Re: public perceptions
Noel J. Bergman wrote: David N. Welton wrote: No I didn't - the comment below was Raphael Luta's - probably evident because of the double layer of quoting, but still... I would agree with this if there was no immediate percieved benefit when you are in Incubator, unfortunately it seems projects under incubation are still perceived by the larger community as endorsed by Apache. Actually, we've had quite a few comments from the public and incubator projects that dispute that view, especially in light of the disclaimers required to be conspicuously posted. Let's not conflate the issues with the Apache != Apache Web Server discussion. They're both, to some degree, issues of looking at Apache from 10 kilometers in the sky, or looking at it very infrequently. Which describes most people pretty well because they are busy with their own work, lives, projects, etc. Those who are close enough to comment know about the project well enough to distinguish between different subgroups. They're observing from a lot closer. It's probable that the second group are the ones that matter, and if they can see a difference, then there isn't really a problem. It's just something to keep in mind. -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ajax proposal?
Andrew Clark wrote: Raphaël Luta wrote: - no source control access We have read-only CVS access[1] already for the entire project. The details should definitely be more visible, though. I'll talk to someone about getting it more prominent on the main site. I missed the link. It should indeed be more visible :) I understand that you wouldn't want to setup your own public dev infrastructure but using sf.net, codehaus, tigris or whatever public infra wouldn't have been very onerous. My concern here is if no resources have been dedicated so far to really build the AjaxTk into an OSS project why would that change once it is in incubation ? Let me try to summarize what I think your point is and you can tell me if I'm wrong. You would feel better about the submission if it were already a fully formed OSS project on an external site with full development infrastructure and long-time active community. Is this accurate? The long time active community is not accurate and building such a community is a main reason for the Incubator. As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk is something like this: - cleanup the code/doc/install so that Tk can be consumed by a public community - rework a clear internal separation between AjaxTk and ZCS with different repos, dependency management, indep release cycle, and so on... - adjust internal dev processes to deal with the public infra (and possibly some early external dev) - start building a long term external community by actively attracting new committers I would feel more comfortable if the first 3 steps would be done somewhere else before any incubation starts so that incubation can really focus on the last point. Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps that you can't bring by yourself as an ASF member and the amount of work and risk of failure in those 3 first steps is IMO significant. The benefit of such a 2 step process is that this gives you an actual public track record before incubation is decided and voids most concerns about incubation being a pure branding exercicse since a significant amount of work would already have been spent in making the AjaxTk OSS independantly of any Apache commitment. -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] KabukiProposal
Sam Ruby wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KabukiProposal Contents of proposal reproduced below: snip / -0,9 -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
As I've said it before, TMC doesn't do the trick for me - plain MC would do better to remove the Tomcat reference and eventually avoid Apache The ... Of the two alternatives, I think the second is the better choice. Sounds like the TMC name is out, Ohana is currently the front runner, additional comments are appreciated. Cheers, -neil Neil Stein Enterprise Web Infrastructure phone -- 908-423-4297 BlackBerry -- 908-403-6988 -- Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
+1 Personally I'm quite impressed that we've had 3 independent-of-each-other committers talking to us on the previous thread. Seems like a good indication of community from the very beginning. Hen On 1/24/06, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 11:44, J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = +1 (non-binding). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
-1 (non-binding) - I think this proposal is too different from our other projects to be a good fit for the ASF. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Wednesday 25 January 2006 11:44, J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = +1 (non-binding) I look forward to working on this project as part of the ASF (or otherwise) Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3
The stdcxx community voted on and has approved a proposal to release stdcxx 4.1.3. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and with the endorsement of two of our mentors we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the tarball on the stdcxx Download page. Please vote by 6 PM MDT Monday, 1/31. Thanks Martin Proposal: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stdcxx-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vote result: Re: [VOTE RESULT] (was: [VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3, take 2) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stdcxx-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Download page: http://incubator.apache.org/stdcxx/download.html Releases section of the Incubation Policy: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
+1 (non binding) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] KabukiProposal
