Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Emilian Bold]

So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so important and
we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more commiters
during incubation.

On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.

Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?

I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. It's not
only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are also
many that contribute good patches via Bugzilla, etc.

Also, each individual would have to be contacted and agree to be on the
list which also implicitly means they will sign the Apache CLA.

I do not believe the initial commiters list could fracture the community as
long as we provide a clear path to become a commiter.

I maintained a NetBeans fork for a customer but it was a lot of work to
backport fixes, etc. Nobody is going to go through all that trouble just
out of spite because they were not on the initial commiter's list.



--emi

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Wade,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
> >  wrote:
> >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
> >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get
> into
> >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
> >
> > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> > result.
> >
> > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> > the reality of active contributors.
> >
> > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> > project such as NetBeans.
>
> Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
> If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
> non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.
>
> This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
> don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a project
> as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
> kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
> just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
> type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
> issue there -- but you catch my drift).
>
> >> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
> >
> > Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> > Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> > expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-
> maturity-model.html
> > expresses that.
>
> Right. And all I want to get out folks on this thread at this point is two
> things:
>  #1 admission that past contributions will be valued a LOT when it
>   comes to somebody requesting to be added as a committer to the
>   project during incubation
>
>  #2 a bit of explanation of what was the process to arrive at initial list
> of
>   committers
>
> >> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
> >> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
> >
> > Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> > the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> > for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> > mentioned above.
>
> I disagree. Like I said -- being a VP of incubator having to deal with
> that type of escalation was not a fun place to be in.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Niclas Hedhman]

Greg,
many people on this list are probably unaware that your role changed a
couple of days ago...

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
> >
> > Correct ;-)
> >
> > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> > soon and can then move forward.
> >
>
> One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
> plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
> and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
> it out before Oracle shuts it down".
>
> I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
> incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
> would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
> technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
> related cost).
>
> As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
> how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
> with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
>
> (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
> Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
> plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
>
> Correct ;-)
>
> FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> soon and can then move forward.
>

One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
it out before Oracle shuts it down".

I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
related cost).

As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.

(Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)

Cheers,
-g

Re: [discuss] Move podling rosters to LDAP

[Greg Stein]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:

> cc += gstein
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
> wrote:
> > Did this conclude..? Just in case it didn't, here's my +1 as well to
> > make podling membership be in proper LDAP groups; with email
> > notifications to private@podling as you mention.
>
> This did not conclude, but you picked an opportune time to resurrect
> this thread with Greg joining the infrastructure team.  In fact, I was
>

>From the thread, I don't believe that I've got any action items, or
feedback. Just to remove roadblocks where I can.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

Hi,

I actually have a question regarding the plugins. Maybe I missed it in 
the discussion so far, but what will happen with all of those? I mean 
some are part of the binary download by default. Will they all move to 
apache license and then be hosted at apache if possible too, or will 
this become a plugin-per-plugin decission? What for example with all the 
plugins you are owner of?


bye Jochen


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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:30 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> I spoke with Geertjan this afternoon.  We both happened to be at the same
> popular java conference in San Francisco.  I did give him some advice on
> the current initial contributors list.  Basically two notes:
>
> - Add new members based on merit, not because prior to joining they are
> interested.  The way he explained it to me, many of the initial committers
> are interested in giving back to Netbeans.  They aren't able to due to the
> licensing model from Oracle but are willing to under Apache.  This doesn't
> mean they will or will not contribute, but there is an intent.  It may be
> better to add them to the project as they begin contributing.

This sounds a little bit contradictory to me. On one hand you're saying -- the
newcomers will be judged on merit. On the other hand you're saying that
initial committers list is not quite judged on merit alone but on the fact of
how much they "are interested in giving back to Netbeans".

Like I said, it would be useful to understand what the criteria for selection
was simply because IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking.

So all I'm asking is that criteria is clearly spelled out and everybody
agrees that this is it.

> - Ensure that everyone who has contributed to Netbeans in the past is aware
> and eligible to be a contributor.  There may be past employees who want to
> still give back.  Or even present employees who are now working on other
> projects.  They shouldn't necessarily be excluded from the list because
> they don't currently work on Netbeans right now.
>
> I do see some issues for the project if they miss people from the list.
> Voting in committers can be seen as a pain, especially if it is a
> potentially large list (I'm fairly certain that the initial committers list
> here is the largest of any project so far at Apache).
>
> I also want to make sure that the infra assessment is done before voting
> starts, just to make sure we're all in alignment on what is being expected.

