Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
There are some good ideas in here. Though I don't see Alan complaining. I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it, and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion. Seems like a positive start. -David On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote: Alan, Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but never enough since most of those people are volunteers with other things to do with their free time. (...) What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face- to-face history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not how it works. (...) Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy): * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair. * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible. mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to those that came before you. * send the list out to people (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for feedback and discussion. * work to address the list. * keep a record of this work. * point to the record (STATUS file). * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting. * look back on this process and document what you learned so others can benefit from it. The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this everytime I look at [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be enough indication that it is not. LSD On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email. You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what remains, aside from the infrastructure issues See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the Incubator. There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that fair to the AMQ community? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land as a sub-project I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to have binding votes? This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case. I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC? Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins. If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to have a thorough discussion as to where
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Leo, Many of the folks in the ActiveMQ project already have been through the incubation process once before when we put Geronimo though. It's not like this is our first rodeo. So in our eyes we really do think we are very close to having satisfied the incubation requirements. I think Alan was opening up the discussion to get constructive feed back on what people feel is missing. For example, you have an opinion that "The idea that ActiveMQ as a community is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward." You are aware that this was a community that was started by Apache committers and run very much in the Apache meritocratic style when it was the codehaus right? So in sort, it would be nice for you to explain this opinion a little more. Regards, Hiram On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan, > > Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something > incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some > help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but never enough since most of those people > are volunteers with other things to do with their free time. > > (...) > > What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face > history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp > your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a > specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time > I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not > how it works. > > (...) > > Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy): > > * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair. > > * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible. >mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds >of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to >those that came before you. > > * send the list out to people (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for feedback >and discussion. > > * work to address the list. > > * keep a record of this work. > > * point to the record (STATUS file). > > * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans >during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and >send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting. > > * look back on this process and document what you learned so others >can benefit from it. > > The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no > clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well, > awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this > everytime I look at [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be enough indication that > it is not. > > LSD > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > > > > > > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns > > >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. > > >> > > > > > >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. > > > > > > > At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of > > concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on > > the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or > > subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the > > necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates > > that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email. > > > > >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a > > >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what > > >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues > > >> > > > > > >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to > > >being > > >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the > > >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And > > >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the > > >Incubator. > > > > > > > There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If > > subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you > > not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to > > communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that > > fair to the AMQ community? > > > > >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land > > >>as a sub-project > > >> > > > > > >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes > > >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. > > > > > >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less > > >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have > > >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP > > >within the ASF, how f
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan, Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but never enough since most of those people are volunteers with other things to do with their free time. (...) What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not how it works. (...) Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy): * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair. * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible. mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to those that came before you. * send the list out to people (like [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for feedback and discussion. * work to address the list. * keep a record of this work. * point to the record (STATUS file). * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting. * look back on this process and document what you learned so others can benefit from it. The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this everytime I look at [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be enough indication that it is not. LSD On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > > > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns > >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. > >> > > > >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. > > > > At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of > concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on > the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or > subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the > necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates > that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email. > > >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a > >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what > >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues > >> > > > >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to > >being > >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the > >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And > >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the > >Incubator. > > > > There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If > subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you > not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to > communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that > fair to the AMQ community? > > >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land > >>as a sub-project > >> > > > >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes > >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. > > > >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less > >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have > >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP > >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to > >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to > >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to > >have binding votes? > > > >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC > >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case. > >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of > >ActiveMQ > >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as > >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC? > > > >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins. > > > > > > If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to > have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates. > Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be > ready to vote, imho. > > > > Regards, > Alan > >
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
+1 I couldn't have said it better myself. -dain On Mar 15, 2006, at 4:27 PM, David Blevins wrote: If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal eventually. We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a while and see what shakes out. We're all ready for a change in the status-quo. The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that completely disappeared. We have too little integration with ActiveMQ such that the things you can do with standalone ActiveMQ you can't do with the Geronimo ActiveMQ. We have parts of Geronimo which could very well become separately reusable components, like the transaction manager or the XBean code. We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together and lean on each other as much as we could. I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more standalone pieces than we see now. TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey. -David
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo community. Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a number of those projects at the ASF. The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular server architecture based on a single core. No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large, single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the project? THAT is a TLP. Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about. each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core with one plugin installed). Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point. What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff, too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB. Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code that was apparently separable earlier? The problem is not sharing a single core, it is that the core we have, GBean, is too intrusive. XBean was designed to not be intrusive. end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some unknown apache rules. I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer? :) I think you are starting to see the responses. :) -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > I don't see any rush here. I think your initial 'what do we need to work on in order to eventually graduate?' message got interpreted by some - -- probably myself included -- as a 'what are the last items to check off so we can graduate?' message. And from there emotions flared. Sorry to say, I think Dain's comment: > I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should > remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I > for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to > graduation. unluckily came at the perfect time to reinforce the wrong message. > Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do? It absolutely is. > Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if there > is no real need other than historical precedence of previous > podlings' matriculation? No. But that's the wrong question. 'Is there a real need to keep this in the incubator, and, if so, what is it?' - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBjiw5rNPMCpn3XdAQL6lQP+Pa7TWNs6BO57HAbSkeerPFS3k7ZRfqRV U/MyaPM2iiCaaXQaIhEBdJrXC/tlT3SKOOgJ9KzxZyfBJkC/9Vu77z35LgI+uIEq Dt+2/rQvU6EeENYiz0eN6RG1RhthHBfremhM1ONr/SMND35QaxZQQIAycm4zBS0h guuwMdwjxxY= =ZQYY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email. You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what remains, aside from the infrastructure issues See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the Incubator. There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that fair to the AMQ community? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land as a sub-project I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to have binding votes? This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case. I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC? Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins. If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates. Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be ready to vote, imho. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: James Strachan wrote: What other issues are there? A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time. Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months; JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3 months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need to rush to judgment? I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do? Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if there is no real need other than historical precedence of previous podlings' matriculation? There were concrete reasons for the duration of their incubation. If they are the same issues as AMQ, then let's focus on those concrete issues. Regards, Alan
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
David Blevins wrote: Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-) > If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion > on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good > goal eventually. > We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for > the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how > that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a > while and see what shakes out. > The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight > integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that > completely disappeared [, and too little integration with ActiveMQ.] > We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities > to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together > and lean on each other as much as we could. How is merging the communities into the Geronimo TLP going to correct these problems? Is the Geronimo PMC prepared to add all of you as Committers on the TLP, and add all or most of you to the Geronimo PMC? Is this going to result in a single community, or more integrated, better, meeting place for multiple communities? If the latter, that would indicate to me that you really should be a TLP. See Henri's e-mails for a fuller discussion of Federation. And what about community growth? When TLPs have sub-projects, how do they go about building up each sub-project? How quick would the target PMC be to grant TLP karma and PMC status to people interested in working on just one of these disjoint projects? Or would it have disjoint karma, and a smaller number of people with binding votes? See Henri's and Robert's comments on these issues. > I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then > split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more > standalone pieces than we see now. So you see putting everything together in Geronimo as a first step towards a significant reorganization, with multiple TLPs? > TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey. So do I. The question appears to be where/how to take that journey. :-) --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns > that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. > You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a > long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what > remains, aside from the infrastructure issues See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the Incubator. > If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land > as a sub-project I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to have binding votes? This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case. I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC? Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins. --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal eventually. We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a while and see what shakes out. We're all ready for a change in the status-quo. The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that completely disappeared. We have too little integration with ActiveMQ such that the things you can do with standalone ActiveMQ you can't do with the Geronimo ActiveMQ. We have parts of Geronimo which could very well become separately reusable components, like the transaction manager or the XBean code. We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together and lean on each other as much as we could. I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more standalone pieces than we see now. TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey. -David
