. For instance, i've no time to take up the cause of a project that i'm not using at work, but you've piqued my curiousity about the project. When next i need conversion support such as it provides, i'll be sure to investigate Morph more deeply as an alternative to just BeanUtils. Then, schedule permitting, i might be willing to help with incubation, as it would be more in my interest. I wouldn't be surprised if others are thinking much as i am here. Thanks for chiming in with that. :) I do intend in any case to continue to help Morph develop to the point of being the serious contender that it deserves to be; I just would rather do it in the setting of the ASF. Yeah, i don't blame you. :) br, Matt [SNIP] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/9/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apologies for the top post. This puts us back to square one, with noone, at least from Jakarta, apparently interested in being champion, rendering the whole discussion moot. ;) Is there an appropriate next step other than simply forgetting about incubating? I would be prepared to do this - although I'm pretty much a newbie in incubator terms (I joined [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few months back and have mostly sat and watched) so probably almost anyone else would be better qualified - and if such a person comes along would happily step back - no offence taken. Niall -Matt --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On 3/9/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Benson wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? Yep that rings a bell and going down that route again, is not something that has my support for *new* components (which this is). If the code is destined for an existing codebase, we could do the IP route, else I would like to see some level of incubation (besides handling ip). See the discussion on not-yet-commons ssl. I'm wondering why? Seems to me that this is a slightly different situation to either CSV or the SSL situations since one of the developers is an existing ASF and Commons committer. There are new committers involved. With CSV Henri is a committer (not talking karma here) (and me too, although we are both not very active). I think when new people are involved incubation (besides legal) should occur (even though the community import isn't that big, compared to similar situation like activemq, servicemix, etc, where the core developers are actually ASF Members) In case of this scenario (and ssl) I envision this for incubation : - Get the people on board as a committer on the initial proposal - Have them *show* that they are here to stay for an x amount of time - Ideally have the normal exit criteria, although I can imagine for commons a slightly weaker exit strategy may be adapted (don't think the incubator thinks that eg 3 committers on a project is a vibrant community, although within commons it definitely will be!). - Get a release out. If someone starts hacking on code in the sandbox I am ok with that, but rather not see new code again hitting the sandbox, since we don't accept new committers on sandbox components and it doesn't have the ability to have a release (disclaimer : I became committer in Jakarta because of a sandbox component, ahum). I highly prefer that incubating commons components to use the commons-dev and commons-user list, since to do development however, since it would be quite a cultural shock when moving from incubator specific lists to the commons ones. Disclaimer : this is just a brain dump and I would love to see some new projects at Jakarta, but I think we also need to figure out how we should handle that in a constructive way and prevent feedparser and csv situations. OK, good explanation - sounds reasonable to me. You're right going the incubator route would bring Matt Sgarlata in with the code which would be more desirable. Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/03/2007 21:31:17: Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). Hmm, is that so? Looking at the charter http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html I could not find something like that. It is possbible to take in external projects, James accepted mime4j and jspf. Perhaps you should ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] d. *** The information from the Student Loans Company Ltd contained in this e-mail is private and privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error be advised that any use is strictly prohibited. Please notify us and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As internet communications are capable of data corruption it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses, however we do not accept any liability or responsibility for resultant virus infection. Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited. The Student Loans Company Ltd registered office is at 21 St Thomas Street, Bristol, BS1 6JS and it is registered in England Company No. 02401034, VAT No. 556 4352 32. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [PARAPHRASED: a bunch of stuff about morph.sourceforge.net coming into the ASF, potentially under the Jakarta umbrella] [SNIP] As others have said ASF policy is for externally developed codebases to go through incubation. AFAIK though there are two possible routes - the full incubation route, or a short form to bring code straight into an existing project. This is what Commons Math did recently with the Mantissa contribution: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Whether this is appropriate for Morph is another question. As a general observation (and occasional BeanUtils committer) it seems to me that many of these types of libraries such as Commons BeanUtils[1], OGNL[2], Commons JEXL[3], Commons EL[4], Commons Convert[5] fail to attract a developer community larger than 1 or 2 and as such are always precariously only ever one step away from being inactive projects. Morph with 2 developers faces a similar challenge. Now maybe if you go for full incubation you'll attract a large enough community to prove this wrong and go TLP. I have to say I think its doubtful - since IMO these kind of libraries people want to use - but not work on. Jakarta Commons seems to have overcome to a certain extent the problem of getting 3 votes on projects with only 1 or 2 developers - with developers from other components pitching in to help get