Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Cédric Champeau
 wrote:
> ...And to conclude: yes, we have added such committers to the project

Four new committers added during incubation looks good to me, thanks
for reminding us of that.

-Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

Thanks for putting these references together. I'd say let's go and Dao be with 
you!

Cos

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:29AM, Cédric Champeau wrote:
>And to conclude: yes, we have added such committers to the project. For
>reference, in addition to the initial list of committers, we added:
>- Dierk Koenig, non code committing so far, but Elder
>- AndrA(c)s Almiray, pushed code once, but more importantly, another Elder
>- Russel Winder, who is the definition of someone committed to the project
>but not pushing code :)
>- Keegan Witt, code pushing committer
>I honestly think we have a serious core here, and not all Apache projects,
>including TLP, can say that they have such an active community...
>2015-09-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel LA(c)charny :
> 
>  Le 29/09/15 15:33, Bertrand Delacretaz a A(c)crit :
>  > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, CA(c)dric Champeau
>  >  wrote:
>  >> One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
>  >> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed
>  to the
>  >> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having
>  write
>  >> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO
>  > You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
>  > the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
>  >
>  > It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
>  > we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
>  > and worst case version control is our friend.
>  >
>  > So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
>  > committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
>  > benefit.
>  >
>  > Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
>  > be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
>  > here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.
> 
>  As a matter of fact, at Directory, we voted in someone who never
>  contributed any code, but who spent a lot of his time educating people
>  on how to use the software, and more important, advertized the project.
>  We would call him an 'evangelist' at Sun /Oracle (except that
>  evangelists have been recently eradicated from Oracle ;-)
> 
>  However, we had to grant him commit access to the code base, because
>  it's part of the process. But there is more than just code in our coe
>  base :
>  - documentation
>  - site
>  - scripts
> 
>  and in this very case, he participated a lot of the site. So, yes, a
>  committer is much more than just someone who write code, and yes, it's
>  simpler to have one single commit flag for the project.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 09:20AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 29/09/15 15:33, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
> >  wrote:
> >> One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
> >> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to the
> >> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
> >> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO
> > You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
> > the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
> >
> > It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
> > we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
> > and worst case version control is our friend.
> >
> > So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
> > committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
> > benefit.
> >
> > Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
> > be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
> > here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.
> 
> As a matter of fact, at Directory, we voted in someone who never
> contributed any code, but who spent a lot of his time educating people
> on how to use the software, and more important, advertized the project.
> We would call him an 'evangelist' at Sun /Oracle (except that
> evangelists have been recently eradicated from Oracle ;-)
> 
> However, we had to grant him commit access to the code base, because
> it's part of the process. But there is more than just code in our coe
> base :
> - documentation
> - site
> - scripts
> 
> and in this very case, he participated a lot of the site. So, yes, a
> committer is much more than just someone who write code, and yes, it's
> simpler to have one single commit flag for the project.

Earlier this year we did the same think in Bigtop: we have this guy who does
tremendous job setting up workshops, meetups, working with conference
organizers to put together Bigtop tracks, etc. And this worked amazingly well
for us!

Cos

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Cédric Champeau]

And to conclude: yes, we have added such committers to the project. For
reference, in addition to the initial list of committers, we added:

- Dierk Koenig, non code committing so far, but Elder
- Andrés Almiray, pushed code once, but more importantly, another Elder
- Russel Winder, who is the definition of someone committed to the project
but not pushing code :)
- Keegan Witt, code pushing committer

I honestly think we have a serious core here, and not all Apache projects,
including TLP, can say that they have such an active community...