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Henri Yandell wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation > > (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and > > they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but > > from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs > > and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made > > for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with > > Geronimo. -- justin > Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing > lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking, Something in that realm, sure. I am sure that there are a variety of ways to structure Federation. People are still exploring them. We also talked about how ontology might be addressed to support cross-project discussion. And the work that Dave & Co are doing with projects.apache.org can help. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
James Strachan wrote: > What other issues are there? A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time. Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months; JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3 months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need to rush to judgment? --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 3/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >...snip good stuff.. > > Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org. > > Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists. > >...snip good stuff.. > > Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of > 'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more > sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python). > > The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation > (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and > they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but > from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs > and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made > for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with > Geronimo. -- justin Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking, brand-logo [Geronimo federation image on each of the other TLP sites] and with the Geronimo PMC providing space (open to the other TLPs) on the Geronimo website for the integration details of each of these plugins. Just an idea though :) Hen
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, > ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo > community. Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a number of those projects at the ASF. > The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular > server architecture based on a single core. No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large, single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the project? THAT is a TLP. > each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone > (basically the core with one plugin installed). Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point. What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff, too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB. Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code that was apparently separable earlier? > end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some > unknown apache rules. I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer? :) --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >...snip good stuff.. > Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org. > Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists. >...snip good stuff.. Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of 'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python). The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with Geronimo. -- justin
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
> Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. > Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion Which part of "Personally, I believe" wasn't clear? ;-) > > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella > > is a gray area. > I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that > has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects. So Geronimo would not be, DB would be? > that's my working definition. Not at all bad for a first cut. Certainly thought provoking. --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. > > Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion > at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna > be' statement. Right? :-) > > > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray > > area. > > I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that > has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects. > There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella. > There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't. > Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements, > of course, but that's my working definition. Ah, a subject dear to my heart. Here are some definitions I've been working to: * An umbrella. A collection of communities under a single community. * A disjoint umbrella. The situation in which the subcommunities of an umbrella have low overlap - this is synonymous with the negative meaning of "Jakartization" and the thing the board are trying to avoid occuring in more than one place. * The ASF. A disjoint umbrella. * Jakarta Commons. A non-disjoint umbrella - works well, though it's always a struggle to avoid entropy's slow pull towards disjoint. History: Jakarta: by means of being a disjoint umbrella - started to mimic the foundation it was meant to be a part of. This is a redundancy problem - we don't need N groups of people being foundations at the ASF - the idea is for the foundation to be as small as it can be and still support the communities for which it exists. No more umbrellas: thus umbrellas became passe. The Incubator was created as a managed umbrella to be a proto-foundation; the ASF remains the primary umbrella. All the problems inherent in Jakarta and other umbrellas remain; but they are now being dealt with by one group - the board. Speaking as an Incubator PMC member, I am currently -1 towards Geronimo ActiveMQ and +1 towards Apache ActiveMQ. This is because I've not yet heard much about how Geronimo plans to avoid disjointedness. I do really like the point that Geronimo has a common product - but I'm not sure it's enough. Plus how will it affect the use of the subprojects (because subprojects they would be) as stand alones? --- Lastly, speaking as someone who has used up the last couple of years of his Apache time dealing with the problem of being the bridge between a disjoint umbrella, and a board/foundation which is not organized for dealing with disjoint umbrellas, I recommend not creating a large umbrella. Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org. Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists. However do not give yourself the pain of trying to funnel it all through a single chair. TLPs are not firewalled from each other (though it's not very obvious that that's the case); so investigate what it is you really want to achieve and don't focus on the single TLP part of things. TLPs are more about delegated oversight from the members/board, than community. Hen
