Re: What license are the ICLA and CCLA available under?

[David Nalley]

Our website footers proclaim content contained there are licensed under ALv2

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:02 AM Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
> FWIW, I asked this question years ago, and never got a clear answer. I
> think they are HJTI (http://drbacchus.com/hjti) but the real answer is
> that they do not have a license specified. That said, a LOT of
> organizations have taken them and changed a few words, and we're
> completely ok with that.
>
> It's possible that our legal folks have a more rigorous answer.
>
> On 2/25/20 6:32 AM, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I know this is a strange question, but what license are our ICLA and CCLA 
> > texts available under?
> > I am asking because I’m involved in a new Open-Source project which is 
> > licensing it’s stuff under the Apache 2.0 license. The project is organized 
> > under a different freshly founded foundation. I suggested we put in place a 
> > system with ICLAs and CCLAs and thought the Apache ones would work nicely … 
> > unfortunately they don’t have License headers ;-)
> >
> > Are our documents under Apache 2.0 License too?
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>

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

Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
> I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding
> the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it.
>
> I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community
> effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user
> groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our
> Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is
> *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later.
>

I haven't been involved with Fedora in a long while, but there were in
early days a real struggle for how to control messaging and who could
speak for Fedora, and how events could be handled, etc. Did the
community own it or did Red Hat?

Fedora had (at least back then) a relatively scalable and
self-policing group called the "Ambassadors" that leveraged messaging
and collateral provided by the Fedora Marketing Project to talk about
Fedora in  a unified fashion. There were requirements about prior
activity and some barrier to entry to become an Ambassador, but it
belonging to that group seems somewhat analogous to membership at the
ASF (you had to have been involved in some other aspect of Fedora, you
had to demonstrate some knowledge of Fedora's principles, etc)

So perhaps being 'sponsored' or 'championed' by a member is the
threshold for running an event.  Any problems that arise can be
policed from there because we know there's a member we can talk to.

YMMV - I have no idea the current state of the Ambassador program at
Fedora and whether it's considered a success of failure.

--David

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

Re: ASF at Devnexus in Atlanta

[David Nalley]

This is a 2 hour drive from my house, so provided ComDev doesn't mind
a non-ComDev-er participating, I'm happy to show up.

--David

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Bob Paulin  wrote:
>
> I'd be willing to help with this as well.  I'll be speaking there so
> just let me know how I can be of help.  Would be great to have the ASF
> represented at this conference.
>
> - Bob
>
> On 10/29/2019 7:42 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> > I talked with Pratik about this at ACNA. If I can find cheap travel and 
> > lodging, I'm *absolutely* willing to take lead on this from The ASF side.
> >
> > I will check to see what's available around this time.
>

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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Setting up an official ASF swag store

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose setting up an official ASF swag store. I recently
> came across RedBubble [1] who produce stuff through geographically
> distributed agents so the post costs remain reasonable world-wide.
>

Have you ordered anything from them? Can you have them send you some
samples for evaluation first?

I have no experience with RedBubble, but a number of 'on-demand
stores' like this in the US have pretty shoddy quality products and
logo rendering.
The folks with high quality stuff have historically (~10 years ago)
required huge minimum orders.


--David

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

Re: Working Ecosystems at ASF

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Raphael Bircher
 wrote:
> Hi Bertrand
>
> Am .01.2017, 15:03 Uhr, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz
> :
>
>> Hi Raphael,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Raphael Bircher
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...Has anybody ever used crowd funding to cover development costs?...
>>
>>
>> I know of one documented case,
>> http://community.apache.org/committers/funding-disclaimer.html but I
>> don't have info on how well it went.
>>
>> The disclaimer was important to properly dissociate such initiatives
>> form the ASF, which does not fund software development.
>
>
> Thanks for the link. This rise a question, i got never a real answer for it.
> Why ASF dosen't found Developers?. Some people say, because to non-profit
> status. Others say, this are our rules. But what are the reasons behind. It
> would be nice, if someone take the time to explain this.
>

Resources and positions are always limited.
Hiring a developer and deciding what they are going to work on means
you are essentially picking what is important to the Foundation. The
ASF has long said that it is happy to pick runners not winners. That
means that we are happy for projects, even projects that compete with
each other, to call the ASF home. We hope they are all successful, but
we are essentially letting the community decide where to allocate its
time. When you pay people, you have to decide what they are going to
work on, and even what specific aspects of that project that they are
going to work on. This means someone who controls the payroll can
decide which of two competing projects gets more resources, and
potentially even effect the direction that they are headed in
technically.

It also has the side effect of creating a division between the
developers paid by the ASF and those who aren't. (Read that as the
privileged developers, and the the unprivileged developers.) Today,
everyone (in the eyes of the ASF) is on equal footing because no
developer is employed by the ASF to work on code at the ASF.

Finally - we frankly don't have the money to do so.


--David

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

Re: Hackathon today?