2015-09-30 9:20 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Lécharny :

> Le 29/09/15 15:33, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
> >  wrote:
> >> One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
> >> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to
> the
> >> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
> >> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO
> > You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
> > the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
> >
> > It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
> > we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
> > and worst case version control is our friend.
> >
> > So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
> > committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
> > benefit.
> >
> > Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
> > be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
> > here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.
>
> As a matter of fact, at Directory, we voted in someone who never
> contributed any code, but who spent a lot of his time educating people
> on how to use the software, and more important, advertized the project.
> We would call him an 'evangelist' at Sun /Oracle (except that
> evangelists have been recently eradicated from Oracle ;-)
>
> However, we had to grant him commit access to the code base, because
> it's part of the process. But there is more than just code in our coe
> base :
> - documentation
> - site
> - scripts
>
> and in this very case, he participated a lot of the site. So, yes, a
> committer is much more than just someone who write code, and yes, it's
> simpler to have one single commit flag for the project.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 29/09/15 15:33, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
>  wrote:
>> One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
>> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to the
>> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
>> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO
> You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
> the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
>
> It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
> we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
> and worst case version control is our friend.
>
> So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
> committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
> benefit.
>
> Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
> be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
> here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.

As a matter of fact, at Directory, we voted in someone who never
contributed any code, but who spent a lot of his time educating people
on how to use the software, and more important, advertized the project.
We would call him an 'evangelist' at Sun /Oracle (except that
evangelists have been recently eradicated from Oracle ;-)

However, we had to grant him commit access to the code base, because
it's part of the process. But there is more than just code in our coe
base :
- documentation
- site
- scripts

and in this very case, he participated a lot of the site. So, yes, a
committer is much more than just someone who write code, and yes, it's
simpler to have one single commit flag for the project.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:33PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
>  wrote:
> > One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
> > the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to the
> > project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
> > access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO
> 
> You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
> the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.
> 
> It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
> we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
> and worst case version control is our friend.
> 
> So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
> committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
> benefit.
> 
> Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
> be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
> here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.

What Bertrand said. This topic has been discussed at length multiple times on
a couple of lists. dev@community.a.o and, IIRC, general@incubator.a.o are
coming to mind. And the consensus was as above: the extra procedural
bureaucracy doesn't solve anything.

Quick search will help you to find the threads, in case you care to look them
up.

Thanks,
  Cos

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Cédric Champeau
 wrote:
> One exit criteria is "growing the community", and growing
> the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed to the
> project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having write
> access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO

You are technically correct but giving those people commit access to
the repository, as part of making them committers, doesn't hurt.

It's useful for 99% for them and for the others it's not a problem -
we trust them not to touch what they don't master (like any committer)
and worst case version control is our friend.

So having two different roles for "coding committers" and "non-coding
committers" would complicate things while bringing no tangible
benefit.

Basically, if you think someone is committed to Groovy and deserves to
be listed as such, make them committers, as there's no better role
here and the coding or non-coding distinction is not useful.

-Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Cédric Champeau]

Well, we should keep this thread focused on Groovy but your link precisely
shows the problem. One exit criteria is "growing the community", and
growing the community means finding new "committers", aka, people committed
to the project. And The definition here of committer binds it to having
write access to the repository, which has nothing to do with it IMHO.

2015-09-29 15:12 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Boudnik :

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:54PM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 14:49 +0300, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > >
> > […]
> > > Well said. I typically explain it to folks that at ASF, committers
> > > are those
> > > who have a strong commitment to the project, not git/svn commit bit
> > > set.
> >
> > It remains a very big shame that these two words (committer and
> > committer) and their associated roles (core team member and person who
> > updates the mainline repository) are so conflated by the ASF rules and
> > procedures. The ASF really need to unbundle these concepts if it is a
> > forward looking organization.
>
> I don't think Apache conflates these things. From [1]
>
> User: is someone that uses our software.
> Developer: is a user who contributes to a project in the form of code or
> documentation...
> Commiter: is a developer that was given write access to the code
> repository and has a signed ICLA
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
>
> Cos
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:54PM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 14:49 +0300, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > 
> […]
> > Well said. I typically explain it to folks that at ASF, committers
> > are those
> > who have a strong commitment to the project, not git/svn commit bit
> > set.
> 
> It remains a very big shame that these two words (committer and
> committer) and their associated roles (core team member and person who
> updates the mainline repository) are so conflated by the ASF rules and
> procedures. The ASF really need to unbundle these concepts if it is a
> forward looking organization.

