On 1/20/15 9:02 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Justin,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
...Perhaps change CD10 to this?
The project produces royalty free Open Source software
for distribution to the public at no charge is straight
On 1/9/15 9:23 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 01/07/2015 04:43 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
I think we also need to discuss whether we expect projects to
undertake self-evaluation and reflection, or whether we'd have a
process of review involving peers, mentors, shepherds etc.
No, I absolutely
Apologies for coming in late, my dev@ mail wasn't getting read, oops!
Have people considered:
* What is the definition of Open Source? Shouldn't we either define
this in detail, or explicitly reference the well-known OSI definition?
* Code
Adding a point noting that the project produces
VERY good! :)
On 01/16/2015 09:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
I think Bertrand’s document is coming along nicely.
This is half serious and half for fun, but while it will be great to have
a maturity model and top-level authoritative documents on the Apache Way,
to me, what would also help is a
Hi -
CD20 should refer to the source code repository existing in Apache
Infrastructure.
The project's code is easily discoverable and publicly accessible from an ASF
hosted repository.
Regards,
Dave
On Jan 20, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
Sure, this should be on our web
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote:
Some trivial edits...
Thanks very much! Trivial edits give one that warm fuzzy feeling that
the content is generally ok ;-)
-Bertrand
Hi Justin,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
...Perhaps change CD10 to this?
The project produces royalty free Open Source software
for distribution to the public at no charge is straight from the
from the ASF Bylaws at
Hi,
for distribution to the public at no charge is straight from the
from the ASF Bylaws at http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html so I'm
not keen on changing that.
Understand. No a real issue either way, just pointing out it might hinder
adoption outside of Apache.
Thanks,
Justin
Excellent!
As I see: Scout un jour, scout toujours! seems to be true in several
cultures. ;-)
Just as the two Steves did not anticipate that the Apple company they
initially created for computers would someday be involved with music (and
the legal problems with the Apple of the Beatles), I bet
I think Bertrand’s document is coming along nicely.
This is half serious and half for fun, but while it will be great to have
a maturity model and top-level authoritative documents on the Apache Way,
to me, what would also help is a way to make important things memorizable.
I sure hope I don’t
On 16 January 2015 at 17:51, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
Hope you like it.
I like it. A lot. And laugh-out loud funny (well, I thought, anyway).
I'm imagining everyone attending a barcamp or ApacheCon solemnly standing
up and repeating that oath...
Good job, +1
Dan
-Alex
The
On Friday, January 16, 2015, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
wrote:
On 16 January 2015 at 17:51, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com javascript:;
wrote:
Hope you like it.
I like it. A lot. And laugh-out loud funny (well, I thought, anyway).
I'm imagining everyone attending a
Hi,
I thought that was part of the Open Source definition?
Not quite (AFAIK), there's no royalties allowed on redistribution but that
doesn't mean you can't charge for it either initially or when redistributing it
as part of a bundle.
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
On 1/15/15 3:39 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
...Missing Q or C thing:
The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
Questions get answered on user lists...
Thanks - I have reorganized Antoine's
On 01/15/2015 02:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
their own ways to take security reports?...
We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to
On 1/15/15 3:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
their own ways to take security reports?...
We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to be
Hi,
Some (very) minor things.
CD10 - distributed at no charge to the public. while this may be true at
Apache it doesn't have to be the case. 3rd parties wanting to this model may
find this a stumbling block.
CD40 - Perhaps a footnote? for code donated to Apache the history before Apache
may
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
...Missing Q or C thing:
The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
Questions get answered on user lists...
Thanks - I have reorganized Antoine's suggestions about this to be
QU50 The project
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
...QO30 - do we really want individual projects to have / advertise
their own ways to take security reports?...
We do not want that, agreed, but as I want the model to be usable by
non-Apache projects as well I'm trying
Phil,
I added your points on the wiki page
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel
Antoine
On Jan 14, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
The project is not dead. Bugs do not sit forever with no response.
Questions get answered on user lists.
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages...
I've written a first draft at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel
I tried to take the comments of this thread into account,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
...I imagine this as a function of ComDev, not of the
board. That is, it's a community/project strengthening exercise, not a Big
Hammer...
+1
-Bertrand
But that then provides the ability to create a larger eco-system
of binary providers.
On Jan 6, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org
wrote:
I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources
without having a repeatable build or having no
On 7 Jan 2015, at 08:55, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote:
...I understand the value of measuring maturity after a project has left the
Incubator, but I also don't know that we want to put an additional set of
checkboxes on projects.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org wrote:
...I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having
sources without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to
build it, it makes the sources quite useless
That might
On 06/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
With regard to competitors, I just remind myself that forking is a
feature and that community before code means not acting like a
competitor. One should not accept the so-called competitor's terms
of debate, no matter how much individuals might see and
Sent from a miserable mobile device
On 07/gen/2015, at 09:26, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
With regard to competitors, I just remind myself that forking is a
feature and that community before code means not acting like a
competitor.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 09:04:32AM +, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jan 2015, at 08:55, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote:
...I understand the value of measuring maturity after a project has left
the
Incubator, but I also don't
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that
On 6 January 2015 at 18:31, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
...How about a compromise:
distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
according to foundation guidelines?...
On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
source code *may* reduce the installed base. ;-)
The binaries OpenOffice makes available
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 Vincent Keunen wrote:
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
convenience binaries are not Apache Releases.
Let's not forget OpenOffice and the likes. Having all users compile the
source code
On 06/01/2015 Tim Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
The binaries OpenOffice makes available for download from its official site
are convenience binaries as per Bertrand's description. We are not going
to ask users to build it themselves!
We're heading
I would add something about the build of the sources. Because having sources
without having a repeatable build or having no clue about how to build it, it
makes the sources quite useless.
I had some troubles recently with a project. Its build depends on a resource
which is not available
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
wrote:
On 06/01/2015
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private list
has no place in Apache projects. Private lists have very limited
appropriate uses and that policy has served Apache very well.
+1
jan i
On
On 6 Jan 2015, at 14:48, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 06/01/2015 Daniel Gruno wrote:
projects unfortunately have a tendency to use their private lists for
much more than committer votes and security issues, which I find is bad
practice.
If you as a project had a
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Jan 2015, at 18:09, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
These are *open* source. Plotting strategy for marketing on a private
list
has
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only. Maybe
say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release
Hi,
Creating such a model has been on my todo list for ages, and in a
related discussion on board@ people seem to agree that having this can
be useful.
So let's start - here's my rough initial list of items:
Code: open, discoverable, fully public history, documented provenance
Quality:
On 6 Jan 2015 at 19:01:01, Daniel Gruno (humbed...@apache.org) wrote:
On 2015-01-06 18:53, Vincent Keunen wrote:
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only.
Maybe say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem
to have some projects also release
Good idea.
I would just remove the only from Releases: source code only. Maybe
say Releases: source code at the minimum ? It's not a problem to have
some projects also release binaries, is it?
Shouldn't there be also something about a minimum documentation? Not
necessarily doc on source
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that it should not contain any binaries. Since
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Daniel Gruno humbed...@apache.org wrote:
...How about a compromise:
distribution of releases and source: publicly, in a _consistent_ manner
according to foundation guidelines?...
Works for me.
-Bertrand
On 2015-01-06 19:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Marcel,
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
...Since the only official releases *are* source releases the
statement “source code only” probably applies to the source code
release, meaning that
46 matches
Mail list logo