+1 (non binding) Mvgr, Martin Sam Ruby wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KabukiProposal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] KabukiProposal
On 1/23/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = Kabuki, an AJAX Toolkit Proposal = +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On 1/24/06, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = +1. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On 1/25/06, Mads Toftum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 (non-binding) - I think this proposal is too different from our other projects to be a good fit for the ASF. My belief is that the foundation goes in the direction that our members want. We've got three members who are willing to step up. So, I'm willing to see how it plays out. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3
On 1/25/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The stdcxx community voted on and has approved a proposal to release stdcxx 4.1.3. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and with the endorsement of two of our mentors we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the tarball on the stdcxx Download page. With Bill and me voting +1, that means we just need one more Incubator PMC member to vote +1 for the release to be approved. Waiting until Monday is still a good idea though. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] Woden Milestone Release
Dear incubator pmc members, Can you please cast your VOTE for a Woden milestone release? See below for my +1. Sanjiva, Paul, We need 3 +1's. So i'd appreciate if you could respond quickly. Quoting Roy Minimum three binding (official PMC) +1 votes and a majority of all votes being positive. Releases do not need consensus. thanks, dims On 1/22/06, Lawrence Mandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Following the release process for projects in incubation, I'd like to request approval for Woden to declare milestone 3. A vote was held on the woden-dev list where M3 received 5 +1 votes and no negative votes. The votes collected are as follows: John Kaputin +1 Lawrence Mandel +1 Dims +1 Jeremy Hughes +1 Arthur Ryman +1 As required of releases from projects in incubation, the distributable archives contain incubating in their names. The M3 archives can be found at http://cvs.apache.org/dist/ws/woden/milestones/1.0.0M3-incubating/. My original post summarizing Woden 1.0.0 M3 is below. Please vote by 5pm EST, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006. Thanks, Lawrence Mandel - Forwarded by Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM on 01/22/2006 03:22 PM - Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/2006 04:55 PM Please respond to woden-dev To woden-dev@ws.apache.org cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate - please vote by EOD Thursday, Jan. 19 Woden committers, I'd like to request your vote on the status of M3. I've placed a Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate build at http://cvs.apache.org/dist/ws/woden/milestones/1.0.0M3-incubating/ The Woden M3 candidate includes the major work items from the M3 plan. Specifically, the following items are complete in the M3 Candidate: Parsing of WSDL 2.0 import and include (DOM) WSDL 2.0 Service parsing (DOM) Implement validation logic for Binding Unit tests for validation logic for Binding Integrate W3C WSDL 2.0 Binding tests into Woden test suite The following items are incomplete in the M2 plan: Unit tests for import and include parsing (DOM) WSDL 2.0 HTTP Binding extension (DOM) Unit tests for HTTP Binding extension (DOM) Unit tests for Service parsing (DOM) Investigate WSDL 2.0 parsing with StAX Update technical documentation about Woden design and implementation on Wiki Create initial user documentation In an effort to make Woden more immediately usable, we deferred HTTP Binding extension work to M4 in favour of adding support for WSDL import and include elements. StAX will continue to be an investigation item until the DOM implementation is close to complete or we get more development help. John and I are working on user documentation and should have it ready for the Woden site around the proposed M3 release on Friday. Automated tests for the parser continue to require attention but, as John has conducted manual testing and the W3C test suite has been integrated into the Woden automated test suite, we are in good shape for M3. Both John and I think Woden is in good shape to declare M3 as solid progress has been made on the parser and the validator. At this point we'd like to ask the Woden committers to vote on the status of M3. John and I both vote +1 (so +2). Please vote ASAP. We will collect votes until EOD (5pm EST) Thursday, Jan. 19. If there are no negative votes I will then request WS and Incubator PMC approval to release M3 by EOD Friday, Jan. 20. Once the PMCs approve, M3 will be declared and a link will be placed on the Woden site. (Feel free to reply to this note with any concerns over this process.) Thanks, Lawrence Mandel -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] publish stdcxx 4.1.3
+1 from me. On 1/25/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/25/06, Martin Sebor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The stdcxx community voted on and has approved a proposal to release stdcxx 4.1.3. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and with the endorsement of two of our mentors we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the tarball on the stdcxx Download page. With Bill and me voting +1, that means we just need one more Incubator PMC member to vote +1 for the release to be approved. Waiting until Monday is still a good idea though. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Incubator PMC members
Is this list up to date? http://incubator.apache.org/whoweare.html#PMC+%28Project+Management+Commitee%29 I assume Justin and Bill Rowe are both members but I don't their names there. Thanks Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ajax proposal?