I don't think Apache conflates these things. From [1]

User: is someone that uses our software.
Developer: is a user who contributes to a project in the form of code or 
documentation...
Commiter: is a developer that was given write access to the code repository and 
has a signed ICLA

[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles

Cos

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Russel Winder  wrote:
> ...It remains a very big shame that these two words (committer and
> committer) and their associated roles (core team member and person who
> updates the mainline repository) are so conflated by the ASF rules and
> procedures

That can probably be fixed with a good blog post at
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation, if you have suggestions for what
to write I'm all ears.

-Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Russel Winder]

On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 14:49 +0300, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 
[…]
> Well said. I typically explain it to folks that at ASF, committers
> are those
> who have a strong commitment to the project, not git/svn commit bit
> set.

It remains a very big shame that these two words (committer and
committer) and their associated roles (core team member and person who
updates the mainline repository) are so conflated by the ASF rules and
procedures. The ASF really need to unbundle these concepts if it is a f
orward looking organization.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 01:49PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> That I agree with. =) I was just making sure it was clear that Cos was
> speaking for himself, not citing an ASF requirement.

You always keep me honest: much appreciated!

> 
> A.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Andrew Bayer 
> > wrote:
> > > I would disagree - each project gets to decide its own criteria for
> > > committer status. There's no requirement for non-coding people to get
> > > committer status.
> >
> > The thing I would like to focus on is not the criteria, but rather the
> > lack of going through a process of identifying and on-boarding new
> > committers a couple of times as part of the Incubator curriculum.
> >
> > This is what gives me pause.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Andrew Bayer]

That I agree with. =) I was just making sure it was clear that Cos was
speaking for himself, not citing an ASF requirement.

A.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> > I would disagree - each project gets to decide its own criteria for
> > committer status. There's no requirement for non-coding people to get
> > committer status.
>
> The thing I would like to focus on is not the criteria, but rather the
> lack of going through a process of identifying and on-boarding new
> committers a couple of times as part of the Incubator curriculum.
>
> This is what gives me pause.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Russel Winder  wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 16:50 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote:
>> We already have "non code committing" committers. Russel Winder and
>> Dierk
>> Koenig are examples. They can be seen as gate keepers of the Groovy
>> community, and they accepted to become committers even though they
>> haven't
>> submitted any piece of code for a long time. I think this has been
>> addressed already. We are just making sure that new committers are
>> really,
>> people committed to the project.
>
> I think this works well as a phrasing to get past all the tension over
> labels and roles: Committers are people who commit to serving the
> project, this has nothing at all to do with committing pull requests to
> the mainline repository.

Well said. I typically explain it to folks that at ASF, committers are those
who have a strong commitment to the project, not git/svn commit bit set.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> I would disagree - each project gets to decide its own criteria for
> committer status. There's no requirement for non-coding people to get
> committer status.

The thing I would like to focus on is not the criteria, but rather the
lack of going through a process of identifying and on-boarding new
committers a couple of times as part of the Incubator curriculum.

This is what gives me pause.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:20PM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 16:50 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> > We already have "non code committing" committers. Russel Winder and
> > Dierk
> > Koenig are examples. They can be seen as gate keepers of the Groovy
> > community, and they accepted to become committers even though they
> > haven't
> > submitted any piece of code for a long time. I think this has been
> > addressed already. We are just making sure that new committers are
> > really,
> > people committed to the project.
> 
> I think this works well as a phrasing to get past all the tension over
> labels and roles: Committers are people who commit to serving the
> project, this has nothing at all to do with committing pull requests to
> the mainline repository.

Agree, well put.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:45PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> I would disagree - each project gets to decide its own criteria for
> committer status. There's no requirement for non-coding people to get
> committer status.

You're absolutely entitled to being in a disagreement with anyone.

Indeed, there's no such requirements and I am not trying to pass it as one.
But this is something that worked very well for other communities and I won't
be doing my job as a podling mentor if I not put this on the table.