releases out. If you feel that Morph has a reasonable chance by going the full incubation route (and by that I mean meeting the community exit criteria) then most of the above is irrelevant. If you don't think it does then maybe the short form route into somewhere like Commons is worth exploring. In the light you put it, the big project composed of smaller components structure of the commons does sound like a good safety net for all these library-style components. Maybe you're right that most developers don't like building relatively small but essential utility code (I can't imagine why not; it takes all kinds I guess). Anyway, this short form route, of which I was unaware, does indeed sound like a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Also, this seems to be the same thing Danny Angus said later--thanks Danny! One last point - the short form is just about code (not developers/community) - but with the Math Mantissa contribution Luc (the author) was voted in shortly after the code. I'm sure if Commons accepted Morph, then they would be equally keen to see Matt join as well to continue work on it. I assume you were referring to the other Matt: Sgarlata, as I myself am a (recently added) Jakarta committer... but wanted to clarify for the benefit of our readers... ;) So to recap, ASF policy allows for the import of externally developed code into an existing project (in contrast with accepting a codebase as a full-fledged project for incubation). As Jakarta is a project-with-subprojects, the IP clearance policy in question is somewhat of a back door: the imported code may (or may not) remain self-sufficient (as can any Jakarta subproject) but technically falls under this policy. I suppose this would apply doubly for a prospective commons component as it would be considered a subproject of the commons subproject of the Jakarta TLP. I don't believe I am exposing any secret loophole here: I would think it would be expected that a PMC operate however it sees fit within the limits of ASF policy. The above can be considered a test of my grasp of this policy; as such confirmation, contradiction, or clarification is welcome. With all that said, this, again, does sound like a possibly more promising line of investigation than full-on incubation. But what's next? :o br, Matt Niall [1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/beanutils/ [2] http://www.opensymphony.com/ognl/ [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jexl/ [4] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/el/ [5] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/convert/ br, Matt Niall Thanks, Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/8/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [PARAPHRASED: a bunch of stuff about morph.sourceforge.net coming into the ASF, potentially under the Jakarta umbrella] [SNIP] As others have said ASF policy is for externally developed codebases to go through incubation. AFAIK though there are two possible routes - the full incubation route, or a short form to bring code straight into an existing project. This is what Commons Math did recently with the Mantissa contribution: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Whether this is appropriate for Morph is another question. As a general observation (and occasional BeanUtils committer) it seems to me that many of these types of libraries such as Commons BeanUtils[1], OGNL[2], Commons JEXL[3], Commons EL[4], Commons Convert[5] fail to attract a developer community larger than 1 or 2 and as such are always precariously only ever one step away from being inactive projects. Morph with 2 developers faces a similar challenge. Now maybe if you go for full incubation you'll attract a large enough community to prove this wrong and go TLP. I have to say I think its doubtful - since IMO these kind of libraries people want to use - but not work on. Jakarta Commons seems to have overcome to a certain extent the problem of getting 3 votes on projects with only 1 or 2 developers - with developers from other components pitching in to help get releases out. If you feel that Morph has a reasonable chance by going the full incubation route (and by that I mean meeting the community exit criteria) then most of the above is irrelevant. If you don't think it does then maybe the short form route into somewhere like Commons is worth exploring. In the light you put it, the big project composed of smaller components structure of the commons does sound like a good safety net for all these library-style components. Maybe you're right that most developers don't like building relatively small but essential utility code (I can't imagine why not; it takes all kinds I guess). Anyway, this short form route, of which I was unaware, does indeed sound like a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Also, this seems to be the same thing Danny Angus said later--thanks Danny! One last point - the short form is just about code (not developers/community) - but with the Math Mantissa contribution Luc (the author) was voted in shortly after the code. I'm sure if Commons accepted Morph, then they would be equally keen to see Matt join as well to continue work on it. I assume you were referring to the other Matt: Sgarlata, as I myself am a (recently added) Jakarta committer... but wanted to clarify for the benefit of our readers... ;) Yes sorry - too many Matts :-) So to recap, ASF policy allows for the import of externally developed code into an existing project (in contrast with accepting a codebase as a full-fledged project for incubation). As Jakarta is a project-with-subprojects, the IP clearance policy in question is somewhat of a back door: the imported code may (or may not) remain self-sufficient (as can any Jakarta subproject) but technically falls under this policy. I suppose this would apply doubly for a prospective commons component as it would be considered a subproject of the commons subproject of the Jakarta TLP. I don't believe I am exposing any secret loophole here: I would think it would be expected that a PMC operate however it sees fit within the limits of ASF policy. The above can be considered a test of my grasp of this policy; as such confirmation, contradiction, or clarification is welcome. The way Jakarta Commons operates is that any ASF commiter (such as yourself) can start a new Commons component in the Sandbox. In the case of seeding that