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of ActiveMQ from the Incubator. Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server, and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view. Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one issue, and is being addressed. Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them. I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what remains, aside from the infrastructure issues, to be done to graduate as a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate? IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at this time. Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Strachan wrote: > > What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't > want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we > just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start > to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory? Unless there is a really good reason for AMQ *not* to graduate into Geronimo, that's what will happen. At which point it will be part of Geronimo and the Geronimo PMC applies. While it's still in the incubator, though.. no, AMQ *can't* use the Geronimo PMC for oversight. AMQ's PPMC can have zero to N of the Geronimo PMC members on it, but it would also have some from the incubator (at least the mentors -- currently just you) and some committers from the podling (who would *not* be on the Geronimo PMC). Sponsoring TLPs can provide advice and guidance to podlings, but not direction -- they're self-directing. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBgRj5rNPMCpn3XdAQLnLQP/cZMXTLLaS+/wvVXwXqzseNwA8PqUziaJ H3aRUgfzskZtYcZ0a6XNKQsIFtPbmtq7hC1Wpd3vQ6b7hYt4wmjkAsw7ZhgXH5yE p1sI1WXJvG44Mr27mQdAVF/zuAnOFaAe4yThWyR9Jp4tb95qPY56MsuDkO0y4Cd9 zBfyXY7edfY= =PKwQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the > communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and > they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation > where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities > and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some > unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will > happen. Why do you say that? Noel has stated his current *personal* opinion, and his *personal* opinion of board policy as > Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious > decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. IMHO, a podling that was envisioned as joining an existing TLP will end up doing so unless there are really good reasons for it to go TLP instead. The only time (again IMHO) that the collective desires of the specific communities involved (in this case, AMQ and Geronimo) would be overruled is if the determination is made that such a merger would not make sense or would not be in the best interests of the ASF.As an hypothetical example, I very much doubt that a podling for a pattern recognition filtering package would be allowed to join the HTTP Server project, despite being originally intended for filtering server logs. A traffic-filtering module written to the httpd API would be unlikely to go anywhere else. An IRC server based on the httpd framework might go either way. It's not just rhe podling's and sponsor's communities that need to be considered, although they're by far the biggest part. It's also the overall Apache community that needs to be factored in. If going subproject is considered to be likely to be harmful to the ASF, it won't happen. Otherwise it probably will. All IMHO. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBf8a5rNPMCpn3XdAQL5VwP9E/nNpdNA3CHD4jjLrCqwSRy7dgXUjzQj OCCujB5mm2H8LMVhNYgHSfRYlrQAAayXrizwTwUT5zZIOstbX9scUSGM5MCnHOg8 ZakW6O/+N41EaNkdWhBBdwPHVNl9PmTqbwb5sMW1Abo+RKtPEVUG1gnheoFyqd4M 6w82VLeqVi0= =NVCO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Strachan wrote: > > What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't > want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we > just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start > to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory? No, it's not mandatory. And (AFAIK) no-one's going to force it TLP against the consensual wishes of its participants and sponsor unless there's a bloody good reason. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBf2JZrNPMCpn3XdAQK1+wQAtugkocu4mpiMjbSW1Trgby2tbGlme3rt ZoHH6dj27vAGIEqwqP8K0elHhh7fezea0cItawPcXTHjwXKQMkbonv1XGdfdeAIZ nrwIfyJAb3t3P0qR5O3oekEeazFu7odeoWf6vYKypg0JyBc1jPTRxEd6QB6yEvai dxSP6AMPGzw= =EygF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna be' statement. Right? :-) > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray > area. I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects. There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella. There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't. Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements, of course, but that's my working definition. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBf065rNPMCpn3XdAQKD9wQA3KqhUOsk9WG2OAvFyGmZF+e9mbQTq9O/ aXOa4qVFWfNns/rc2NpPwO6jewSepneo+uVKMBk/5MCjczuwFZSmq9uMyE9LJ/Na czsKVChEYYrHJnrDoKXoQqmaIxnDLBtYU/SEHggzWH8L9RuryFUXPV5/HGSCSLKu EvPHDljpWJU= =dSia -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel, I see this as a big source of my frustration, and I hope we can do something about this. From the perspective of anyone in an incubating project, you represent the incubator. So when you express "just your opinion" it very difficult if not impossible for someone to see the distinction. This is compounded by the fact that you get to vote on a lot of issues related to an incubating project, and given your ability to influence others, your opinion quickly becomes incubator policy or in the absence of policy, failed votes. I would like to see the incubator encourage communities to make their own decisions via an open community oriented process based within the guidelines of the ASF. I think there is a conflict of interest when those there to help incubate new projects and indoctrinate them in the apache way also pushing a personal agenda, and I think we should avoid this at all costs. -dain On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would assume that someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless otherwise indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org address when posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e- mail address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are wearing. When the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or may not coincide with the individual views of all of its members. Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes decisions and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list. The ASF is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to say that collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we argue about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what Incubation is supposed to do, in my view. --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 3/14/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or > Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made? Only the Board can approve a new TLP. If the Board does not approve a podling as a TLP, the Incubator PMC is then responsible for 'releasing' that project into the oversight of another PMC. The Incubator PMC should only 'release' when it is confident that all of the legal and community procedures and policies have been successfully completed. -- justin
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server, and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view. Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made? Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like the project. Great :) I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before it is ready as a TLP. What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory? For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one issue, and is being addressed. What other issues are there? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel, Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo community. The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core with one plugin installed). This is what we pitched to the external projects and what they agreed to. Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will happen. We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore?If this no longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were. -dain On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding Yoko that "this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that: Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation" were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the same thing. It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a sponsoring PMC, it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new projects into the ASF. Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of Derby. The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went into DB (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP). Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is clearly the case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an independently usable, separately releasable project with its own community that happens to have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a number of projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which ought to be separate TLPs in my view. Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: > I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache > hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread > here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for > imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better > import tool. Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would assume that someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless otherwise indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org address when posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e-mail address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are wearing. When the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or may not coincide with the individual views of all of its members. Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes decisions and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list. The ASF is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to say that collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we argue about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what Incubation is supposed to do, in my view. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of > ActiveMQ from the Incubator. And should have been on [email protected], not [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate question of netiquette. And the Geronimo PMC can address the use of [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the meantime, since this was cross-posted to at least two public lists, I am replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, on to the main topic: Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server, and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view. Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one issue, and is being addressed. Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: > When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, > the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would > simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be > the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been > rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding Yoko that "this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that: Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation" were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the same thing. It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a sponsoring PMC, it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new projects into the ASF. Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of Derby. The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went into DB (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP). Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is clearly the case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an independently usable, separately releasable project with its own community that happens to have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a number of projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which ought to be separate TLPs in my view. Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
> > That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct? > Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST > will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted. Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just went back and found that particular e-mail. Sorry. To be clear, as noted above, we're still discussing SHOULD and MUST. There is no *requirement* today that a project have at least 3 Mentors. I hope that we will end up agreeing that it SHOULD, but with leeway to allow for the PMC to apply human judgment. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that > proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly > given Noel's opinion that [...] Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may not agree. For a guy who is seriously independent, I'll put it this way: *I* will fight to ensure *our* *collective* decision making process. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ > > (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project) > That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct? Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted. --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling? If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects that acted as a single whole. So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation? That was the way it was when we were incubated, and I was not aware of the change. Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that is supposed merging communities with another. You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a podling will go until graduation,' I take it. I think a podling can change direction during incubation, but I think they do and should always have a target in mind. Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup it will be hard to merge. I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby, for example. I think Derby has done a great job integrating into DB, but I would like to see even closer ties in the Geronimo project. I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the conversations I had with a some of the board members before the email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to prevent exactly this One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations. 'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A group of people working on an external project, which comes wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit heresy. :-) That makes since. -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never* >> been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed >> to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you >> (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC >> could serve for a podling? > > If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there > was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a > PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of > the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be > subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working > with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure > we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects > that acted as a single whole. So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation? > Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an > existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that > is supposed merging communities with another. You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a podling will go until graduation,' I take it. > Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup > it will be hard to merge. I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby, for example. > I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to > setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target > communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous > whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to > achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the > conversations I had with a some of the board members before the > email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what > everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator > and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to > prevent exactly this One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations. 'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A group of people working on an external project, which comes wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit heresy. :-) - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBcUs5rNPMCpn3XdAQLA/AQAvkHNgfZ04zg4kdwMNQu7+b2GghWUu+nf kHi8oCr9EAhI/LthNlX+BkrIk02Nrg6VbC+I0Gu5vwAB7D2/VnLeBKbwSAOYMfwp CmOg9DPJ/lOsQQsD5fzb6T2hSp78foEdsLYwEItyVUPbRLhEwgC/Sv3ZQQbn5QPF Do5jCKjEQhA= =huxO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James > is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project) That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct? - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBcHjJrNPMCpn3XdAQKo5AP+NlL85QgGEbDkEqXs2YJNT24AlqyYgOpz lK2eZpZnzxJRcFO+CQxnhBk1jmnr7XvimR1ta2ume6M7UeI0LtedRLkApOU2n0Hu M+3CMp62MuZqx1/eyh4642XWj+au0ycPFPn3wns/ZOv4+SUE7RDrksxyyYr1bqOn rvK9O8mafjw= =j9bx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home for the project. AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling? If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects that acted as a single whole. If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult. I believe there are two options: 1. Submit the code through the IP-vetting process. The people join the TLP dev mailing list and earn merit for commit over time like anyone else. 2. Submit the code+people for processing through the incubator as a podling. The committers get commit access right away, but now it's both the code and the community that's being vetted. And the eventual disposition of the podling is not a foregone conclusion. There is no fast-track to commit access. I don't want a fast-track to commit either (I have a long history of fighting that at Geronimo), but I believe we need a third option, in between the two you present. Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that is supposed merging communities with another. Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup it will be hard to merge. I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the conversations I had with a some of the board members before the email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to prevent exactly this -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: > On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> >>> >>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should >>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I >>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to >>> graduation. >> >> >> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that >> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given >> Noel's opinion that > > > If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that the > new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So I hope > you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point. > >>> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No >>> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. >> >> >> These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the >> need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF >> community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion, >> myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that >> has occurred in ActiveMQ.) > > > When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, > the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply > use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home > for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been rewritten > several time and based on the emails I saw today, the current rules > that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be approved by the > incubator. I personally find this incredibly frustrating, so please > take my comments with a grain of salt. > > If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an > incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community > between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting > these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult. > > I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my > opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong > place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to bring > in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board should > consider setting something else up. "If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were" I firmly believe that the destination for a code base should be determined at the EXIT of incubation. If each and every one of these ultimately ends up at Geronimo by general consent of all the parties involved, then (by definition) everybody is happy. What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a precondition being placed on where they land. A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process, and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with lots of abandoned projects. But that pretty much is the extent of sponsorship. Every code base should be looked at with the possibility of being a TLP. And with the possibility of being incorporated within an existing project. Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF", and saying "I think ActiveMQ would make a fine addition to Geronimo" are both reasonable things to say. Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF, but only if it is destined to be a part of Geronimo" is not. - Sam Ruby
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Sam Ruby wrote: What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a precondition being placed on where they land. A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process, and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with lots of abandoned projects. But that pretty much is the extent of sponsorship. The only thing I'd like to add is that I feel that a sponsoring PMC should take interest in the mentoring and development of the project it sponsored... geir
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > Official policy documents would be really nice, especially > considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would > hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator. Yup. Policy still evolving, though, makes that a bit problematic as you've noted. Jean is doing a great job with what's there, though. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBbMIJrNPMCpn3XdAQL0rQP9GoAY+PK1nKmOUD2on/5JSDqP/C0ZdEEk QF/O6gFbFgxl/1Q+8xNOdzFIQmePxQwTv4h5Lh44zShMfL9tH35P991MKR8aKkfR AGm9IBx0plZPbA3iKF2BeC6hjIKJE17Pdgt0s961uoxQu4iSinAsh5safPInBziz Q6KeQVt9yfY= =ttW3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, > the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would > simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be > the home for the project. AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling? > If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an > incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community > between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting > these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult. I believe there are two options: 1. Submit the code through the IP-vetting process. The people join the TLP dev mailing list and earn merit for commit over time like anyone else. 2. Submit the code+people for processing through the incubator as a podling. The committers get commit access right away, but now it's both the code and the community that's being vetted. And the eventual disposition of the podling is not a foregone conclusion. There is no fast-track to commit access. > I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my > opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong > place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to > bring in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board > should consider setting something else up. See above. Code can come in quickly; people cannot. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBbJtZrNPMCpn3XdAQLy1wQAioqZdIRGZtBQCZbfHh7q4isKt6Wn1zPn ZkLzMQloRlbBl+qN6Pmss9j/AAohak2nHmZ2NUO8yl75Is7koyb8p69ZI9ozXJfg diki/C5pmVOeeXFqmWYqdgYtrgpjYGESFrME7dkfrvZkd82OPb1rhCkiBhWWuS1a NQ7mlDm1Z88= =eKpN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to graduation. 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given Noel's opinion that If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point. I just realized the size of the cross posting on this thread. To be specific, I am referring to the proposed new rules thread on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (which isn't even on this cross post). Of course, I can't point to a specific email that made this policy, but that was my understanding at the time. Official policy documents would be really nice, especially considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator. Sorry about that, -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to graduation. 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given Noel's opinion that If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point. .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion, myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that has occurred in ActiveMQ.) When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today, the current rules that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be approved by the incubator. I personally find this incredibly frustrating, so please take my comments with a grain of salt. If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult. I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to bring in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board should consider setting something else up. -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should > remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I > for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to > graduation. 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given Noel's opinion that > .