Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.

A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of 
several projects who do that.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
-
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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.

Here's what I propose:

1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
participate.
2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
of those who are not our mentors.
3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
if/when they change their mind later.

Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
everyone is putting into this process.

Thanks,

Geertjan



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
wrote:

> toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
> > On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
> 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
> >> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
> >
> > Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
> > contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
> contributed?
> >
> > If so, then:
> > * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
> > * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
> > _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
> > Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
> > and submitted;
> > * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
> > submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
>
> My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
> see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
> incubation process.
>
> Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
> community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
> in an appropriate fashion.
>
> Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
> recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
> for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
> list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
> the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
> future top level project.
>
> - Shane
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For
anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on
the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very different
under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans. The
question will be how much of the current NetBeans infrastructure will be
needed under Apache, which is something we can work on concretely during
incubation. Whatever costs have been identified in this phase can only in
the end be lower than the estimate, since we will have less in Apache than
we currently have in NetBeans. E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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

[Shane Curcuru]

toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
> On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. 
>> He then drifted away from the
>> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
> 
> Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
> contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they contributed?
> 
> If so, then:
> * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
> * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
> _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
> Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
> and submitted;
> * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
> submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;

My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
incubation process.

Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
in an appropriate fashion.

Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
future top level project.

- Shane


-
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

[toki]

On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. 
> He then drifted away from the
> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.

Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they contributed?

If so, then:
* send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
* Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
_Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
and submitted;
* The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;

jonathon



-
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]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
wrote:

> Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> > 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
> >> 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.
>
> Shit happens. But because it happens does not mean we should appy very
> bureaucratic rules for all the other projects.
>
> It's enough to *warn* the new podling that they have to be careful. Up
> to them to decide which level of check they want to apply.


The initial committer list is IMHO completely irrelevant. Put down those
people who are expected to make a contribution within the next 6 months. It
is also a more honest position to the ASF, rather than listing hundreds of
people who will never use it. If that intent is stated clearly, then I
can't see why anyone who is not active would find that objectionable, even
if it is someone contributing as much as Tulach. Ohhh, yeah, don't forget
that each and every one of those initial committers need to execute a
Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) with the ASF, and that our
dear Secretary need to process those. So, although the Secretary seems to
be super-human and can handle hundreds, it seems unnecessary to ask people
to do something that has no effect on them.

What I think IS important is that there is a "Contributor List" on the web
site, listing everyone and perhaps even to what extent (number of commits
for instance, time period, or similar). That is more prudent and much
easier to point to for the individual who is seeking this credit. And
better yet, it doesn't need to exist right now...

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

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one project at 
the expense of that $10k going to other projects.

Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move of 
NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans is 
seeing.

It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects for 
NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we spend our 
money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans 
will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but also as the person 
ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request to the board).

Ross

---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Ted Dunning 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans 
Incubator Proposal)

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
incubator (who cause the problem).

Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.

I will work with the board to determine the best form.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:

> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
>
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
>   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> with
>   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
>   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
>   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
>   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
>
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
>
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
incubator (who cause the problem).

Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.

I will work with the board to determine the best form.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:

> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
>
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
>   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> with
>   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
>   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
>   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
>   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
>
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
>
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 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

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> 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.

Shit happens. But because it happens does not mean we should appy very
bureaucratic rules for all the other projects.

It's enough to *warn* the new podling that they have to be careful. Up
to them to decide which level of check they want to apply.

> 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.

Yes, but again, just because it happened once is not a valid reason to
burry each project under tons of checks, rules and paperwork.


-
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

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 24/09/16 à 15:18, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>
>> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
>> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
>> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
>>
>> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
>> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
>
> The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> through this thread. 
Welcome to The ASF ;-)

> Some from Apache consider the initial committers list
> extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not on
> the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.) 

I would suggest you listen to mentors and your champion at this point ;-)

Regardless, here is what is important :

" There are no ASF wide rules on how to decide when to make someone a
committer, podlings need to agree an approach that works for them. Some
ASF projects have a high bar requiring significant contributions before
someone is considered, other projects grant it more freely to anyone who
shows interest in contributing. Some projects use formal [DISCUSS] and
[VOTE] threads on the private mailing list, others use a more lazy
consensus approach.'

(http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html, adding new committers).

I suggest you read this page.

> Others
> consider the initial committers list to be an indicator of the diversity of
> the individual contributors who will be involved in the project -- and
> that's the approach we've been following so far since the mentors for
> Apache NetBeans have told us that this is the approach to take.

And I do think this is the right approach. But sme may have a slightly
or totally different vision. We are diverse ;-)
>
> However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as complete
> a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.

Truedat.