component with an external code base such as Morph - this short form ensures that all the usual Incubator checks (e.g. IP, CLA's etc) are done so that there are no issues with bringing the code into the ASF. Once the incubator checks are done and the code is in the Commons Sandbox, you still then need to meet meet the usual criteria to exit the Sandbox and become a proper Commons component. I think the downside of going this route will be the way it differs for Matt Sgarlata - since hes not an ASF commiter. In the full incubator route he would enter the incubator with the code. This way he would need to be voted in in the usual way - so theres likely to be some time where he can only work on his code by submitting patches - which may not be acceptable to him as the original author. With all that said, this, again, does sound like a possibly more promising line of investigation than full-on incubation. But what's next? :o I'm not expert in these things, but perhaps the following: - check if Matt Sgarlata would be happy with this route - raise it on the Incubator
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/8/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/8/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [PARAPHRASED: a bunch of stuff about morph.sourceforge.net coming into the ASF, potentially under the Jakarta umbrella] [SNIP] As others have said ASF policy is for externally developed codebases to go through incubation. AFAIK though there are two possible routes - the full incubation route, or a short form to bring code straight into an existing project. This is what Commons Math did recently with the Mantissa contribution: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Whether this is appropriate for Morph is another question. As a general observation (and occasional BeanUtils committer) it seems to me that many of these types of libraries such as Commons BeanUtils[1], OGNL[2], Commons JEXL[3], Commons EL[4], Commons Convert[5] fail to attract a developer community larger than 1 or 2 and as such are always precariously only ever one step away from being inactive projects. Morph with 2 developers faces a similar challenge. Now maybe if you go for full incubation you'll attract a large enough community to prove this wrong and go TLP. I have to say I think its doubtful - since IMO these kind of libraries people want to use - but not work on. Jakarta Commons seems to have overcome to a certain extent the problem of getting 3 votes on projects with only 1 or 2 developers - with developers from other components pitching in to help get releases out. If you feel that Morph has a reasonable chance by going the full incubation route (and by that I mean meeting the community exit criteria) then most of the above is irrelevant. If you don't think it does then maybe the short form route into somewhere like Commons is worth exploring. In the light you put it, the big project composed of smaller components structure of the commons does sound like a good safety net for all these library-style components. Maybe you're right that most developers don't like building relatively small but essential utility code (I can't imagine why not; it takes all kinds I guess). Anyway, this short form route, of which I was unaware, does indeed sound like a worthwhile avenue of inquiry. Also, this seems to be the same thing Danny Angus said later--thanks Danny! One last point - the short form is just about code (not developers/community) - but with the Math Mantissa contribution Luc (the author) was voted in shortly after the code. I'm sure if Commons accepted Morph, then they would be equally keen to see Matt join as well to continue work on it. I assume you were referring to the other Matt: Sgarlata, as I myself am a (recently added) Jakarta committer... but wanted to clarify for the benefit of our readers... ;) Yes sorry - too many Matts :-) So to recap, ASF policy allows for the import of externally developed code into an existing project (in contrast with accepting a codebase as a full-fledged project for incubation). As Jakarta is a project-with-subprojects, the IP clearance policy in question is somewhat of a back door: the imported code may (or may not) remain self-sufficient (as can any Jakarta subproject) but technically falls under this policy. I suppose this would apply doubly for a prospective commons component as it would be considered a subproject of the commons subproject of the Jakarta TLP. I don't believe I am exposing any secret loophole here: I would think it would be expected that a PMC operate however it sees fit within the limits of ASF policy. I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Niall The above can be considered a test of my grasp of this policy; as such confirmation, contradiction, or clarification is welcome. The way Jakarta Commons operates is that any ASF commiter (such as yourself) can start a new Commons component in the Sandbox. In the case of seeding that component with an external code base such as Morph - this short form ensures that all the usual Incubator checks (e.g. IP, CLA's etc) are done so that there are no issues with bringing the code into the ASF. Once the incubator checks are done and the code is in the Commons Sandbox, you still then need to meet meet the usual criteria to exit the Sandbox and become a proper Commons component. I think the downside of going this route will be the way it differs for Matt Sgarlata - since hes not an ASF commiter. In the full incubator route he would enter the incubator with the code. This way he would need to be voted in in the usual way - so theres likely to be some time where he can only work on his code by submitting