[David Nalley]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> Rich Bowen wrote on 11/18/16 11:47 AM:
>> Do we have a place to track tasks/tickets for ComDev? The doc was
>> intended for brainstorming, but I don't think we really want to use it
>> as a long-term todo list.
>
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMDEV
>
> Unfortunately I don't have many permissions on that JIRA, since I was
> going to clean up a lot of old bugs, but couldn't (Apparently some past
> GSoC programs used our JIRA, but never closed out their work).
>

You do (now)

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

Re: Getting planetapache back

[David Nalley]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Jan Matèrne (jhm)  wrote:
> Why Puppet? The Jenkins stuff is done via Ansible.
> Multiple automatisation tools?
>

The Jenkins stuff that was done in Ansible was done by a volunteer,
who chose to use Ansible because it was something he knew, even though
we had puppet deployed (though not very widely at the time). Having
config management is better than not, so we used it, and due to other
priorities and staffing issues, we still don't have the Buildbot or
Jenkins slaves completely puppetized, though our plan is to deprecate
Ansible once that is done. But for now, it serves a very useful
purpose - and it was a mountain of work that was completed and for
that segment of our machines it was tremendously useful.

As for why puppet - because when we were evaluating config management
systems more staff members knew that than any of the others - but not
by much. Since then, all of the staff members have picked it up - some
by just doing it, others by attending training, and it's worked pretty
consistently into our process. It's not necessarily the best CM tool,
but it's the one that seems to be working for us now.

--David

Re: Fwd: A $5B Value: The Code in Linux Foundation Collaborative Projects

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> This whole process is nonsense

In general I agree - CoCoMo is the worst model for valuation (except
for all of the others)

>
> What is important is what economic value does the code produce. If we look at 
> it that way I'd say our code (and that of LF for that matter) is worth many, 
> many $B more than these numbers imply. The HTTPd project, for example, drives 
> over 50% of the web - what's the value of the web?
>

Yes, the important measure for us as a non-profit charity, and what we
should be highlighting is our impact on the world. 8 Trillion in
commerce will traverse the web this year, and roughly 50% of that will
be served by httpd - so $4T through a single project alone. The impact
is huge, not just in the web server space, but in Big Data, NoSQL,
Java, etc.

Re: Reporter.apache.org displaying incorrect data - who is responsible for the host?

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:38 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9 July 2015 at 22:20, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
 I noticed that the new reporter output now contains LDAP in a way
 that makes it sound like LDAP is the project name.   Is this
 intentional?   It seems awkward and unnecessary to have LDAP in
 there instead of PMC, and when I read the first report containing
 that verbiage, I thought there was was copypaste error in the report.

 As I read through the previous emails in the thread, I'm pretty sure
 it was intentional.
 My opinion is that it would be far more readable to state it like this:

 ==
 ## PMC/Committership changes (from LDAP):

 Perhaps, but PMC membership is not governed by LDAP committee group changes
 It is not unknown for the LDAP group to be updated a long while before
 (or after) the PMC membership changes (indicated by updating the
 committee-info.txt file).
 A person may be on the PMC but not in LDAP and vice versa.

 Therefore it is wrong for the site to equate the two.


The above is strictly true, however, being in LDAP results in being
granted the karma for several things that a PMC member might need
(mail-search karma for a project, access to the projects private svn
tree, etc)
I don't think that the reporter site is looking to be a canonical
source of truth, so perhaps LDAP records are close enough.
Particularly since a committer account is LDAP based, so looking at a
single source of information for both PMC and committer stats, even if
not necessarily the canonical source of that information, seems at
least pragmatic, even though there is a chance of inaccuracy.

 [I am hopeful that the site will be able to use the correct source
 data eventually, but that is waiting on getting suitable access
 rights]

 There is a separate issue which is that not all PMCs equate committers
 with LDAP. For example, Subversion and Commons allow any ASF committer
 to update their SVN tree, so they don't maintain the group.
 Furthermore, I'm not sure the LDAP unix groups are used for Git-based 
 projects.


LDAP groups are used exclusively for git.
svn is a good deal more flexible from a permissions perspective.


  - Currently 76 committers and 39 PMC members in the project.
  - Hazem Saleh was added to the PMC on Fri May 15 2015
  - New commmitters:
 - Bill Lucy was added as a committer on Tue Jun 23 2015
 - Ross Clewley was added as a committer on Mon May 18 2015
 - Thomas Andraschko was added as a committer on Thu Jul 02 2015
 - Dennis Kieselhorst was added as a committer on Mon May 11 2015
 ==

Re: Moving Apache Extras

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
 Thanks Daniel,

 Sharing admin account with ComDev PMC makes sense.

 By delegating read/write access to the new repos do you mean the ComDev 
 owned admin account will assign individual project admin rights to the 
 relevant PMC upon request. If that's the case then the ComDev PMC as a whole 
 can own this responsibility. We can manage it through JIRA, that way when 
 Infra gets requests they can simply reassign to ComDev. It would be wonderful 
 if the infra contractors could help with this workload, but I see no reason 
 why ComDev volunteers (including me) can't help.


Currently, Comdev owns Apache Extras. My preference is that it stays
that way, and that infra manages the transition only. This is
essentially the same number of git repos that we currently manage for
all of the ASF, but access management is pretty significantly
automated and largely managed by project chairs rather than Infra.

 I've been meaning to go through the list but if my assumption above is 
 correct I see an alternative and less labour intensive option. Accounts that 
 are still owned by ComDev after x months (I suggest a minimum of 12 months) 
 will be examined and if appropriate closed.

 It would be great if you, as part of your migration process, will handle the 
 notifications to PMCs to ensure they are aware of this. I'd suggest one email 
 saying we will do this, you will need to open a ComDev ticket to ensure you 
 get admin access promptly. Followed by a, we are doing it now and a final 
 it's done, all further enquiries to ComDev.


Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing many of the
projects have more than one PMC listed. The average over a quick
sample of 10, was 3 PMCs listed per project. Is that expected? It
seems to be doing that via labels, but not all labels per project are
PMCs. (for instance, there are labels of NoSQL, cql, cms, Server,
java, esb, etc.)