That is my other concern as well.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler  
> wrote:
>> ...I recently contributed some things for Groovy support, and intend to work 
>> quite a bit on those features...
>
> Anyone who works "quite a bit" on something that adds value to the
> project and interacts in a constructive way on the project's lists
> should be elected a committer rather sooner than later, in my book.
>
> How soon is the project's choice,

This gives me pause. It sounds like as a mentor, you taking this hands-off
approach saying: this is a poddling as any podling. PPMC will determine
what's right.

I guess I will have to disagree. For a project like NetBeans you will have
a LOT of people who have stake in the code base and who are NOT on
the initial list of committers. I think as a mentor you should be prepared
to actively manage that and help PPMC form an opinion of what is
the right thing to do given the Apache Way.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi Wade,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>  wrote:
>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
>> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
>> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>
> Thanks!
>
> As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>
> What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> result.
>
> Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> the reality of active contributors.
>
> So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> project such as NetBeans.

Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.

This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a project
as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
issue there -- but you catch my drift).

>> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
>
> Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> expresses that.

Right. And all I want to get out folks on this thread at this point is two
things:
 #1 admission that past contributions will be valued a LOT when it
  comes to somebody requesting to be added as a committer to the
  project during incubation

 #2 a bit of explanation of what was the process to arrive at initial list of
  committers

>> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
>> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
>
> Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> mentioned above.

I disagree. Like I said -- being a VP of incubator having to deal with
that type of escalation was not a fun place to be in.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
>> criteria
>> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>
>
> Let's stop wasting time -- just provide his name so it can be added to the
> list, thanks.

Let me connect you two so that this conversation could happen without
me playing a middle man.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [discuss] Move podling rosters to LDAP

[Sam Ruby]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes  wrote:
> Does means podlings will also need to define both a $podling and
> $podling-pmc group?

It doesn't require that... it doesn't preclude that.  My original
proposal was not to add that separation, but such could be handled if
it were desirable.

If you go to https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/group/, you will see a
number of LDAP Auth Groups interspersed amongst the various other
types of groups (if it helps, click on the column heading to sort by
group type).  Any member of those groups can modify the groups that
they are a member of using that web interface.

If you go to this page, you will see a number of PMCs:
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/.  PMCs have separate lists
for members of the PMC and committers.  Currently, only pmc chairs can
modify PMC lists (and not just limited to their own).  My preference
would be that any PMC member could modify the PMCs that they are a
member of.

I started with non-podling LDAP Auth Groups.  I would like to do
Podlings next, followed by PMCs.  From an implementation perspective,
I don't care where in the spectrum between LDAP Auth Groups and PMCs
Podlings will fall, but for the moment I don't see a need for
separation between owners of podlings and members of podlings.  I can
see an argument for mentors being owners (and the only ones who can
modify membership), but my personal preference would be for members of
Podlings being the owners, with mentors providing oversight.

> Many podlings don't have a clear distinction - at least not in listings.
> Perhaps they should..

>From a technical point of view, that's not an issue.  So the question
is what does the IPMC want here?