On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote: As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk is something like this: - cleanup the code/doc/install so that Tk can be consumed by a public communityIt seems to me that something that works in some cases but isn't fully developed as an end-user easy-to-use product is ideal to complete in the incubator. - rework a clear internal separation between AjaxTk and ZCS with different repos, dependency management, indep release cycle, and so on...Repository issues, build, test, separation of dependencies, etc. can be very repository-specific. If you build this infrastructure in source forge you would have to deal with similar but different issues here in Apache. Why require them to make two transitions? - adjust internal dev processes to deal with the public infra (and possibly some early external dev)IMHO this is a critical part of building a community. - start building a long term external community by actively attracting new committers I would feel more comfortable if the first 3 steps would be done somewhere else before any incubation starts so that incubation can really focus on the last point.Sorry, but I don't agree. The way the first 3 steps are handled will give the Apache community a good sense of whether this project "gets it" or not, and we might as well help them with the process sooner than later. Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps that you can't bring by yourself as an ASF member and the amount of work and risk of failure in those 3 first steps is IMO significant.I'm not sure that I understand your point. Certainly "any" open source repository is a different environment from a closed source, but I don't see an argument for or against incubation in Apache. The benefit of such a 2 step process is that this gives you an actual public track record before incubation is decided and voids most concerns about incubation being a pure branding exercicse since a significant amount of work would already have been spent in making the AjaxTk OSS independantly of any Apache commitment.I'd still say that there is significant breakage involved in taking a closed source through two migrations rather than one. I think we need to remain focused on the barrier to incubation as documented in the Apache policies and not try to create new processes on the fly.To me the critical piece here is "donation". These folks have intellectual property that appears to be useful and they want to donate it to Apache. Due diligence is required to make sure that there are people in Apache who want to see it succeed (mentors, sponsors, champions, developers, users), and there are resources available to build a community here. But let's not put artificial barriers in their way. There are plenty of barriers once in incubation.Craig -- Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/ Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On Jan 24, 2006, at 8:44 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = +1 (non-binding) I'm obviously a little biased on this because of my involvement in OFBiz and not sure if my vote is even appropriate, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew that I am still very much behind this proposal from the OFBiz side. -David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [vote] Request approval to declare Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate by EOD Jan. 24
+1 from me Paul On 1/25/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote: Sanjiva, Sorry about violating Apache netiquette. This was not intentional. I had previously been asked to send this vote to the incubator and ws pmc lists and was advised to send it to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list as well. To be honest, I'm feeling pretty lost wrt the correct process to release a milestone driver from an incubator project and would appreciate guidance from the community. The information I have is to: 1. Hold a vote amongst the project's committers on the project's mailing list. 2. Request approval from the incubator and, in Woden's case, WS pmcs by sending an e-mail requesting a vote to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], and [EMAIL PROTECTED] All release votes must be made on public lists. Even if people say yes in private, they still need to vote in public. So, you should hold a vote on woden-dev and then send a summary of that vote to [EMAIL PROTECTED], saying pointedly that you need X more +1 votes from incubator PMC members within 72 hours. Assuming no negative votes, the milestone can be released. Minimum three binding (official PMC) +1 votes and a majority of all votes being positive. Releases do not need consensus. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On Jan 24, 2006, at 7:44 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal ... == Committers == * David E. Jones * Andy Zeneski * Si Chen * Al Byers * Jacopo Cappellato * Hans Bakker == Proposed Apache Sponsor == Incubator PMC == Champions == * David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] * J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where are the mentors? Are the champions also going to mentor the project? Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
Roy T. Fielding wrote: * David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] * J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where are the mentors? Are the champions also going to mentor the project? According to the docs I read, the incubator PMC is supposed to assign them. I'd planned to help out where possible in that role. -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = This proposal outlines the creation of a new, top-level Open for Business (OFBiz) project within the Apache Software Foundation. +1 (non-binding) from me as well, just for the record. -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
J Aaron Farr wrote: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal = OFBiz Proposal = +1 Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
On 1/25/06, David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roy T. Fielding wrote: * David N. Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] * J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where are the mentors? Are the champions also going to mentor the project? According to the docs I read, the incubator PMC is supposed to assign them. I'd planned to help out where possible in that role. Exactly. According to the *current* Incubator policies, a proposal only starts with champions. The sponsor, in this case the Incubator PMC, is supposed to assign a mentor upon acceptance of the proposal. Technically, the policies only refer to a single champion and single mentor. There's nothing to suggest there cannot be more than one champion, but the documentation does suggest that the mentor role is fulfilled by a single individual who has specific oversight responsibilities. In practice, the roles of champion and mentor have been reversed and confused. In particular there was a recent vote on changing some of these requirements and policies. In any case, both David and I have expressed a willingness to mentor and I believe Yoav may be as well, though I don't recall him specifically saying so. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
Hi, First, +1 for the proposal vote. these requirements and policies. In any case, both David and I have expressed a willingness to mentor and I believe Yoav may be as well, though I don't recall him specifically saying so. I would prefer to remain a champion rather than a mentor at this time (using the current role definitions on the Incubator site), because I've taken on a lot of new things the past few weeks. However, I do intend to be actively involved, and if/when we change the rule to require 3 ASF Members as mentors, I am perfectly willing to be the 3rd. -- Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal
After some good thought about what to do with the system I am currently writing, I have come to the conclusion that there is a big overlap between ofbiz and it is worth it to invest the time to start using ofbiz for my solution and also this way prevent too much code duplication. In short : I would definitely like to get involved and help out with the incubation effort. Mvgr, Martin Martin van den Bemt wrote: +1 (non binding) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate TMCg2
We should also review http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200508.mbox/%3c43 [EMAIL PROTECTED], and see if we can involve those folks, too. My recollection of the discussion from ApacheCon EU was that there was quite an enthusiastic discussion over the idea of a pluggable, extensible, portal-based project for managing all sorts of server-side resources, including accounts, mailing lists, services, and whatever else some developer wanted to write a plug-in to support. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ajax proposal?