Daniel: Is there a way to script the above away? I assume there is,
but haven't delved into the google code api yet, nor figured out how
to translate some of the non-existent PMC labels away.

--David

Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
 Edited out private stuff and moved to ComDev list since we are now making 
 decisions about Apache Extras

 To your options below:

 We've always said Apache will provide no management of this other than to 
 make it available. To this end I propose we do b) (only the projects that are 
 original to Apache Extras), which includes projects with no content.

 In terms of the name clash is it possible to provide a list of the 39 
 affected projects? If so then we can prune any that are empty from that 
 shorter list and attempt to notify the owners of the others. Failing any 
 response asking us to do otherwise I suggest we add an ax- prefix to those 
 project names (I am assuming this is just the project name in URLs and 
 similar).


The collisions are at the bottom of this paste.:
https://paste.apache.org/4hpd

You'll notice some are things like 'maven' which is interesting,
because we have Maven as a TLP.
But on closer inspection - Maven seems to have no content:
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/maven/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk

Similar story on Jena and a number of others.

--David

 One other thing that will need to be done once migration is complete is an 
 update of DNS. http://apache-extras.com currently redirects to 
 https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/hosting/

 Finally we'll need to read over the FAQ to update appropriately (I can do 
 that) - http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html

 Ross

 -Original Message-
 From: David Nalley [mailto:ke4...@apache.org]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:09 AM
 To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
 Cc: Jim Jagielski
 Subject: Re: Apache Extras, Google Code and Sourceforge

 So dropping the SF folks again.

 Some updates on what we've found.
 In total, there are around 350 projects in the A-E directory on google code.

 Of those 350, 161 are mirrors of content from elsewhere. Some of them are 
 even mirrors of other projects within Apache Extras, which is just 
 bewildering.

 That leaves us with 189 projects that are original with us. In doing some 
 spot checking, we've discovered that many of those contain zero content, or 
 perhaps only a single commit, with no material code.
 Daniel believes that perhaps as many as 1/2 of the original projects contain 
 nothing meaningful.

 In short, migrating all 350 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and I'd 
 argue makes it more difficult to find anything of value.

 We did do checking on the ~189 projects that are original to us, 150 of those 
 we could migrate straight away (subject to the above
 comments) however,  39 have name conflicts at SourceForge, so we would need 
 to rename them.

 That leaves us with a few questions:
 Does ComDev want us to migrate:
 a) all 350
 b) only the projects that are original at Apache Extras
 c) only the projects at Apache Extras that are original and actually have 
 content - and if c) - please provide a list.

 What would ComDev like to rename the projects where naming collisions are in 
 place?

 --David

Re: ComDev VM

[David Nalley]

The Solaris zone has been deprecated (but still works), but please
don't use that. (Not that you could use docker with it anyway)
INFRA-8771 is tracking the new VM for use by ComDev, though I suspect
there are actually several comdev VMs (projects-new for instance runs
on a new VM)

--David

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Ulrich Stärk u...@spielviel.de wrote:
 According to http://www.apache.org/dev/machines.html we have a Solaris
 Zone already but no virtual machine. Can you reuse that?

 Cheers,

 Uli

 On Wed, June 3, 2015 22:55, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
 Do we have a ComDev VM already?

 I ask because I would like to install Docker on it and get the wonderful
 events scripts running on their. I've made a start on a web UI for
 managing it, it's not ready year but I would like to get things in place
 to give other people access to it in case anyone wants to hack along.

 I'll request one if we don't have one yet.

 @rgardlerhttp://twitter.com/rgardler

Re: [ALL] Badges for github README.md

[David Nalley]

None that I am aware of.
A number of projects are using Travis, showing the results of that
doesn't seem to be obviously problematic.

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 is anybody aware of any (legal) problems if projects use services like
 Travis CI [1] or coveralls.io [2] for mirrors at github? An example of how
 that would look like can be found at [3]

 Thanks,
 Benedikt

 [1] http://travis-ci.org
 [2] http://coveralls.io
 [3] https://github.com/britter/commons-lang

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com
 Date: 2015-03-04 20:24 GMT+01:00
 Subject: Re: [ALL] Badges for github README.md
 To: Commons Developers List d...@commons.apache.org


 On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:

 2015-03-03 21:51 GMT+01:00 Andy Seaborne a...@apache.org:

  Sorry to interrupt - this is not a for or against comment but
  something I want to make sure was considered.
 
  Apache is independent of any commercial entity.
 
  For example, there was a discussion about the github/forkme stripe in
  project home pages.  The outcome was that it was too much like endorsing
  one commercial player.
 
  This isn't the same but some of those are commercial operations.
 Anything
  that implies endorsement of their services needs to be carefully
 handled.
 

 Good point. I don't think this will be an issue, but we should be sure.
 Who
 can I talk to about this? legal@?


 You can! :-) Since you've taken the lead on the badges, you could follow it
 through to @legal. You probably know more about them than the rest of us.

 Gary




 
  Andy
 
 
  On 03/03/15 19:31, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  as you probably know, I'm a big fan of github :-) I've added README.md
  files to some of our components. It should make the github repositories
  more welcoming for github contributors.
  There are a variety of services available which integrate nicely with
  github repositories:
 
  - Travis CI build service [1]
  - coveralls.io coverage service [2]
  - Latest maven release [3]
  - shield.io license badge [4]
 
  This services can be activated and a nice badge can be added to the
  README.md. I really like the combination of the travis and the
 coveralls
  badge, because it will build and evaluate coverage for PR requests
  automatically. This way you don't have to look at PR which break the
 build
  or have a negative impact on the coverage.
 