- Sam Ruby

> On 22 Sep 2016 3:17 a.m., "Sam Ruby"  wrote:
>
>> cc += gstein
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
>> wrote:
>> > Did this conclude..? Just in case it didn't, here's my +1 as well to
>> > make podling membership be in proper LDAP groups; with email
>> > notifications to private@podling as you mention.
>>
>> This did not conclude, but you picked an opportune time to resurrect
>> this thread with Greg joining the infrastructure team.  In fact, I was
>> planning to restart this thread for exactly that reason; thank you for
>> doing it.
>>
>> My assessment previously was that there wasn't enough demand at the
>> time to overcome inertia.  This change will undoubtedly break things
>> temporarily, but nothing that can't be fixed quickly.
>>
>> > (I am lucky enough to have faced the asf-authorization-template a
>> > couple of times :) )
>>
>> Join the club. :-)  The current process sucks, doesn't it.  :-)
>>
>> > Ensuring people.apache.org is updated would also make it easier for
>> > podlings to refer to a canonical list of who are their members; which
>> > would work somewhat the same way after graduating.
>>
>> That's part of the discussion I would like to have.  I'm proposing
>> that members of the podling can update the group.  Currently only PMC
>> chairs can modify PMCs.  And furthermore, PMC chairs can modify *any*
>> PMC, not just the one(s) they chair.
>>
>> I'd like to change this so that PMC members can modify their own
>> group.  And I believe that the increased notifications that this tool
>> will provide will enable proper oversight.
>>
>> I also believe this to be fully in line with the President's (Ross's)
>> desire to enable self-service.
>>
>> But a change of this magnitude to the way that we operate is something
>> that requires a critical mass of support.  Thanks for lending your
>> voice to this discussion.
>>
>> > Letting podling members modify the group themselves is good (as you
>> > said the worst they can do is add another committer), as long as we'll
>> > keep the account creation process under the hands of ASF Members (as
>> > it is now).
>>
>> ASF members and officers.
>>
>> By the way, if you ever want to submit an account request, you might
>> want to try https://whimsy.apache.org/officers/acreq/; it loads much
>> faster than https://id.apache.org/acreq/; if you like it, spread the
>> word.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> > On 2 September 2016 at 18:52, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:42 PM Sam Ruby 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  The first stage would be migrating existing lists to LDAP.  This will
>>  require some small changes to whimsy and the phone book application.
>>  The whole effort will only take a few hours and be spread over a few
>>  days elapsed time.
>> 
>>  To prepare, we will need to decide who gets to modify these lists, and
>>  who gets notified.  I propose that members of podlings be able to
>> modify
>>  the list, and the private list associated with that podling be
>> notified
>>  on changes.  Alternate choices 

[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

[Doug Cutting]

The vote passes, with 7 +1 votes (4 binding) and no -1 votes.

+1 Jarek Jarcec Cecho (binding)
+1 Gangumalla, Uma
+1 Todd Lipcon (binding)
+1 Tom White (binding)
+1 Zheng, Kai
+1 Stack (binding)
+1 Debo Dutta

Thanks all for voting.

Spot has been accepted for Incubation at Apache.  Welcome Spot!

Doug

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

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

[Edward Capriolo]

Great news. You Apache Streams had a going out of business sale that went
so well their back in business !

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:08 PM, apache  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On September 23, 2016 at 12:51:30 PM, Suneel Marthi (smar...@apache.org)
> wrote:
> 
>

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

[apache]

+1 (non-binding)

On September 23, 2016 at 12:51:30 PM, Suneel Marthi (smar...@apache.org) wrote:
 

Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

[Suneel Marthi]

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 23/09/16 à 15:30, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
> complete as possible.
>
> What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
> the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
> proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
> then after than make the changes?

IMHO, whatever works. The IPMC is not qualified to vote who shoud be a
committer, and who shouldn't. So if your initial list is not perfect,
well, not a big deal. You can fix it later on, voting in committers once
accepted in the incubator.

It's easy to vote in committers, so don't try to add everyone in the
initial list just because you want to cover all the angles. IMO, the
existing list should already be considered as good enough !

You should rather focus on who should be part of the PPMC, becuase it's
very likely to become the PMC once promoted. That's teh critical part !

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

[CANCELLED][VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic

[Ate Douma]

In light of the positive feedback and input from Benjamin Young from W3C and
Suneel Marthi which hopefully will lead to a renewal of activity and a move
forwards for Apache Streams, I'm hereby cancelling this vote for retirement.

I'm looking forward to the next steps!

Kind regards, Ate


On 2016-09-19 17:07, Ate Douma wrote:

As was pointed out to me by the John Arment on general@, the process for
retiring a podling is a bit more elaborate, and with different consequences
compared to a TLP retirement (see incubator retierement guide link below).

The most notable difference is that the podling website, in this case
http://streams.apache.org, will be taken down as well.

To make sure everyone has taken note, I'm hereby restarting the vote:

As a final follow up on the earlier [discuss] thread, lets formally vote on
retiring Apache Streams and move it to the attic.

The process is described at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retirement.html

[ ] +1 Move Streams to the Attic
[ ] ±0 Proceed according to the majority
[ ] -1 Do not move Streams to the Attic, because... [please add justification]

Ate


On 2016-09-18 23:27, Ate Douma wrote:

As a final follow up on the earlier [discuss] thread, lets formally vote on
retiring Apache Streams and move it to the attic.