Cos

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:
> 
> > Sorry about the long silence - crazy a couple of weeks before the
> > ApacheCon.
> >
> > Here's my take on this: release wise I believe you guys have mastered it.
> > Although, having one more might provide a helpful data point for IPMC
> > folks,
> > when it comes to the voting on the graduation. Another point, as Roman
> > mentioned, is community growth.
> >
> > Adding new committers/PPMC based only on the technical merits might be a
> > bit
> > difficult, considering the maturity and complexity of the project. However,
> > committer-ship shouldn't be limited exclusively to those who contribute
> > just
> > code. Say, people who do great job helping the community to grow and be
> > more
> > visible by performing, essentially, community marketing are, in my opinion,
> > great candidates to committers.
> >
> > I don't believe there should be a rush to get out of the Incubator until
> > this
> > last aspect is worked out. I also don't think it is a blocker, but I'd
> > rather
> > see it is addressed before we go to IPMC.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:13PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > > Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> > > > Cool!
> > > > So what should we be doing now?
> > >
> > > I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
> > > Roman)
> > >
> > > Ah, btw this page must be updated :
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
> > >
> > > Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Russel Winder]

On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 16:50 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> We already have "non code committing" committers. Russel Winder and
> Dierk
> Koenig are examples. They can be seen as gate keepers of the Groovy
> community, and they accepted to become committers even though they
> haven't
> submitted any piece of code for a long time. I think this has been
> addressed already. We are just making sure that new committers are
> really,
> people committed to the project.

I think this works well as a phrasing to get past all the tension over
labels and roles: Committers are people who commit to serving the
project, this has nothing at all to do with committing pull requests to
the mainline repository.

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Cédric Champeau]

We already have "non code committing" committers. Russel Winder and Dierk
Koenig are examples. They can be seen as gate keepers of the Groovy
community, and they accepted to become committers even though they haven't
submitted any piece of code for a long time. I think this has been
addressed already. We are just making sure that new committers are really,
people committed to the project.

2015-09-28 16:38 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Boudnik :

> Sorry about the long silence - crazy a couple of weeks before the
> ApacheCon.
>
> Here's my take on this: release wise I believe you guys have mastered it.
> Although, having one more might provide a helpful data point for IPMC
> folks,
> when it comes to the voting on the graduation. Another point, as Roman
> mentioned, is community growth.
>
> Adding new committers/PPMC based only on the technical merits might be a
> bit
> difficult, considering the maturity and complexity of the project. However,
> committer-ship shouldn't be limited exclusively to those who contribute
> just
> code. Say, people who do great job helping the community to grow and be
> more
> visible by performing, essentially, community marketing are, in my opinion,
> great candidates to committers.
>
> I don't believe there should be a rush to get out of the Incubator until
> this
> last aspect is worked out. I also don't think it is a blocker, but I'd
> rather
> see it is addressed before we go to IPMC.
>
> Cos
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:13PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> > > Cool!
> > > So what should we be doing now?
> >
> > I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
> > Roman)
> >
> > Ah, btw this page must be updated :
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
> >
> > Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Andrew Bayer]

I would disagree - each project gets to decide its own criteria for
committer status. There's no requirement for non-coding people to get
committer status.

A.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> Sorry about the long silence - crazy a couple of weeks before the
> ApacheCon.
>
> Here's my take on this: release wise I believe you guys have mastered it.
> Although, having one more might provide a helpful data point for IPMC
> folks,
> when it comes to the voting on the graduation. Another point, as Roman
> mentioned, is community growth.
>
> Adding new committers/PPMC based only on the technical merits might be a
> bit
> difficult, considering the maturity and complexity of the project. However,
> committer-ship shouldn't be limited exclusively to those who contribute
> just
> code. Say, people who do great job helping the community to grow and be
> more
> visible by performing, essentially, community marketing are, in my opinion,
> great candidates to committers.
>
> I don't believe there should be a rush to get out of the Incubator until
> this
> last aspect is worked out. I also don't think it is a blocker, but I'd
> rather
> see it is addressed before we go to IPMC.
>
> Cos
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:13PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> > Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> > > Cool!
> > > So what should we be doing now?
> >
> > I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
> > Roman)
> >
> > Ah, btw this page must be updated :
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
> >
> > Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Konstantin Boudnik]

Sorry about the long silence - crazy a couple of weeks before the ApacheCon.

Here's my take on this: release wise I believe you guys have mastered it.
Although, having one more might provide a helpful data point for IPMC folks,
when it comes to the voting on the graduation. Another point, as Roman
mentioned, is community growth.