  I've activated these services for my commons-lang fork [5]. If nobody
 has
  objections, I would like to add this to the README.md generation target
 in
  the commons-build-plugin.
 
  Note that travis and converalls have to be activated by a INFRA. I've
  already seen jira requests for this, which have been resolved by INFRA,
 so
  this should not be a problem.
 
  Regards,
  Benedikt
 
  [1] http://travis-ci.org
  [2] http://coveralls.io
  [3] https://github.com/jirutka/maven-badges
  [4] http://shield.io
  [5] https://github.com/britter/commons-lang
 
 
 
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
 
 


 --
 http://people.apache.org/~britter/
 http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
 http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
 http://github.com/britter




 --
 E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
 Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
 http://www.manning.com/bauer3/
 JUnit in Action, Second Edition http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/
 Spring Batch in Action http://www.manning.com/templier/
 Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
 Home: http://garygregory.com/
 Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



 --
 http://people.apache.org/~britter/
 http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
 http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
 http://github.com/britter

Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016

[David Nalley]

It is my understanding that moving to SF from Google Code is a ComDev
decision. I have interacted with SF and then brought the PoCs they've
done here, but AFAIK, no decision has been made.

--David

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
 Ahhh... I see no that's just code for I don't have time, but these folks have 
 shown interest ;-)

 I'm happy to help make sure we hit this deadline, but I'm not driving it.

 Ross

 -Original Message-
 From: Ulrich Stärk [mailto:u...@spielviel.de]
 Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:50 PM
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016

 *Really* moving board@ to BCC ;)

 You said you put people in contact with each other so I was under the 
 impression you were actively part of a group driving this.

 Jim, do you have any updates on the current status?

 Cheers,

 Uli

 On 2015-03-12 21:40, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
 Moving board@ to BCC

 I am *not* working on it. I have no idea who said I was (I do hope it
 wasn't me!)

 All I know is that Jim, David and Roberto are working on it, I don't
 know how actively but it is now a priority.

 I believe Jim is involved wearing his ComDev hat so (with his
 agreement) you can look to him for those updates. David is wearing his infra 
 hat and Roberto wears his SF hat.

 Ross

 Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft
 Corporation

 -Original Message- From: Ulrich Stärk
 [mailto:u...@spielviel.de] Sent: Thursday, March 12,
 2015 1:36 PM To: dev@community.apache.org Cc: bo...@apache.org
 Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016

 We reported about apache extras in September and November and both
 times we were told that Jim, Ross, David and Roberto were working on
 it. Some time in October David asked for feedback on a proof of concept, no 
 news since then.

 Can you shed some light on who is driving this atm?

 Cheers,

 Uli

 On 2015-03-12 21:22, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
 Today Google announced that Google Code will be shutting down Jan 25, 2016.

 We need to create a replacement for Apache-extras. Can we please make
 sure that progress on this is reported in the ComDev board report each 
 quarter.

 I suggest the starting point should be to expand discussions with
 SourceForge, they have offered neighborhoods in the past. David, with
 his infra hat, has been exploring options for download provision already 
 (I'm not sure of the current status).

 (and as a reminder, this is why we don't like to use services
 provided by external companies)

 Ross

 Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft
 Corporation

Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016

[David Nalley]

Infra doesn't use extras, or even administer it, so it seems strange for us
to have a stake in decision making. We are happy to help facilitate the
move (and hence our involvement thus far).

On Thursday, March 12, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) 
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:

 It seems there is confusion over who owns the decision. Happy for it to be
 ComDev if you are happy from infra perspective.

 Ross

 Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
 A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

 -Original Message-
 From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us javascript:;]
 Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:37 PM
 To: dev@community.apache.org javascript:;
 Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016

 It is my understanding that moving to SF from Google Code is a ComDev
 decision. I have interacted with SF and then brought the PoCs they've done
 here, but AFAIK, no decision has been made.

 --David

 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) 
 ross.gard...@microsoft.com javascript:; wrote:
  Ahhh... I see no that's just code for I don't have time, but these
  folks have shown interest ;-)
 
  I'm happy to help make sure we hit this deadline, but I'm not driving it.
 
  Ross
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Ulrich Stärk [mailto:u...@spielviel.de javascript:;]
  Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:50 PM
  To: dev@community.apache.org javascript:;
  Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016
 
  *Really* moving board@ to BCC ;)
 
  You said you put people in contact with each other so I was under the
 impression you were actively part of a group driving this.
 
  Jim, do you have any updates on the current status?
 
  Cheers,
 
  Uli
 
  On 2015-03-12 21:40, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
  Moving board@ to BCC
 
  I am *not* working on it. I have no idea who said I was (I do hope it
  wasn't me!)
 
  All I know is that Jim, David and Roberto are working on it, I don't
  know how actively but it is now a priority.
 
  I believe Jim is involved wearing his ComDev hat so (with his
  agreement) you can look to him for those updates. David is wearing his
 infra hat and Roberto wears his SF hat.
 