The process is described at http://attic.apache.org/process.html

[ ] +1 Move Streams to the Attic
[ ] ±0 Proceed according to the majority
[ ] -1 Do not move Streams to the Attic, because... [please add justification]

Ate








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

Re: [VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic

[Ate Douma]

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks for chiming in, and not a bit too late :-)
I think it would be great if the ActivityStreams 2.0 group and Apache Streams
can work together and with the help of the W3C group might help 'reset' the
project and move forwards again.

I am really happy to cancel the vote for retirement in light of this
potential new effort.
I will do so shortly (on the d...@streams.incubator.apache.org list).

And I invite you, and others interested from the W3C group to join the dev list
as well to make contact and further discuss possible next steps.
"pointing all W3C arrows this direction" already is a great way to start :-)

Kind regards, Ate

On 2016-09-23 17:45, Benjamin Young wrote:

I am currently sitting in the W3C’s Social Web Working Group’s face-to-face
meeting and have just finished discussing features of ActivityStreams 2.0:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/



The Social Web WG is nearing the end of it’s charter, and preparing to ship the
AS2.0 spec—which could be an opportunity for the Apache Streams community to get
back on its feet.



Had I known this group was in danger of shut-down, I would have done more this
week (at the W3C’s big face-to-face meeting: TPAC). I even gave a presentation
on getting W3C folks involved in ASF projects and vice versa.



There is great opportunity yet untapped for combining W3C and ASF activities,
and I’d hate to see this project disappear before such a major moment in the
chronology of ActivityStreams 2.0.



To that end, I’d like to know how I might help “jump start” the Apache Streams
(incubating) project and will certainly be pointing all W3C arrows this 
direction.



So: Please don’t close this group before more cross engagement with the Social
Web WG and the ActivityStreams 2.0 community has happened.



Thanks!

Benjamin



--
http://bigbluehat.com/
http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung



*From: *apache 
*Sent: *Friday, September 23, 2016 4:15 PM
*To: *Ate Douma ; d...@streams.incubator.apache.org

*Cc: *general@incubator.apache.org 
*Subject: *Re: [VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic



On September 22, 2016 at 5:05:39 PM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu) wrote:
On 2016-09-21 18:28, apache wrote:

I remain committed to building and sharing open-source software for social web
data interoperability. Participating in the incubator process has taught me a
lot, and I would like the keep the project operating at Apache, but as Ate
points out the community around this podling has never been healthy and has all
but disappeared in 2016.

I would very much welcome anyone interested in this problem to volunteer as a
mentor or contributor. With even a few new committed active participants I can
envision the project graduating to TLP. Without fresh initiative, it should be
retired. Perhaps some of the codebase will be useful elsewhere.


Hi Steve,

Although the retirement for Apache Streams hasn't been formally decided, as
there hasn't been any further signal for support or initiative, it does look
like we'll have to draw that conclusion soon.

You really tried your best in making Apache Streams a success, and with the
openness and focus fitting for the Apache Software Foundation.
That it didn't work out as anticipated and hoped for is of course
disappointing, but sometimes that's just the way things goes.


Thanks for saying so.  There has been a lot of good work from the committers
involved but not all efforts ultimately succeed.

I definitely hope you will stick to it and at the ASF, contributing to and
joining other projects because you clearly demonstrated to be an fine Apache
committer. And not just because you are a nice and really smart guy, but also
as a great advocate of the Apache Way, at ApacheCons and other places!


Thanks for saying so.  I’m not going anywhere.  #bigdata is what I do and ASF is
where it happens.


I’ll be submitting a (potentially final) release candidate later today.


I'll take a look and review the release candidate over the weekend, which if OK
and when receiving +3 from the IPMC, indeed might become a final incubating
release for Apache Stream.
Thanks.



I'll follow up later on the VOTE thread for the release candidate on
d...@streams.incubator.apache.org

Kind regards, Ate



Steve Blackmon
sblack...@apache.org

On September 19, 2016 at 10:25:16 AM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu
) wrote:


On 2016-09-19 17:09, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> I am sorry to be reading this, but I was at Steve Blackmon's talk last week
> in Berlin at Flink forward about using Streams + Flink.
>
> It was a very interesting talk and I chatted with Steve briefly about the
> Streams project.