>
> My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to take
> the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible and
> provide motivation for each person in the list. 
I really do think that providing motiviation for each of the comitter is
a bit over the top. The IPMC role is not to validate this list, it's
really to check that the project is moving forward in the right
direction. When Netbeans will be a TLP, the project's PMC will be
responsible for selecting whoever they want to become committer, nobody
else than the PMC will be selecting them. The PPMC being a PMC in the
making, it's responsible to vote in new committers - and make them added
by an IPMC member -. It's then up to the PPMC to define the rules they
want to befollowed.

In other words, do what you think is the best for the future TLP that
nebeans will become :-)


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

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Chris Mattmann]

Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!

Chris


On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:

Hi folks,

I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
notes are as follows:

- 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
- 8-13 machines/VMS are required
- Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
  on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
  come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
  is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
- The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
  new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
  which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
  spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.

Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
host this.

Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.

Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
approving NetBeans as a new podling.

With regards,
Daniel.


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






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

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

[Doug Cutting]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Gangumalla, Uma
 wrote:
> BTW, there were 5 binding votes.

Oops.  Sorry for the miscount!  I mistakenly searched for "Gangumalla"
rather than "umamahesh" in
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc, but
I should have known better regardless.  My sincere apologies.

Doug

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

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Ross Gardler]

Daniel, this is excellent. Thank you. When we brought AOO in we offset some 
costs, such as bandwidth, through our arrangement with SourceForge. Can we do 
the same here? (I imagine this has already been discussed, I'm behind of those 
threads, I'm just looking for a short summary).

Shane, if the project continues at the current scale then the costs below 
continue indefinitely. If it grows/shrinks many of the costs grow/shrink with 
it (e.g. Bandwidth) others will remain constant (e.g. Build farms)



---
Twitter: @rgardler

_
From: Shane Curcuru >
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
To: >


Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.

Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?

- Shane

Daniel Gruno wrote on 9/24/16 6:17 AM:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
>
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
> on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
> is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
> new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
> which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
> spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
>
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
>
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>


-
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

[Emilian Bold]

A NetBeans release is produced from the NetBeans Mercurial repository. All
the language modules: Java, Javascript, C/C++, etc. you see there after
install are Oracle / NetBeans code.

The Plugins Portal has some other, 3rd party modules which don't come
bundled with the official builds but users are free to install them.


--emi

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> On 24.09.2016 05:34, Wade Chandler wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
>> feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
>> stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to
>> Apache
>> or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
>> force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
>> been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
>> similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
>> user base and use cases.
>>
>
> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE with
> the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the (L)GPled
> plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according to
> https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, PHP,
> C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix of GPL,
> LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an netbeans IDE
> download that mixes these through.
>
> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part of
> netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>
> I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.
>
> 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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Michael Müller wrote:

> regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.


Done!

Added you in the Miscellaneous section in the proposal. What specifically
are you planning to contribute?

Thanks,

Gj

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Michael Müller <
michael.muel...@mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:

> 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 <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com>:
> >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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Emilian Bold]

> hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :(
>

I don't believe it does, yet.


> In the ASF it's good practice to give credits to the patch contributor in
> the commit, e.g.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bafa2ba5977ab88c8dfe376c97568
> 25d948bce9afd3b69aa693ab96@%3Ccommits.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> But of course that makes doing the research much more complicated.
>

Generally commit messages do reference the bugzilla issue number and
sometimes the contributor directly but this makes it hard to compile a list
automatically.


> Which brings us to another question:
> If the commits just referenced a bugzilla ticket, do we also like to
> migrate the bugzilla content over?
> Or at least keep it browsable somewhere?
>

I would want to keep as much of the context/history as possible. Bugzilla
issues have a lot of important discussions.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:


> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
>
> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.


The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers list
extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not on
the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.) Others
consider the initial committers list to be an indicator of the diversity of
the individual contributors who will be involved in the project -- and
that's the approach we've been following so far since the mentors for
Apache NetBeans have told us that this is the approach to take.

However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as complete
a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.

My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to take
the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible and
provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for this.
>From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until this
has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.

Thanks,

Gj

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>
> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform and no IDE.
>
>
> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>
>
>> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part
>> of netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>
>
> When we in the NetBeans community talk about "plugins", we only mean those
> made available via plugins.netbeans.org. We have various companies
> interested in hosting these, e.g., Microchip (microchip.com) and Dukehoff
> (dukehoff.com), though there could be more. The problem is going to be
> which of the available companies to select for hosting the plugins as well
> as the application at plugins.netbeans.org for accessing those plugins.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
>
>> On 24.09.2016 05:34, Wade Chandler wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it
>>> be
>>> feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
>>> stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to
>>> Apache
>>> or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that
>>> doesn't
>>> force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
>>> been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
>>> similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
>>> user base and use cases.
>>>
>>
>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE with
>> the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the (L)GPled
>> plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according to
>> https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, PHP,
>> C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix of GPL,
>> LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an netbeans IDE
>> download that mixes these through.
>>
>> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part
>> of netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>>
>> I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.
>>
>> 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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou

For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare plattform
> and no IDE.