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No > PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion, myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that has occurred in ActiveMQ.) - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBYW95rNPMCpn3XdAQJuJwP8Cv+Waz8q0lTJMeHM72nTNNzeyBBjczGf y+2l6vKrY65ueZLXOOCEZ4lBEScfsYMaiZ/YuHBgd25Gq//SVqH6fnkRUK8V63JC 4ArlE4+ZKg/lvt1msCC2YeNiFZxG1nC1OB3iK4M+QncNDEJaDhFWxT7Vqz7vt1vY iN5arjQ6Mzc= =pzI1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan, Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as it does from Bugzilla. I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the new possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we should work on having one big import for everything that is moving or has moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ, ServiceMix, OpenEJB, and XBean jiras. Is ActiveMQ and ServiceMix's JIRAs running at codehaus, it doesn't appear to be (tracert showed a different network path compared with codehaus)? As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't think we should hold this against the AMQ community. I don't like holding up progress, but my concern is how much incentive the project would have to move JIRA after incubation and whether it would be better to do it now? Also no date has been given by Atlassian for when JIRA will have a better import tool - we could be waiting a while. The "Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?" item on the status page seems misleading/pointless if a number of the project's services are running on external systems. Glad to see Hiram has started a thread on Infrastructure to discuss the migration. John On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator. Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable, limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because projects are already here, and lack the resources. I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to be mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify due to the member restriction. -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Alan, Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as it does from Bugzilla. I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the new possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we should work on having one big import for everything that is moving or has moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ, ServiceMix, OpenEJB, and XBean jiras. As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't think we should hold this against the AMQ community. On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator. Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable, limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because projects are already here, and lack the resources. I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to be mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify due to the member restriction. -dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
I'll start at thread on infrastructure to discuss how best to get the JIRA migration done. Regards, Hiram On 3/13/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure! > > But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a > > poddling from graduation from the incubator. > > Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all > resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1. > > > I did a quick check and it > > seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see: > > http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html > > I would not look at Maven as a good example of where the lines should > be drawn. -- justin > -- Regards, Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 13 Mar 2006, at 17:27, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure! But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a poddling from graduation from the incubator. Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1. Given the complexity of moving just a single project from a JIRA server into a different server, how about we create a brand new JIRA project on Apache's JIRA server for ActiveMQ and leave the old one around for legacy pre-Apache stuff? James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure! > But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a > poddling from graduation from the incubator. Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1. > I did a quick check and it > seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see: > http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html I would not look at Maven as a good example of where the lines should be drawn. -- justin
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Hi Noel, We've got a JIRA out there to create the PPMC lists: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-757 But perhaps it has fallen through the cracks. Should I ping the infrastructure mailing lists about this issue? Any help with this would be most appreciated! Regards, Hiram On 3/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan, > > Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for > ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing > that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in > several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I > have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as > it does from Bugzilla. > > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James > is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF > community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we > need more Mentors. > > There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator. > Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable, > limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because > projects are already here, and lack the resources. > > --- Noel > > -- Regards, Hiram
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan, Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as it does from Bugzilla. On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator. Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable, limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because projects are already here, and lack the resources. --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Hi John,On 3/13/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote:> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS>> We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.>>> Regards,> Alan>In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure! But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a poddling from graduation from the incubator. I did a quick check and it seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see: http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:* JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with aJIRA issue)* Backups of JIRA data under ASF controlSeems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does not have the ability to import data for a single project from dataexported from another JIRA instance (http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ). Agreed. I would think this one of the biggest problems that the ASF infrastructure team has with JIRA.Regards,Hiram Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion inhttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading acopy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it, delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export andthen run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data intothe main ASF instance. Thoughts?Regards,John-- Regards,Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
John Sisson wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation. Regards, Alan In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure. Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be: * JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a JIRA issue) * Backups of JIRA data under ASF control Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does not have the ability to import data for a single project from data exported from another JIRA instance ( http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ). Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it, delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance? Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data into the main ASF instance. Thoughts? Sounds great. It seems that you have a good start on this. Thanks for volunteering! /me ducks out of the room... Regards, Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation. Regards, Alan In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure. Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be: * JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a JIRA issue) * Backups of JIRA data under ASF control Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does not have the ability to import data for a single project from data exported from another JIRA instance ( http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ). Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it, delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance? Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data into the main ASF instance. Thoughts? Regards, John