  Ross
 
  Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft
  Corporation
 
  -Original Message- From: Ulrich Stärk
  [mailto:u...@spielviel.de javascript:;] Sent: Thursday, March 12,
  2015 1:36 PM To: dev@community.apache.org javascript:; Cc:
 bo...@apache.org javascript:;
  Subject: Re: Google Code shutting down Jan 2016
 
  We reported about apache extras in September and November and both
  times we were told that Jim, Ross, David and Roberto were working on
  it. Some time in October David asked for feedback on a proof of
 concept, no news since then.
 
  Can you shed some light on who is driving this atm?
 
  Cheers,
 
  Uli
 
  On 2015-03-12 21:22, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
  Today Google announced that Google Code will be shutting down Jan 25,
 2016.
 
  We need to create a replacement for Apache-extras. Can we please
  make sure that progress on this is reported in the ComDev board report
 each quarter.
 
  I suggest the starting point should be to expand discussions with
  SourceForge, they have offered neighborhoods in the past. David,
  with his infra hat, has been exploring options for download provision
 already (I'm not sure of the current status).
 
  (and as a reminder, this is why we don't like to use services
  provided by external companies)
 
  Ross
 
  Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft
  Corporation
 
 

Re: GitHub Pages

[David Nalley]

SSL
Specifically - apache.org sites are in https-everywhere. Those sites
can't provide SSL.

None of the current TLP web sites are being served from Apache
hardware though - it's all VMs in 2-3 different cloud providers.

--David

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
 The github pages I've worked on have all been in Markdown, so they're 
 portable.

 I also don't see any reason why we can't host pages elsewhere since we
 control the source repositories.

 On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
 ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
 Is it really necessary for our web pages to be served from Apache hardware? 
 If so, why?

 I understand why we want to control the canonical source, but do we really 
 need to own web server?

 A concern, for me, would be if hosting on GitHub Pages meant that we could 
 not easily switch to another host.

 Ross

 -Original Message-
 From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:40 AM
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Subject: Re: GitHub Pages

 Chris,

 The easy summary is that Apache would like to keep apache sites being served 
 by apache controlled hardware.

 Github serving pages fails that test.



 On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:

 
  I think those other comments about Jekyll had to do with keeping all
  of the site storage on apache servers.
 
 
 I'm not sure I understand how Jekyll affects that. Are we concerned
 that GitHub will not render the site's source accurately? And, if so,
 wouldn't that concern extend to non-Jekyll static sources also?


  There have been objections in this thread about using github.io
  based sites even with site name masquerading.
 
 
 Does anybody wish to summarize those? I think it would be helpful.


  Sent from my iPhone
 
   On Mar 6, 2015, at 14:36, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
  
   Regarding some of the other comments about jekyll... it's not true
   that
  you
   need jekyll. You can publish plain HTML or Markdown also.
 

Re: What's the ideal job title for somebody who is payed to help ASF communities grow?

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
 On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
 ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
 Who said we allow it for engineers? My position is the same for any 
 community member no matter what they do.

 It is all over LI and resumes. Here's a good example:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=759319
 Developer at Apache Maven


But he is an Apache Maven developer. (and committer, and PMC member).
That's very different than hiring someone off the street with a $bigco
job title of Maven Developer with no standing in the community.

--David

Re: GitLab?

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:35 AM,  anto...@gmx.de wrote:
 Could the ASF not simply run a GitHub Enterprise server ?


No, but for varying reasons.
We've discussed GH Enterprise server, and one of the licensing points
is that you can't expose GH Enterprise Server publicly. Even in our
discussions with them, that seems to be a sticking point.
Secondly, much of the advantage of Github is the fact its a nexus for
developers. The functional differences between GH, Gitlab, Gitorious,
Allura, et al, are pretty small.

--David

Re: GitLab?

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
 Opening a new thread...

 Git without Github is like sex without a partner, sufficient but not very
 satisfactory. Github option has been explored in the past, and due to
 various reasons, it was not possible to achieve.

 But, during my last 2-3 year absence, has the GitLab[1] option been
 discussed and/or tried? GitLab is open sourced, can run on our infra and
 has many of the essential features of Github.
 But perhaps people are satisfied enough with the Github mirroring that is
 already in place, but with GitLab in house, we could (in theory) add
 features around licensing (like ICLA style assurance, similar to Jira), and
 non-committers could(!) be allowed a direct route to the horse's mouth...

 Although the Enterprise system cost money, my guess is that GitLab would be
 happy to waive fees and give us access to EE.


 Just a thought.

 [1] https://about.gitlab.com/features/

 --
 Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
 http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java


Infrastructure (at least in the short term) won't deploy Gitlab. The
reasoning is this:
1. Most of our demand from projects is for Github, and truthfully, if
we could resolve one or two nagging problems, Infra would love to no
longer run and administer several hundred git repositories and instead
offload that work to Github.
2. There is a lot of infrastructure built up around the existing git
infrastructure. Deploying Gitlab or Allura or anything else would
require us to figure out authorization, backups, integration with
Github, Jira, BZ, svn mirroring, etc; that's a lot of work. IF we were
going to tackle such a project it would need to be for all projects,
not just a few, and it would be significantly lower on the priority
list than a lot of the work we are currently doing.

My current thinking (though not yet Foundation policy) is that there
is the canonical repository must be managed by Infra, and I suspect
that will be in the proposed policy that gets submitted to the board.

--David

Re: GitHub Pages

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
 All,

 Has any thought been put into leveraging GitHub pages for project
 documentation, static site hosting? A lot of www.apache.org is simple
 static content, as are project pages. Since a lot of projects are now using
 git, and we mirror projects in GitHub, perhaps we can help the individual
 projects maintain their site's static content by simply committing to a
 gh-pages branch for their project?