No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.


> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part of
> netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.


When we in the NetBeans community talk about "plugins", we only mean those
made available via plugins.netbeans.org. We have various companies
interested in hosting these, e.g., Microchip (microchip.com) and Dukehoff (
dukehoff.com), though there could be more. The problem is going to be which
of the available companies to select for hosting the plugins as well as the
application at plugins.netbeans.org for accessing those plugins.

Gj

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> On 24.09.2016 05:34, Wade Chandler wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
>> feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
>> stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to
>> Apache
>> or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
>> force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
>> been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
>> similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
>> user base and use cases.
>>
>
> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE with
> the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the (L)GPled
> plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according to
> https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, PHP,
> C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix of GPL,
> LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an netbeans IDE
> download that mixes these through.
>
> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part of
> netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>
> I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.
>
> 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

[Jochen Theodorou]

On 24.09.2016 05:34, Wade Chandler wrote:
[...]

I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache
or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
user base and use cases.


For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare 
plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE 
with the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the 
(L)GPled plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according 
to https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, 
PHP, C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix 
of GPL, LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an 
netbeans IDE download that mixes these through.


I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part 
of netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.


I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.

bye Jochen


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

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Shane Curcuru]

Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.

Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
infra burden will last?  I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?

- Shane

Daniel Gruno wrote on 9/24/16 6:17 AM:
> Hi folks,
> 
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
> 
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
>   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
>   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
>   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
>   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
>   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
> 
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
> 
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> 
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
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

[Shane Curcuru]

Good questions all.

Emilian Bold wrote on 9/24/16 5:18 AM:
> I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to
> be perfect.

Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.

In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.

> 
> We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer.

Within an Apache project, anyone can be a contributor by submitting some
code (docs, tests, etc.) for review.  But *only* committers have write
access to any Apache source repositories.

To contribute small changes (via email or a bug), a committer can take
your work and just check it in (presumably giving you credit somehow).

To contribute large changes - if they're accepted by the project -
Apache will ask you to sign our ICLA confirming that you're licensing
this IP to the ASF with sufficient rights so that an Apache project can
then ship that change under our Apache license.

You *must* sign an ICLA before you can get your commit bit.  So part of
the process is ensuring the initial committers all sign the ICLA before
they actually have commit access.

> 
> A lot more people contributed patches via bugzilla than actually committed
> them in the Mercurial repository themselves.

I keep hearing one important thing in this discussion - "contributed".
As in, the past tense of contributions, done in the past.

Merit in the past is nice, but does not count directly (IMO) for current
committership.  I believe the initial committer list should be made up
from individuals who have both contributed meaningful work in the past,
and who have clearly shown an interest in helping the community to grow
during Incubation with their meaningful work.

Being an Apache committer isn't about status, it's about actively
working on the project today and in the near future.

> 
> The reason being it was not a very common thing to get committer access.
> 
> Furthermore, while I am a contributor and do have commit access and the
> Oracle CLA on file most of my contributions don't show up under my name.
> They show up under the name of the Sun / Oracle employee that got assigned
> to the Bugzilla issue where I posted my patch.
> 
> Considering how large NetBeans is I assume we will not have a short
> incubation so there will be plenty of time to add committers.

More to the point, any healthy Apache top level project (TLP) is always
working to find new helpful contributors and vote them in as committers.

- Shane

> 
> Pe sâmbătă, 24 septembrie 2016, Mark Struberg  a
> scris:
> 
>>
>>
>> Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the
>> years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the
>> initial committers list?

P.S. To be blunt: that's not the point.  If you're looking at this as a
popularity game, that's immaterial.  Is someone *currently* working on
the project, and do they intend to keep helping?  If so, yes, put them
on the list.  If not - no matter how much work they did long ago - then
they probably shouldn't be on the list.

I expect that during the Incubation process a number of past NetBeans
contributors will show up and re-engage.  That's great!  Once the
podling sees that these contributors are really doing some new work -
not just talking on the mailing lists - then the PPMC should vote them
in as committers.

>>
>>
>> But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
>> the PPMC makes a good job.
>> Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' NetBeans
>> lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC member
>> will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>>
>> And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
>> past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 72h
>> (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>>
>> BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
>> list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
>> But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
>> emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
 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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Mark Struberg]

> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? 


Nope, don't mix up Apache Maven core with the 'Maven central' which is operated 
by Sonatype in conjunction with the Apache Maven PMC. It is more clear though 
with JFrog BinTray which is clearly owned by a company.

Maven.central and Bintray both host whatever library a user uploads, regardless 
of the license (as long as it doesn't breach some law).