Raphaël Luta wrote: As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk is something like this: - cleanup the code/doc/install I would expect that at worst those would be early doings during Incubation. - rework a clear internal separation between AjaxTk and ZCS - adjust internal dev processes - start building a long term external community Those should happen by virtue of Incubation. Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps Actually, the second and third would happen by moving into the Incubator, and the first is something that multiple people could start to work on, once the code were moved into Subversion. A fascination with brand seems to be your primary concern, but if we end up killing the project because it doesn't evolve properly, that would make any such effort to leverage the Apache brand seriously counter-productive. Ask around for a favorable reaction to the Avalon project. Most people have a negative view of it, and anything it touched, despite the fact that the only problem with the project was a poisoned community. As an aside to Andrew Clark, acceptance is a policy decision, not a technical one; there isn't a veto option. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] KabukiProposal
+1 --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: public perceptions
I absolutely agree that if a project is housed at projectX.apache.org, people will automatically associate projectX as an apache project, with the full rights, privileges, and standing of all other apache projects, from a marketing/branding perspective. On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David N. Welton wrote: [ changed subject to discuss topic more abstractly ] I would agree with this if there was no immediate percieved benefit when you are in Incubator, unfortunately it seems projects under incubation are still perceived by the larger community as endorsed by Apache. I think that the further away from something you get, the more vague your perceptions are. For instance, there are a lot of people who still think that Apache == The Web Server. When seen from afar, I'd tend to agree that a move to something.apache.org is going to be noticed by most people who are not looking carefully as project now associated with apache.org. This is a theory of mine that seems to be born out by talking with people, but it's not really an exact science. What say the marketing folks? -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Request approval to declare Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate by EOD Jan. 24
+1 Tom Jordahl Web Service PMC From: Lawrence Mandel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:25 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: woden-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Request approval to declare Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate by EOD Jan. 24 Following the release process for projects in incubation, I'd like to request approval for Woden to declare milestone 3. A vote was held on the woden-dev list where M3 received 5 +1 votes and no negative votes. The votes collected are as follows: John Kaputin +1 Lawrence Mandel +1 Dims +1 Jeremy Hughes +1 Arthur Ryman +1 As required of releases from projects in incubation, the distributable archives contain incubating in their names. The M3 archives can be found at http://cvs.apache.org/dist/ws/woden/milestones/1.0.0M3-incubating/. My original post summarizing Woden 1.0.0 M3 is below. Please vote by 5pm EST, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006. Thanks, Lawrence Mandel - Forwarded by Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM on 01/22/2006 03:22 PM - Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/18/2006 04:55 PM Please respond to woden-dev To woden-dev@ws.apache.org cc [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate - please vote by EOD Thursday, Jan. 19 Woden committers, I'd like to request your vote on the status of M3. I've placed a Woden 1.0.0 M3 Candidate build at http://cvs.apache.org/dist/ws/woden/milestones/1.0.0M3-incubating/ The Woden M3 candidate includes the major work items from the M3 plan. Specifically, the following items are complete in the M3 Candidate: Parsing of WSDL 2.0 import and include (DOM) WSDL 2.0 Service parsing (DOM) Implement validation logic for Binding Unit tests for validation logic for Binding Integrate W3C WSDL 2.0 Binding tests into Woden test suite The following items are incomplete in the M2 plan: Unit tests for import and include parsing (DOM) WSDL 2.0 HTTP Binding extension (DOM) Unit tests for HTTP Binding extension (DOM) Unit tests for Service parsing (DOM) Investigate WSDL 2.0 parsing with StAX Update technical documentation about Woden design and implementation on Wiki Create initial user documentation In an effort to make Woden more immediately usable, we deferred HTTP Binding extension work to M4 in favour of adding support for WSDL import and include elements. StAX will continue to be an investigation item until the DOM implementation is close to complete or we get more development help. John and I are working on user documentation and should have it ready for the Woden site around the proposed M3 release on Friday. Automated tests for the parser continue to require attention but, as John has conducted manual testing and the W3C test suite has been integrated into the Woden automated test suite, we are in good shape for M3. Both John and I think Woden is in good shape to declare M3 as solid progress has been made on the parser and the validator. At this point we'd like to ask the Woden committers to vote on the status of M3. John and I both vote +1 (so +2). Please vote ASAP. We will collect votes until EOD (5pm EST) Thursday, Jan. 19. If there are no negative votes I will then request WS and Incubator PMC approval to release M3 by EOD Friday, Jan. 20. Once the PMCs approve, M3 will be declared and a link will be placed on the Woden site. (Feel free to reply to this note with any concerns over this process.) Thanks, Lawrence Mandel
Re: Incubator site status wrt a move to Anakia?