 Since it's just static content which is still hosted and controlled by ASF,
 but simply placed in a way that GitHub can render it from the mirrors, I
 don't think there's too many issues of concern, but wasn't sure if
 anybody's put any thought into it. I know it would certainly be easier for
 some projects than using the existing CMS system with SVN (especially those
 otherwise developing exclusively with Git).

 It might just work today, but I haven't tried it. I'd be willing to work
 with INFRA to help experiment with it, though (especially if we wanted to
 try out the CNAME feature).

 More info: https://pages.github.com/

 --
 Christopher L Tubbs II
 http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

Infra is more than willing to let you experiment to your hearts
content. Perhaps we can setup a sandbox repo for you to test and work
in?

--David

Re: Mailing lists, sites, ...

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On 18 January 2015 at 16:48, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) 
 ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:

 There are many reasons why the ASF requires projects to use its own
 servers for some items. For example, we couldn't use GitHub until we had
 built a system that would provide adequate traceability of contributions.

 Failure to do that would have meant it was no longer possible to provide
 the legal umbrella necessary to protect developers and reassure users.

 Such work takes resources.

 Add to that the fact there is no guarantee that an external service will
 still be available, in an appropriate form, tomorrow. There is therefore a
 risk that projects will be damaged by decisions outside of our control.

 Replacing such lost services requires resources.

 Finally, one of the advantages of the ASF is that once you know the core
 principles of how one project works, you know them for all projects.

 Our response to these issues is to require projects to use ASF provided
 services for essential items.

 What has been unclear is what are these essential items and what can our
 projects expect from the ASF in the non-essential areas. David Nalley and
 I, as part of our budget planning, are working on identifying what is
 considered core and what is not. This will help address the confusion and
 therefore make it easier for  project communities to decide whether they
 can use external services.

 What we will not be doing is relaxing any of our rules designed to protect
 the independence and legal governance of our projects.

 Relaxing would be wrong, but maybe look at tools we require as part of the
 rules. Not long ago GIT was a not well heard word at ASF, and look where we
 are now.

 Rules should define what our requirements are, not the tooling used to
 reach the requirement. Mailing list is a good example of that, while I
 agree to the fundamental rule about openess etc...I cannot see why that can
 only be done on a mailing list.

 When I speak with new people (like myself), most people find the principle
 of our rules very good and needed, but not the mixing of rule and tool.

 just my 2ct.
 rgds
 jan i.



I agree that those principles need to be at a high level and not worry
about tools directly. You can't, however, avoid the fact that it has
to be applied. When Infrastructure (as opposed to a project) deploys
something, we have to do so with the knowledge that 1 or 200 projects
may make use of it, and we have to be able to scale with it.

Could projects use forums, in the strictest sense of the word, almost
certainly; and some already do for certain types of communication. A
good example of this is website publishing. That's all done via
svnpubsub today. Lots of projects use git for source code and would
love to use git (and gitpubsub) for their website publishing.
Technically that isn't a difficult thing to make happen. However that
adds much complexity to the work of the group that has to maintain
that infrastructure, and thus we won't be doing that. Yes, that means
we aren't as agile as we'd like to be, but hopefully it benefits us in
the scale department over the long haul.

--David

Re: Mailinglists - a tool from the 90s?

[David Nalley]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi all,

 over at the Apache Commons Project, we have a long discussion about our
 mailing lists. Are they to noisy? Should they be splitted up into sublists?
 Should individual components go TLP?
 IMHO Ben McCann summed up the core problem pretty well [1]. Mailing lists
 are simply a outdated tool from the 90s. They can not compete with tools
 like github/gitlab that integrate the code with the possibility to do code
 reviews, disucssions and bugtracking.


So there are reasons that we choose to mandate mailing lists, and one
of them is traceability. People know where to look for decisions; ten
years down the road we know where to look for decisions and know that
we are retaining the information.

Github is a great tool for review workflows, but it isn't mutually
exclusive with mailing lists. Infra built integration[1] that lets you
have both worlds. Every discussion comment from github copied to a
mailing list, and every mailing list comment in that thread copied
back to Github. Many projects (more than 40) are using this to great
effect - it's become a core part of their contribution and review
workflow, many have tied it into Jenkins or Travis so they get CI
feedback in the process.

--David

[1] https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/improved_integration_between_apache_and

Re: Managing zyz.apache.org (was RE: WELCOME to dev@community.apache.org)

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:24 AM, jay vyas jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com wrote:
 IS the ASF okay with simply doing a one time commit to SVN, of a single
 HTML page which forwards to gh-pages?


I am pretty sure there is a brand requirement that the project's web
site is at $foo.a.o -
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html#websites

This would, to my mind, seem to eliminate folks from redirecting.

--David

Re: Volunteering in schools

[David Nalley]

 As for timing, it's now.  But if you only have time to show up at the BOF and 
 share your experience that will be appreciated.


Ahh - My takeaway from the email was that the ask was for organizing a BoF.
What is it that you need help with?

--David

Re: Apache Extras PoC

[David Nalley]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com wrote:
 Great David,

Does it make sense to have the right panel (Staff Picks, top downloads,
 etc) be restricted to Apache Extras related projects ? I'll let others
 comment on the adds portion of the prototype.

Frankly, I don't know, or even know how configurable it is. I am happy
to take feedback back, or we can start a conversation here with folks
at SF.