Good to hear that!
I wasn't aware Steve was presenting about Streams in Berlin.

>
> Is there absolutely no chance of reviving this project or giving the
> project some more time before calling the attic ?

RE: [VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic

[Benjamin Young]

I am currently sitting in the W3C’s Social Web Working Group’s face-to-face 
meeting and have just finished discussing features of ActivityStreams 2.0:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/



The Social Web WG is nearing the end of it’s charter, and preparing to ship the 
AS2.0 spec—which could be an opportunity for the Apache Streams community to 
get back on its feet.



Had I known this group was in danger of shut-down, I would have done more this 
week (at the W3C’s big face-to-face meeting: TPAC). I even gave a presentation 
on getting W3C folks involved in ASF projects and vice versa.



There is great opportunity yet untapped for combining W3C and ASF activities, 
and I’d hate to see this project disappear before such a major moment in the 
chronology of ActivityStreams 2.0.



To that end, I’d like to know how I might help “jump start” the Apache Streams 
(incubating) project and will certainly be pointing all W3C arrows this 
direction.



So: Please don’t close this group before more cross engagement with the Social 
Web WG and the ActivityStreams 2.0 community has happened.



Thanks!

Benjamin



--
http://bigbluehat.com/
http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung



From: apache
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:15 PM
To: Ate Douma; 
d...@streams.incubator.apache.org
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic



On September 22, 2016 at 5:05:39 PM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu) wrote:
On 2016-09-21 18:28, apache wrote:
> I remain committed to building and sharing open-source software for social web
> data interoperability. Participating in the incubator process has taught me a
> lot, and I would like the keep the project operating at Apache, but as Ate
> points out the community around this podling has never been healthy and has 
> all
> but disappeared in 2016.
>
> I would very much welcome anyone interested in this problem to volunteer as a
> mentor or contributor. With even a few new committed active participants I can
> envision the project graduating to TLP. Without fresh initiative, it should be
> retired. Perhaps some of the codebase will be useful elsewhere.
>
Hi Steve,

Although the retirement for Apache Streams hasn't been formally decided, as
there hasn't been any further signal for support or initiative, it does look
like we'll have to draw that conclusion soon.

You really tried your best in making Apache Streams a success, and with the
openness and focus fitting for the Apache Software Foundation.
That it didn't work out as anticipated and hoped for is of course
disappointing, but sometimes that's just the way things goes.


Thanks for saying so.  There has been a lot of good work from the committers 
involved but not all efforts ultimately succeed.

I definitely hope you will stick to it and at the ASF, contributing to and
joining other projects because you clearly demonstrated to be an fine Apache
committer. And not just because you are a nice and really smart guy, but also
as a great advocate of the Apache Way, at ApacheCons and other places!


Thanks for saying so.  I’m not going anywhere.  #bigdata is what I do and ASF 
is where it happens.

> I’ll be submitting a (potentially final) release candidate later today.

I'll take a look and review the release candidate over the weekend, which if OK
and when receiving +3 from the IPMC, indeed might become a final incubating
release for Apache Stream.
Thanks.



I'll follow up later on the VOTE thread for the release candidate on
d...@streams.incubator.apache.org

Kind regards, Ate

>
> Steve Blackmon
> sblack...@apache.org
>
> On September 19, 2016 at 10:25:16 AM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu
> ) wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-19 17:09, Suneel Marthi wrote:
>> > I am sorry to be reading this, but I was at Steve Blackmon's talk last week
>> > in Berlin at Flink forward about using Streams + Flink.
>> >
>> > It was a very interesting talk and I chatted with Steve briefly about the
>> > Streams project.
>>
>> Good to hear that!
>> I wasn't aware Steve was presenting about Streams in Berlin.
>>
>> >
>> > Is there absolutely no chance of reviving this project or giving the
>> > project some more time before calling the attic ?
>>
>> Sure there is a chance, but for that the project needs active community
>> involvement. Which has been lacking for quite a while now.
>> Community building and involvement really is the primary problem for the
>> project with only a single active member, which is not sustainable.
>> However, if you are willing and able to get actively involved, and rally some
>> additional community involvement as well, then I'd be happy to 
>> postpone/cancel
>> the retirement VOTE for now.
>>
>> I suggest to head over to d...@streams.incubator.apache.org, let us know
>> what you can and will do for the project, and see how that works out.