Adding new committers/PPMC based only on the technical merits might be a bit
difficult, considering the maturity and complexity of the project. However,
committer-ship shouldn't be limited exclusively to those who contribute just
code. Say, people who do great job helping the community to grow and be more
visible by performing, essentially, community marketing are, in my opinion,
great candidates to committers.

I don't believe there should be a rush to get out of the Incubator until this
last aspect is worked out. I also don't think it is a blocker, but I'd rather
see it is addressed before we go to IPMC.

Cos

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 02:13PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> > Cool!
> > So what should we be doing now?
> 
> I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
> Roman)
> 
> Ah, btw this page must be updated :
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
> 
> Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> Sorry for the delay!

Same here ;-)

> The only concern I'd have is that there's only been one release without any
> hiccups (though obviously 2.4.4's issues were due to the need to speed out
> the security fix) - and even then, the concern is not my own but being a bit
> nervous as to whether IPMC people might get snippy about it.

Since I was actively reviewing that initial release that generated some of the
questions, I must say that the way Groovy community interacted with IPMC
made me feel very confident that they 'get it' (that's part of the
reason I didn't
take as active position in reviewing the latest release).

Overall, I must say that Groovy has been one the easiest podlings for
me to mentor. They were always extremely receptive to the feedback
and constructive in how they approached the situation. No surprise
there -- in a way Groovy was conceived as an open source project from
day one.

The team made sure to expose all the decision making process to the
mailing lists and in general behaved

My only question/concern at this point is that of community growth. I do
realize that Groovy is a complex piece of software, but at the same time
it would be nice to have at least somewhat of a track record of folks
being on-boarded into the project. May be not to hack on core of the project,
but do other things.

How do other mentors and community members feel about this?

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Andrew Bayer]

Sorry for the delay!

The only concern I'd have is that there's only been one release without any
hiccups (though obviously 2.4.4's issues were due to the need to speed out
the security fix) - and even then, the concern is not my own but being a
bit nervous as to whether IPMC people might get snippy about it.

Otherwise? Strong +1.

A.
On Sep 26, 2015 14:13, "Emmanuel Lécharny"  wrote:

> Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> > Cool!
> > So what should we be doing now?
>
> I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
> Roman)
>
> Ah, btw this page must be updated :
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
>
> Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 26/09/15 14:07, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> Cool!
> So what should we be doing now?

I'd like to hear from the other mentors... (Andrew, Konstantin, Jim and
Roman)

Ah, btw this page must be updated :
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html

Many of the incubation steps have already been completed.

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Guillaume Laforge]

Cool!
So what should we be doing now?

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
> wrote:
> > ...what
> > I see is that when a bug or a technical issue is exposed, there is quite
> > a follow up on this mailing list :..
>
> I agree, and other comments in this thread have also convinced me that
> there's no issue - thanks everybody.
>
> -Bertrand
>



-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet 

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge  / Google+

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny  wrote:
> ...what
> I see is that when a bug or a technical issue is exposed, there is quite
> a follow up on this mailing list :..

I agree, and other comments in this thread have also convinced me that
there's no issue - thanks everybody.

-Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 24/09/15 19:13, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny  
> wrote:
>> ...do you feel the Groovy podling is ready to become a TLP ?...
> In general yes but I have this vague feeling of relatively low
> activity on this list. Does this simply mean that the current activity
> does not require tons of discussions, or are those discussions
> happening elsewhere?

>From the peanut galery, I would say that for a mature project as groovy,
I would not expect a lot of discussion regarding the evolution of the
project. Although, following this mailing list from a distance (ie, I
read the mails, but I'm not trying to understand the technical aspects
that are discussed, they are a bit too far from my expertise area), what
I see is that when a bug or a technical issue is exposed, there is quite
a follow up on this mailing list :

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-groovy-dev/201507.mbox/%3C55B1B819.3060308%40gmx.net%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-groovy-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAL2qGUEuCWgRNKiqzvLMXHDk3hkmLnH%2BrCG3vL1s52wUwDPpuw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-groovy-dev/201509.mbox/%3CCADQzvm%3DvCHR7c1-uaCMkEq7i58ofvvaUrnqHjiGxMp0YQFuc5w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
etc, etc (these are just 3 samples extracted from the 3 last months).