I am not thrilled with the ads, but I also recognize that doing this
work and hosting projects is not a free endeavor.

--David

Re: ApacheCon Austin keynotes

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
 Agreed: How we got here is nice; where we are going (and
 where we *should* be going) is better :)


Yes!

Re: Understanding the commit-then-review workflow

[David Nalley]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Eric Schultz
eschu...@prplfoundation.org wrote:
 All,

 I'm trying to understand to the Apache Foundation model of voting in the
 commit-then-review system. If a project is running on a CTR system and
 someone says they dislike a piece of a previous commit, what happens? Does
 it require consensus to remove the code or is the code removed if consensus
 isn't reached to keep it in?

 Thanks,

 Eric


Hi Eric:

So version control helps here, and we tend to refer to outright
objection as a veto. So first, it depends on who is 'disliking' the
particular change or casting the veto. Typically in the Apache
projects, committers (folks elected by the project who have commit
privileges) have binding vetoes. We also only allow vetoes on code for
technical reasons. Generally the original committer will revert the
code if there is a veto. Occasionally the veto is withdrawn after
discussion, but vetoes can't be overridden.

HTH,

--David

Re: ApacheCon keynotes

[David Nalley]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 On 21/05/2014 jan iversen wrote:

 It would also be nice to hear a keynote about who are we today, we all
 know our own projects, but currently ASF consist of soo many projects
 that I think most of us lost track. Hopefully someone has a overview


 I find this is an excellent idea (well, I just happened to use a couple of
 almost unknown Apache projects for work and I wished I had known about them
 earlier, since the one-line description in Board Reports is definitely too
 terse!) and I would like to see a presentation like this. Maybe not as a
 keynote, since those tend to be for the general public, but as part of a
 Community track.


I'd urge you to give a presentation about the 'almost unknowns' you
discovered. Perhaps research another 10 in the process. I doubt that
anyone knows the breadth of the ASF. Your discoveries would likely be
eye opening for the audience. '10 projects you've never head of but
wish you had'

Re: ApacheIndia?

[David Nalley]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:03 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On 30 April 2014 04:19, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:

 It's asked for approval on TM@, but AFAIK no approval has been granted.


 Meaning they got a denial, or simply no response ? In the latter case I can
 understand they cannot continue waiting.

 Looking at the agenda, and the people involved, it contains big asf
 projects and speakers who are asf members/committers. So maybe it would be
 more correct to turn it around, and ask TM@ to say if they have any
 objections.


They've received a response; but they haven't received approval.
Admittedly my non-binding response was what has been received.

--David

Re: ApacheIndia?

[David Nalley]

It's asked for approval on TM@, but AFAIK no approval has been granted.

--David

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
 Are we aware of this event: http://apacheindia.org/

 --
 Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
 http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: ApacheCon community panel

[David Nalley]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
 It might be more interesting to skip Cordova altogether. The industry
 is full of ferment about CD. If everyone checks their rhetoric at the
 door, there could be an interesting conversation about how to mesh the
 ideas of CD and the ideals of the ASF.



Agreed. I (from my comfortable arm chair, looking on) don't see
Cordova as being a snowflake; but the larger topic is interesting.  I
do see the software industry and a lot of open source projects waving
the CD flag. I personally don't see CD and the Apache Way as mutually
exclusive, though I see problems it could create if not handled well.

--David

Re: ApacheCon community panel

[David Nalley]

Maybe Andrew Bayer instead of me. He is a core committer on Jenkins
(which has a strong affinity for CD); and jclouds moves faster.
CloudStack isn't really a CD type of project - at least not yet.

--David

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:

 On 03/11/2014 08:47 AM, David Nalley wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 It might be more interesting to skip Cordova altogether. The industry
 is full of ferment about CD. If everyone checks their rhetoric at the
 door, there could be an interesting conversation about how to mesh the
 ideas of CD and the ideals of the ASF.


 Agreed. I (from my comfortable arm chair, looking on) don't see
 Cordova as being a snowflake; but the larger topic is interesting.  I
 do see the software industry and a lot of open source projects waving
 the CD flag. I personally don't see CD and the Apache Way as mutually
 exclusive, though I see problems it could create if not handled well.


 No, I don't think they're a snowflake, but it might be seen as a jerky move
 to exclude then from the conversation, as they're the ones that brought it
 up.

 I'd suggest we ask Andrew Grieve -
 http://apacheconnorthamerica2014.sched.org/event/c75e06c0f1d804b37066b67fda9f4e62
 - to be on the panel, as he'll be giving a talk on their development
 lifecycle, so will have some ideas prepared.

 From the Infra side, of course I'd like to ask Joe to be on the panel, and
 possibly Sam as VP Infra and board member.

 And from a ... shall we say ... slower moving project, how about JimJag to
 represent both the httpd project and the board perspective.

 So then who else should we invite from a project that would benefit from a
 more rapid release cadence? Is that you, Dave, to represent CloudStack?

 At that point we'd be really pushing the size that a panel can tolerate
 being and not be a shouting match.

 Thoughts?



 --
 Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
 http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon

Re: FW: Request to use Apache Lucene/Solr in association with the next Lucene/Solr Revolution

[David Nalley]

Hi Megan:

Thanks for the well documented request. As an all-volunteer
organization it will likely take us several days to get you a
meaningful response; but I wanted to at least acknowledge the request.
I appreciate the respect you folks are showing towards the ASF marks.

--David

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Megan Bucks megan.bu...@lucidworks.com wrote:

 I am writing to request approval of the use of Apache marks in support of 
 Lucene/Solr Revolution.