Re: [VOTE] Retire Apache Streams to the attic

[apache]

On September 22, 2016 at 5:05:39 PM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu) wrote:
On 2016-09-21 18:28, apache wrote:  
> I remain committed to building and sharing open-source software for social 
> web  
> data interoperability. Participating in the incubator process has taught me a 
>  
> lot, and I would like the keep the project operating at Apache, but as Ate  
> points out the community around this podling has never been healthy and has 
> all  
> but disappeared in 2016.  
>  
> I would very much welcome anyone interested in this problem to volunteer as a 
>  
> mentor or contributor. With even a few new committed active participants I 
> can  
> envision the project graduating to TLP. Without fresh initiative, it should 
> be  
> retired. Perhaps some of the codebase will be useful elsewhere.  
>  
Hi Steve,  

Although the retirement for Apache Streams hasn't been formally decided, as  
there hasn't been any further signal for support or initiative, it does look  
like we'll have to draw that conclusion soon.  

You really tried your best in making Apache Streams a success, and with the  
openness and focus fitting for the Apache Software Foundation.  
That it didn't work out as anticipated and hoped for is of course  
disappointing, but sometimes that's just the way things goes.  


Thanks for saying so.  There has been a lot of good work from the committers 
involved but not all efforts ultimately succeed.  

I definitely hope you will stick to it and at the ASF, contributing to and  
joining other projects because you clearly demonstrated to be an fine Apache  
committer. And not just because you are a nice and really smart guy, but also  
as a great advocate of the Apache Way, at ApacheCons and other places!  


Thanks for saying so.  I’m not going anywhere.  #bigdata is what I do and ASF 
is where it happens.

> I’ll be submitting a (potentially final) release candidate later today. 

I'll take a look and review the release candidate over the weekend, which if OK 
and when receiving +3 from the IPMC, indeed might become a final incubating 
release for Apache Stream.
Thanks.



I'll follow up later on the VOTE thread for the release candidate on 
d...@streams.incubator.apache.org 

Kind regards, Ate 

> 
> Steve Blackmon 
> sblack...@apache.org 
> 
> On September 19, 2016 at 10:25:16 AM, Ate Douma (a...@douma.nu 
> ) wrote: 
> 
>> On 2016-09-19 17:09, Suneel Marthi wrote: 
>> > I am sorry to be reading this, but I was at Steve Blackmon's talk last 
>> > week 
>> > in Berlin at Flink forward about using Streams + Flink. 
>> > 
>> > It was a very interesting talk and I chatted with Steve briefly about the 
>> > Streams project. 
>> 
>> Good to hear that! 
>> I wasn't aware Steve was presenting about Streams in Berlin. 
>> 
>> > 
>> > Is there absolutely no chance of reviving this project or giving the 
>> > project some more time before calling the attic ? 
>> 
>> Sure there is a chance, but for that the project needs active community 
>> involvement. Which has been lacking for quite a while now. 
>> Community building and involvement really is the primary problem for the 
>> project with only a single active member, which is not sustainable. 
>> However, if you are willing and able to get actively involved, and rally 
>> some 
>> additional community involvement as well, then I'd be happy to 
>> postpone/cancel 
>> the retirement VOTE for now. 
>> 
>> I suggest to head over to d...@streams.incubator.apache.org, let us know 
>> what you can and will do for the project, and see how that works out. 
>> 
>> Regards, Ate 
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Ate Douma  wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> On 2016-09-19 16:33, Ate Douma wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>> On 2016-09-19 15:44, John D. Ament wrote: 
>> >>> 
>>  Ate, 
>>  
>>  Please also note the instructions from the incubator's retirement 
>>  guide. 
>>  
>>  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retirement.html 
>>  
>> >>> 
>> >>> Right. 
>> >>> Thanks for pointing this out John. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I've never before had to handle a podling retirement and overlooked this 
>> >>> requires different handling from a TLP retirement. 
>> >>> And with slightly different consequences, e.g. website will be taken 
>> >>> down, 
>> >>> instead of flagged as being retired. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> So, to do this proper, I'll first cancel the vote thread on dev@streams 
>> >>> and open a new [FINAL][DISCUSS] thread for retirement again, this 
>> >>> time also pointing to the podling retirement page. 
>> >>> This way at least everyone on that list will have a proper notice what 
>> >>> the retirement entails. 
>> >>> (not that I expect a different outcome, but there is no rush either) 
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> Reading the podling retirement guide a bit more thoroughly, I think I it 
>> >> is 
>> >> sufficient to restart the [VOTE] thread for retirement on dev@streams 
>> >> with the 
>> >> link to the podling 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
complete as possible.