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] I didn't know whether this had been done before in Commons - but seems that it has for the Commons CSV component back in December 2005: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/jakarta-commons-csv.html Actually I knew about this but thought I remembered someone (Henri?) saying later that having gotten the code in this way might not have been the best choice in retrospect. Does that ring any bells with anyone? -Matt Niall The above can be considered a test of my grasp of this policy; as such confirmation, contradiction, or clarification is welcome. The way Jakarta Commons operates is that any ASF commiter (such as yourself) can start a new Commons component in the Sandbox. In the case of seeding that component with an external code base such as Morph - this short form ensures that all the usual Incubator checks (e.g. IP, CLA's etc) are done so that there are no issues with bringing the code into the ASF. Once the incubator checks are done and the code is in the Commons Sandbox, you still then need to meet meet the usual criteria to exit the Sandbox and become a proper Commons component. I think the downside of going this route will be the way it differs for Matt Sgarlata - since hes not an ASF commiter. In the full incubator route he would enter the incubator with the code. This way he would need to be voted in in the usual way - so theres likely to be some time where he can only work on his code by submitting patches - which may not be acceptable to him as the original author. With all that said, this, again, does sound like a possibly more promising line of investigation than full-on incubation. But what's next? :o I'm not expert in these things, but perhaps the following: - check if Matt Sgarlata would be happy with this route - raise it on the Incubator list outlining what you want to do and see if they think it acceptable - see if there is support/objections to this in Commons Niall br, Matt Niall [1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/beanutils/ [2] http://www.opensymphony.com/ognl/ [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jexl/ [4] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/el/ [5] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/convert/ br, Matt Niall Thanks, Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
I've already have a promise to help out Julius with incubation and am currently am mentor for Trinidad, so I don't think it is wise for me to add another effort to my list. Mvgr, Martin Matt Benson wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net Thanks, Matt Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Thanks for the reply, Martin. BTW, and not to derail my own topic, but what is Mvgr? :) -Matt --- Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've already have a promise to help out Julius with incubation and am currently am mentor for Trinidad, so I don't think it is wise for me to add another effort to my list. Mvgr, Martin Matt Benson wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net Thanks, Matt Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net From looking at the roles document for incubator the champion needs to either be a member or on the Sponsoring PMC. Just out of interest do you have a plan for which PMC will sponsor - incubator or maybe Jakarta? Although you don't have to decide this before entering the incubator do the Morph developers have a preferred destination if/when they exit the incubator - e.g. their own TLP or part of a project such as Jakarta? Niall Thanks, Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
It is short for the dutch Met vriendelijke groeten, which translates to english as With kind regards :) Mvgr, Martin Matt Benson wrote: Thanks for the reply, Martin. BTW, and not to derail my own topic, but what is Mvgr? :) -Matt --- Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've already have a promise to help out Julius with incubation and am currently am mentor for Trinidad, so I don't think it is wise for me to add another effort to my list. Mvgr, Martin Matt Benson wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net Thanks, Matt Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? Cheers Oliver 2007/3/7, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net Thanks, Matt Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? snip/ Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? snip/ Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). This was my understanding as well. But nice try! ;) -Matt -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
2007/3/7, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? snip/ Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). Hmm, is that so? Looking at the charter http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html I could not find something like that. Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net From looking at the roles document for incubator the champion needs to either be a member or on the Sponsoring PMC. Just out of interest do you have a plan for which PMC will sponsor - incubator or maybe Jakarta? Although you don't have to decide this before entering the incubator do the Morph developers have a preferred destination if/when they exit the incubator - e.g. their own TLP or part of a project such as Jakarta? Hi Niall-- Since having joined the Morph team I would consider myself to be its secondary-but-currently-most-active developer, with the primary developer being content for the time being to let me take the reins on the issue of incubation @ ASF. I go into this level of detail here so it will be clear that this answer is mine, but that I feel I am justified in giving an answer I am coming up with as I go along. Obviously some thought has already gone into what might become of Morph after a successful incubation. My feeling is that as a replacement for/significant evolution beyond commons-convert, the Jakarta commons might indeed be an appropriate home. Because Morph's feature set extends somewhat beyond the original scope of commons-convert, however, I could foresee that some might consider it more appropriate as a direct Jakarta subproject. In either case jurisdiction would belong to the same PMC, IIUC, so I think under Jakarta is a sufficiently detailed answer for the moment, subject of course to the approval of the Jakarta community. This explains my posting to general@ rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] Additionally, I was operating from the perspective that a final destination is moot until a champion is found, though I did realize on some level that the likely destination within Apache could to some degree dictate the likely championship candidates. br, Matt Niall Thanks, Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
--- Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/3/7, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? snip/ Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). Hmm, is that so? Looking at the charter http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html I could not find something like that. You're right AFAICT, but I would bet the explanation would involve ASF-wide policy regarding IP clearances, etc. wrt existing codebases trumping the commons charter. ;) -Matt Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/3/7, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 3/7/07, Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Matt! I understand you already are a Jakarta Commons commiter, right? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to add the project to the Commons sandbox, make it ready for a release and promote it to the proper section quickly. AFAIK all Commons committers are allowed to create projects in the sandbox. This would mean you do not need any champion, but could do it yourself. Niall, others, isn't that correct? snip/ Not if the code is developed outside the ASF (as seems the case here). Hmm, is that so? Looking at the charter http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html I could not find something like that. snip/ It is so, without a doubt. The original charter probably predates the existence of the Apache Incubator itself by well over a year. IMO, we're steadily growing as a Foundation in our understanding of code donations and bringing existing external projects (code, community et al) in the ASF fold. There are multiple aspects to these transitions, all of which are best handled by the procedures and policies of the Apache Incubator. Ofcourse, all of this and more is here [1]. -Rahul [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Looking for an incubation champion
On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Matt Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Members: I have recently joined the development team of an OSS project, Morph, that captures the spirit of Jakarta commons-convert but where the convert project stagnated, Morph is a well-evolved, though still not 100% complete, library whose development I feel would benefit greatly from The Apache Way and would make a worthy ASF project. Object conversion seems to be a woefully under-served subject in the Java OSS space, despite the ubiquity of the need for it (however well-hidden it may tend to be) in enterprise Java development. I have contacted a few of you personally already, but having received no bites as yet I am widening my audience one last time before giving up on this. You can learn more about this library at: http://morph.sourceforge.net From looking at the roles document for incubator the champion needs to either be a member or on the Sponsoring PMC. Just out of interest do you have a plan for which PMC will sponsor - incubator or maybe Jakarta? Although you don't have to decide this before entering the incubator do the Morph developers have a preferred destination if/when they exit the incubator - e.g. their own TLP or part of a project such as Jakarta? Hi Niall-- Since having joined the Morph team I would consider myself to be its secondary-but-currently-most-active developer, with the primary developer being content for the time being to let me take the reins on the issue of incubation @ ASF. I go into this level of detail here so it will be clear that this answer is mine, but that I feel I am justified in giving an answer I am coming up with as I go along. Obviously some thought has already gone into what might become of Morph after a successful incubation. My feeling is that as a replacement for/significant evolution beyond commons-convert, the Jakarta commons might indeed be an appropriate home. Because Morph's feature set extends somewhat beyond the original scope of commons-convert, however, I could foresee that some might consider it more appropriate as a direct Jakarta subproject. In either case jurisdiction would belong to the same PMC, IIUC, so I think under Jakarta is a sufficiently detailed answer for the moment, subject of course to the approval of the Jakarta community. This explains my posting to general@ rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED] Additionally, I was operating from the perspective that a final destination is moot until a champion is found, though I did realize on some level that the likely destination within Apache could to some degree dictate the likely championship candidates. As others have said ASF policy is for externally developed codebases to go through incubation. AFAIK though there are two possible routes - the full incubation route, or a short form to bring code straight into an existing project. This is what Commons Math did recently with the Mantissa contribution: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Whether this is appropriate for Morph is another question. As a general observation (and occasional BeanUtils committer) it seems to me that many of these types of libraries such as Commons BeanUtils[1], OGNL[2], Commons JEXL[3], Commons EL[4], Commons Convert[5] fail to attract a developer community larger than 1 or 2 and as such are always precariously only ever one step away from being inactive projects. Morph with 2 developers faces a similar challenge. Now maybe if you go for full incubation you'll attract a large enough community to prove this wrong and go TLP. I have to say I think its doubtful - since IMO these kind of libraries people want to use - but not work on. Jakarta Commons seems to have overcome to a certain extent the problem of getting 3 votes on projects with only 1 or 2 developers - with developers from other components pitching in to help get releases out. If you feel that Morph has a reasonable chance by going the full incubation route (and by that I mean meeting the community exit criteria) then most of the above is irrelevant. If you don't think it does then maybe the short form route into somewhere like Commons is worth exploring. One last point - the short form is just about code (not developers/community) - but with the Math Mantissa contribution Luc (the author) was voted in shortly after the code. I'm sure if Commons accepted Morph, then they would be equally keen to see Matt join as well to continue work on it. Niall [1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/beanutils/ [2] http://www.opensymphony.com/ognl/ [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/jexl/ [4] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/el/ [5] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/convert/ br, Matt Niall Thanks, Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