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Keegan Witt]

+1

-Keegan

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Cédric Champeau 
wrote:

> I would say +1 to go TLP. As for technical discussions, it's either here,
> mostly on jira or on pull request comments.
> Le 24 sept. 2015 21:10, "Guillaume Laforge"  a écrit :
>
>> There's no much traffic here on the dev list, if that's what you mean.
>> But there's not much discussion elsewhere (we still have a core committer
>> Skype channel, but that we don't use much)
>> Whenever there's something that needs discussion, we're always trying to
>> discuss this here instead.
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
>>> wrote:
>>> > ...do you feel the Groovy podling is ready to become a TLP ?...
>>>
>>> In general yes but I have this vague feeling of relatively low
>>> activity on this list. Does this simply mean that the current activity
>>> does not require tons of discussions, or are those discussions
>>> happening elsewhere?
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume Laforge
>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet 
>>
>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
>> Social: @glaforge  / Google+
>> 
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Cédric Champeau]

I would say +1 to go TLP. As for technical discussions, it's either here,
mostly on jira or on pull request comments.
Le 24 sept. 2015 21:10, "Guillaume Laforge"  a écrit :

> There's no much traffic here on the dev list, if that's what you mean.
> But there's not much discussion elsewhere (we still have a core committer
> Skype channel, but that we don't use much)
> Whenever there's something that needs discussion, we're always trying to
> discuss this here instead.
>
> Guillaume
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
>> wrote:
>> > ...do you feel the Groovy podling is ready to become a TLP ?...
>>
>> In general yes but I have this vague feeling of relatively low
>> activity on this list. Does this simply mean that the current activity
>> does not require tons of discussions, or are those discussions
>> happening elsewhere?
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet 
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge  / Google+
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Guillaume Laforge]

There's no much traffic here on the dev list, if that's what you mean.
But there's not much discussion elsewhere (we still have a core committer
Skype channel, but that we don't use much)
Whenever there's something that needs discussion, we're always trying to
discuss this here instead.

Guillaume

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
> wrote:
> > ...do you feel the Groovy podling is ready to become a TLP ?...
>
> In general yes but I have this vague feeling of relatively low
> activity on this list. Does this simply mean that the current activity
> does not require tons of discussions, or are those discussions
> happening elsewhere?
>
> -Bertrand
>



-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet 

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge  / Google+

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Guillaume Laforge]

I was thinking Apache might require another release or something like that,
before we could graduate, but otherwise, this last release seems to be
following the Apache Way as much as we can, so, I guess it means we're
ready to graduate, indeed.

Guillaume

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Pascal Schumacher  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I think we are ready to leave the incubator.
>
> -Pascal
>
>
> Am 24.09.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I see that you have successfully released a second time, and that the
>> community is alive and kicking. It has been months since Groovy have
>> been accepted into the Apache incubator, and AFAICT, you have learned
>> your "Apache Way" lesson pretty thouroughly.
>>
>> So my question to mentors and also to the committers is : do you feel
>> the Groovy poddling is ready to become a TLP ?
>>
>
>


-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet 

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge  / Google+

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny  wrote:
> ...do you feel the Groovy podling is ready to become a TLP ?...

In general yes but I have this vague feeling of relatively low
activity on this list. Does this simply mean that the current activity
does not require tons of discussions, or are those discussions
happening elsewhere?

-Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSSION] What about moving out teh Incubator ?

[Pascal Schumacher]

Hi everybody,

I think we are ready to leave the incubator.

-Pascal

Am 24.09.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Emmanuel Lécharny:

Hi guys,

I see that you have successfully released a second time, and that the
community is alive and kicking. It has been months since Groovy have
been accepted into the Apache incubator, and AFAICT, you have learned
your "Apache Way" lesson pretty thouroughly.

So my question to mentors and also to the committers is : do you feel
the Groovy poddling is ready to become a TLP ?