What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
then after than make the changes?

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Responses in line.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Geertjan,
> >
> > I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
> > clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ...Anyone on the list
> > > will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
> be
> > > contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
> >
> > They will be commiters to be precise.
> >
>
> Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
> committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
> how that evolves.
>
>
> >
> > > Anyone not on the list will
> > > need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
> that
> > > could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
> in
> > > the initial contributors list...
> >
> > It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one
> vote
> > for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
> >
>
> Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
> someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
> to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.
>
>
> >
> > > Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> > > automatically part of the PMC.
> >
> > There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> >
> > That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
> > podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
> > foundation level.
> >
> > In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but
> really
> > in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
> >
>
> It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
> that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
> incubation.
>
>
> >
> > > ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> > > incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their
> life...
> >
> > That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
> > PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
> > would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation
> for
> > example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
> > incubation is harmless.
> >
> > Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if
> they
> > don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
> > permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
> > risks.
> >
>
> That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
> doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
> has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
> organization...)
>
>
> >
> > In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
> > members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have
> to
> > demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
> > to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count
> towards
> > that, in my book.
> >
> > > ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> > contributors
> > > list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> > assessment...
> >
> > I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays
> the
> > vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
> > during incubation with just a bit of additional work.
> >
>
> I don't think this will add a lot of work.  I even gave him the idea of
> just generating a script of past committers based on commit history.
>
>
> >
> > If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come
> up
> > with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community
> feels
> > deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
> > community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new
> list.
> >
>
> Agreed 100%.  If someone hasn't added anything in a while, has no interest
> in developing more, and the community doesn't see much benefit, they
> shouldn't be on the list.  However, if that person does start contributing,
> please pay 

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

My vote: 0 (non-binding)

+1 tag/commit
+1 git vs source zip
+1 No binaries
0 mvn install fails in test
0 Apache rat is not happy
0 dist includes a  _remote.repositories file - this should be removed
+1 LICENSE DISCLAIMER NOTICE

I'm afraid it's not a positive vote from me because the build fails in
test - and the README told me to do "mvn package" (A workaround here
could be to use -DskipTests=true - but I don't know why the test
fails)


Apache rat complains about:
 !? CONTRIBUTING.md
 !? .travis.yml
 !? bin/samza-kryo

These should be added to pom.xml's apache-rat configuration to be
ignored. None of them are worthy of a license header I think.


Your vote email didn't say the hash of the source distro, it is (sha1)
cab5ace6bfff3b70f883db61578fbda847f0fd66
samoa-0.4.0-incubating-source-release.zip

(which matches *.sha1 on dist)





Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.411
sec <<< FAILURE! - in
org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest
testStartSendingEvents(org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest)
 Time elapsed: 0.313 sec  <<< ERROR!
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Missing invocation to mocked type at
this point; please make sure there is an associated mock field or mock
parameter in scope
at 
org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest$4.(SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest.java:159)
at 
org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest.testStartSendingEvents(SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest.java:155)

[INFO] Apache SAMOA ... SUCCESS [  4.748 s]
[INFO] samoa-instances  SUCCESS [  3.676 s]
[INFO] samoa-api .. SUCCESS [ 22.050 s]
[INFO] samoa-test . SUCCESS [  2.149 s]
[INFO] samoa-local  FAILURE [ 49.418 s]

using

Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"

On 19 September 2016 at 14:50, Nicolas Kourtellis  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Our new release has been voted from the Apache SAMOA team and we are
> opening the vote to the incubator email list for testing.
>
> Please vote on releasing the following release candidate as Apache
> SAMOA (incubating)
> version 0.4.0. This release will be the second release for SAMOA in the
> incubator.
>
> -
> The commit to be voted on is in the branch "releases/0.4.0-incubating"
> (commit fc39238dd7d3674c069a8142312da8c1812bc907):
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-samoa/
> repo?p=incubator-samoa.git;a=commit;h=fc39238dd7d3674c069a8142312da8
> c1812bc907
>
> Tag v0.4.0-incubating:
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-samoa/
> repo?p=incubator-samoa.git;a=tag;h=aa5bd941ccbed1aabb46b8119049ac1bb293c3a2
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> *https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/nkourtellis.asc
> *
>
> The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> org/apache/samoa/samoa/0.4.0-incubating/
>
> The developer's version artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/samoa/0.4.0-incubating-rc1/
>
> -
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating).
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least
> three +1 PPMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating)
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> I'm +1 on the release.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Kourtellis