David Crossley wrote: It is time to make a plan for the move to Anakia. We cannot afford for it to drag on any longer. --- 1) Review the generated source documents in site/xdocs2 Did the transformation perform okay? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site/README.txt Okay i did some myself. With projects/* two that had *.html source (harmony and synapse) and two that had *.cwiki source (jackrabbit and apollo). The data seems to be transformed properly. I only did eyeball diffs. There are some issues. The third-level section headings are present but not rendered. This is issue 2) below. With the docs that come from *.html source, some of these have un-necessary br elements inside td elements. The Anakia stylesheet seems to choke on these. The important effect is those table cells are not displayed. For example, see the committers list at http://people.apache.org/~crossley/incubator-anakia/projects/synapse.html Would someone fix the stylesheet please. I also checked a few documents at ip-clearance. Seems okay, although the source had confused section heading levels, which is carried over. So i reckon that these are not holdups. --- 2) Refine the stylesheet site/xdocs2/stylesheets/site.vsl Seen only one problem so far. It needs to handle more than two levels of subsection. This can be fixed later. See above. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubator site status wrt a move to Anakia?
David Crossley wrote: --- 2) Refine the stylesheet site/xdocs2/stylesheets/site.vsl Seen only one problem so far. It needs to handle more than two levels of subsection. This can be fixed later. Youch, the stylesheet is producing hard-coded html style attributes such as font color size. The stylesheet that produces a.o/dev/ is better behaved. Why not use that? Would an Anakia expert please take over that side of things. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[STATUS] (incubator) Wed Jan 25 23:55:29 2006
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2005-11-24 00:30:24 -0500 (Thu, 24 Nov 2005) $] Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/ Wiki page: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ [note: the Web site is the 'official' documentation; the wiki pages are for collaborative development, including stuff destined for the Web site.] Pending Issues == o Clearly and authoritatively document how to edit, generate, and update the Web site (three separate functions). o Move the stable wiki pages into the official site. o We need to be very very clear about what it takes to be accepted into the incubator. It should be a very low bar to leap, possibly not much more than 'no problematic code' and the existence of a healthy community (we don't want to become a dumping ground). o We need to be very very clear about what it takes for a podling to graduate from the incubator. The basic requirements obviously include: has a home, either as part of another ASF project or as a new top-level project of its own; needs to be a credit to the ASF and function well in the ASF framework; ... o Moving the bylaw documentation from the Wiki to the main site o fix formatting of the project status pages Resolved Issues === o The policy documentation does not need ratification of changes if there seems consensus. Accordingly, the draft status of these documents can be removed and we will use the lazy commit first, discuss later mode common across the ASF for documentation (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=517190) o Coming up with a set of bylaws for the project (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=517190) o All projects under incubation must maintain a status Web page that contains information the PMC needs about the project. (http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html) o Projects under incubation should display appropriate disclaimers so that it is clear that they are, indeed, under incubation (http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]by=threadfrom=504543) The Incubation Process == This tries to list all the actions items that must be complete for a project before it can graduate from the incubator. It is probably incomplete. Identify the project to be incubated: -- Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not already trademarked for an existing software product. -- If request from an existing Apache project to adopt an external package, then ask the Apache project for the cvs module and mail address names. -- If request from outside Apache to enter an existing Apache project, then post a message to that project for them to decide on acceptance. -- If request from anywhere to become a stand-alone PMC, then assess the fit with the ASF, and create the lists and modules under the incubator address/module names if accepted. Interim responsibility: -- Who has been identified as the mentor for the incubation? -- Are they tracking progress on the project status Web page? Copyright: -- Have the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received? It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. -- Have the files been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright? Verify distribution rights: -- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute? -- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms? Establish a list of active committers: -- Are all active committers listed in the project status file? -- Do they have accounts on cvs.apache.org? -- Have they submitted a contributors agreement? Infrastructure: -- CVS modules created and committers added to avail file? -- Mailing lists set up and archived? -- Problem tracking system (Bugzilla)? -- Has the project migrated to our infrastructure? Collaborative Development: -- Have all of the active long-term volunteers been identified and acknowledged as committers on the project? -- Are there three or more independent committers? [The legal definition of independent is long and boring, but basically it means that there is no binding relationship between the individuals, such as a shared employer, that is capable of overriding their free will as individuals, directly or indirectly.] -- Are project