 * ORGANIZER: Lucene/Solr Revolution is organized by LucidWorks.

 * DATE: The event is scheduled for November 11-14 in Washington DC

 * PMC INVOLVEMENT: LucidWorks has on its staff 9 Lucene and/or Solr 
 committers who are actively involved in the planning of the event and 
 educational program. The Lucene/Solr Revolution's educational program 
 submissions are initially reviewed by a committee of both LucidWorks and 
 non-employee committers.

 * MARKS REQUESTED: We are requesting approval for use of Lucene and 
 Solr.

 * ASF COMMUNITY PARTNER LISTING: The event obtains sponsorships from 
 partner technology companies and implementation/educational companies. 
 Additionally, media/publishing companies are listed when they provide an 
 in-kind sponsorship of educational materials on site (ex: Manning books). All 
 sponsors are listed on the sidebar of every page of lucenerevolution.org. The 
 ASF would be listed on that sidebar as a community sponsor.

 * EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SELECTION: The event has an open CFP process 
 and all submissions are reviewed by a committee of the above-mentioned PMC 
 members on the LucidWorks staff as well as other community members employed 
 elsewhere (the committee typically consists of 6-8 individuals).  The 
 committee reviews all submissions for relevance and strength and then 
 recommends the submissions that are then included in a community voting 
 review to determine the final set of presentations.

 * PROFIT/NON-PROFIT: The event is not for profit. LucidWorks hosts 
 this event as an investment in and contribution to the continued vibrancy of 
 the Lucene/Solr community and typically incurs a small loss from the event.

 Thank you very much for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to 
 contact me if you have questions or would like additional information. I look 
 forward to your reply.

 Best regards,

 Meg

 Megan Bucks | Marketing | LucidWorks
 (415) 601-3632tel:%28415%29%20601-3632 (mobile)
 megan.bu...@lucidworks.commailto:megan.bu...@lucidworks.com

Re: FW: Request to use Apache Lucene/Solr in association with the next Lucene/Solr Revolution

[David Nalley]

Copying Megan this time.



On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:30 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote:
 Hi Megan:

 Thanks for the well documented request. As an all-volunteer
 organization it will likely take us several days to get you a
 meaningful response; but I wanted to at least acknowledge the request.
 I appreciate the respect you folks are showing towards the ASF marks.

 --David

 On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Megan Bucks megan.bu...@lucidworks.com 
 wrote:

 I am writing to request approval of the use of Apache marks in support of 
 Lucene/Solr Revolution.

 * ORGANIZER: Lucene/Solr Revolution is organized by LucidWorks.

 * DATE: The event is scheduled for November 11-14 in Washington DC

 * PMC INVOLVEMENT: LucidWorks has on its staff 9 Lucene and/or Solr 
 committers who are actively involved in the planning of the event and 
 educational program. The Lucene/Solr Revolution's educational program 
 submissions are initially reviewed by a committee of both LucidWorks and 
 non-employee committers.

 * MARKS REQUESTED: We are requesting approval for use of Lucene 
 and Solr.

 * ASF COMMUNITY PARTNER LISTING: The event obtains sponsorships from 
 partner technology companies and implementation/educational companies. 
 Additionally, media/publishing companies are listed when they provide an 
 in-kind sponsorship of educational materials on site (ex: Manning books). 
 All sponsors are listed on the sidebar of every page of 
 lucenerevolution.org. The ASF would be listed on that sidebar as a community 
 sponsor.

 * EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SELECTION: The event has an open CFP process 
 and all submissions are reviewed by a committee of the above-mentioned PMC 
 members on the LucidWorks staff as well as other community members employed 
 elsewhere (the committee typically consists of 6-8 individuals).  The 
 committee reviews all submissions for relevance and strength and then 
 recommends the submissions that are then included in a community voting 
 review to determine the final set of presentations.

 * PROFIT/NON-PROFIT: The event is not for profit. LucidWorks hosts 
 this event as an investment in and contribution to the continued vibrancy of 
 the Lucene/Solr community and typically incurs a small loss from the event.

 Thank you very much for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to 
 contact me if you have questions or would like additional information. I 
 look forward to your reply.

 Best regards,

 Meg

 Megan Bucks | Marketing | LucidWorks
 (415) 601-3632tel:%28415%29%20601-3632 (mobile)
 megan.bu...@lucidworks.commailto:megan.bu...@lucidworks.com

Re: ApacheCon Community track

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
 All,

 Please have a look at http://tm3.org/cfpreview Community tab.

 We currently have 19 talks that have been marked as 'Accept' in the CFP
 system, and I would like to fit this content into 18 sessions. I'd like some
 feedback on what talk we should drop. There's a lot of overlap in many of
 the sessions proposed, and I expect that there are a number that could be
 considered redundant. We'll also need a fallback talk for this track, so if
 a particular speaker has several sessions, perhaps we can move one to
 fallback designation.

 Shane, Ross, and Nick each have multiple talks marked accepted, but, in each
 case, there are a number of Strongly Accept votes, and I need to hear from
 a larger group on where we should go with this.

 Perhaps we could put the three of them in a cage and let them fight it out.
 Or, worse, on a panel session.

 --Rich

 --
 Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
 http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon



There are 4 incubator related talks marked as accept - we could surely
pare one of those down.
Also Shane has three talks accepted, and has previously requested
(admittedly OOB) that we accept no more than 2 of his talks.

--David