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[John D. Ament]

Hi Bertrand,

Responses in line.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> Hi Geertjan,
>
> I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
> clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...Anyone on the list
> > will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
> > contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
>
> They will be commiters to be precise.
>

Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
how that evolves.


>
> > Anyone not on the list will
> > need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
> > could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
> > the initial contributors list...
>
> It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one vote
> for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
>

Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.


>
> > Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> > automatically part of the PMC.
>
> There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
>
> That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
> podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
> foundation level.
>
> In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but really
> in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
>

It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
incubation.


>
> > ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> > incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life...
>
> That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
> PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
> would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation for
> example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
> incubation is harmless.
>
> Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if they
> don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
> permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
> risks.
>

That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
organization...)


>
> In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
> members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have to
> demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
> to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count towards
> that, in my book.
>
> > ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> contributors
> > list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> assessment...
>
> I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays the
> vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
> during incubation with just a bit of additional work.
>

I don't think this will add a lot of work.  I even gave him the idea of
just generating a script of past committers based on commit history.


>
> If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come up
> with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community feels
> deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
> community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new list.
>

Agreed 100%.  If someone hasn't added anything in a while, has no interest
in developing more, and the community doesn't see much benefit, they
shouldn't be on the list.  However, if that person does start contributing,
please pay close attention to see if they're interested in coming back.


>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Michael Müller]

GJ,

regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.
-- 
Herzliche Grüße, Best regards
Michael Müller

Twitter: @muellermi
Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de
Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf
Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas


Am 23. September 2016 07:50:53 MESZ, schrieb Geertjan Wielenga 
:
>Hi all,
>
>Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list
>thanks
>to meeting John Ament this afternoon.
>
>The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the
>list
>will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
>be
>contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list
>will
>need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
>that
>could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
>in
>the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors
>list is
>automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list
>after
>the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors
>list
>and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end
>of
>the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those
>who
>haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not
>be
>removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
>incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.
>
>I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
>whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
>misunderstood.
>
>If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
>contributors
>list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
>assessment.
>
>The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto
>the
>initial contributors list:
>
>1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or
>so
>who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
>initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as
>at
>least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
>Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin
>to
>the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not
>sure
>how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I
>estimate
>potentially around 20.
>
>2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past
>6
>months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
>contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
>their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
>functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
>NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
>available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the
>plugin
>authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided
>by
>developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
>their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
>useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
>Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of
>Apache
>NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
>example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who
>have
>worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
>contributors from this category number at least about 20.
>
>3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the
>past
>and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
>Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration,
>as
>well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
>NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several
>more.
>In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.
>
>4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating
>in
>this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
>NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases
>where
>there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the
>above
>categories.
>
>5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the person Roman was
>referring to earlier, and anyone who volunteers after we send a few
>e-mails
>to the various NetBeans mailing lists.
>
>6. A final point about "intent" and "interest" in John Ament's mail
>above.
>There are two types of these -- those that are definitely going to be
>contributing because their software depends on NetBeans, e.g.,
>Microchip's
>MPLAB X is an IDE on top of NetBeans IDE, and the related developers
>have a
>very strong interest in committing themselves to Apache NetBeans. I
>propose
>we do keep this category of people in the initial 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Geertjan,

I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone on the list
> will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
> contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...

They will be commiters to be precise.

> Anyone not on the list will
> need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
> could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
> the initial contributors list...

It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one vote
for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.

> Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> automatically part of the PMC.

There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
foundation level.

In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but really
in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.

> ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life...

That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation for
example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
incubation is harmless.

Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if they
don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
risks.

In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have to
demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count towards
that, in my book.

> ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
contributors
> list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
assessment...

I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays the
vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
during incubation with just a bit of additional work.

If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come up
with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community feels
deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new list.

-Bertrand