LieGrue,
strub




> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 14:00, Wade Chandler 
>  wrote:
> > Phone top posting:
> 
> I agree plugins are a huge part of NetBeans success; you need them for
> Gradle support as an example. Sure, you can install them outside the
> portal, but it is a pain for most. What ever you all are able to do is
> greatly appreciated; whether now or soon, and whether that is an incubator
> stipulation or not.
> 
> But, along with this discussion plus some other questions I saw, and just
> to be clear if doing this sooner rather than later, there is a difference
> in the sources and the binaries; I realise I may be reiterating on a prior
> statement, but I think it is key.
> 
> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? What is the difference? The IDE
> and platform have to be able to compete as a project and community. Does
> Eclipse or JetBrains own all of the ones in their portals? What about
> Gradle?
> 
> I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
> feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
> stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache
> or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
> force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
> been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
> similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
> user base and use cases.
> 
> I agree porting plugins portal to use Maven central won't happen overnight,
> and the community won't do well without the portal; it would be a huge set
> back. Too, even if the artifacts are in central, the portal UI will still
> be necessary as the artifact UI just doesn't support the same use cases; in
> case there is any question.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Wade
> 
> 
> On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "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
>> 
> 

-
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

[Mark Struberg]

hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :(

In the ASF it's good practice to give credits to the patch contributor in the 
commit, e.g.

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bafa2ba5977ab88c8dfe376c9756825d948bce9afd3b69aa693ab96@%3Ccommits.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

But of course that makes doing the research much more complicated. 


Which brings us to another question:
If the commits just referenced a bugzilla ticket, do we also like to migrate 
the bugzilla content over?
Or at least keep it browsable somewhere?



LieGrue,
strub


PS: I hope it was clear in my previous post that if some of the NetBeans 
contributors show up that I assume that they will get picked up via a VOTE 
pretty quickly.



> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 11:19, Emilian Bold  
> wrote:
> > I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to
> be perfect.
> 
> We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer.
> 
> A lot more people contributed patches via bugzilla than actually committed
> them in the Mercurial repository themselves.
> 
> The reason being it was not a very common thing to get committer access.
> 
> Furthermore, while I am a contributor and do have commit access and the
> Oracle CLA on file most of my contributions don't show up under my name.
> They show up under the name of the Sun / Oracle employee that got assigned
> to the Bugzilla issue where I posted my patch.
> 
> Considering how large NetBeans is I assume we will not have a short
> incubation so there will be plenty of time to add committers.
> 
> Pe sâmbătă, 24 septembrie 2016, Mark Struberg  
> a
> scris:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the
>>  years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the
>>  initial committers list?
>> 
>> 
>>  But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
>>  the PPMC makes a good job.
>>  Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' 
> NetBeans
>>  lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC 
> member
>>  will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>> 
>>  And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
>>  past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 
> 72h
>>  (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>> 
>>  BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
>>  list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
>>  But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>> 
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  > On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
>>  emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>  > > 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
>>  >>  > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Wade Chandler]

Phone top posting:

I agree plugins are a huge part of NetBeans success; you need them for
Gradle support as an example. Sure, you can install them outside the
portal, but it is a pain for most. What ever you all are able to do is
greatly appreciated; whether now or soon, and whether that is an incubator
stipulation or not.

But, along with this discussion plus some other questions I saw, and just
to be clear if doing this sooner rather than later, there is a difference
in the sources and the binaries; I realise I may be reiterating on a prior
statement, but I think it is key.

Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? What is the difference? The IDE
and platform have to be able to compete as a project and community. Does
Eclipse or JetBrains own all of the ones in their portals? What about
Gradle?

I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache
or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
user base and use cases.

I agree porting plugins portal to use Maven central won't happen overnight,
and the community won't do well without the portal; it would be a huge set
back. Too, even if the artifacts are in central, the portal UI will still
be necessary as the artifact UI just doesn't support the same use cases; in
case there is any question.

Thanks,

Wade

On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "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
>

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Daniel Gruno]

Hi folks,

I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
notes are as follows:

- 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
- 8-13 machines/VMS are required
- Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
  on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
  come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
  is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
- The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
  new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
  which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
  spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.

Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
host this.

Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.

Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
approving NetBeans as a new podling.

With regards,
Daniel.


-
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

[Emilian Bold]

I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to
be perfect.

We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer.

A lot more people contributed patches via bugzilla than actually committed
them in the Mercurial repository themselves.

The reason being it was not a very common thing to get committer access.

Furthermore, while I am a contributor and do have commit access and the
Oracle CLA on file most of my contributions don't show up under my name.
They show up under the name of the Sun / Oracle employee that got assigned
to the Bugzilla issue where I posted my patch.

Considering how large NetBeans is I assume we will not have a short
incubation so there will be plenty of time to add committers.

Pe sâmbătă, 24 septembrie 2016, Mark Struberg  a
scris:

>
>
> Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the
> years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the
> initial committers list?
>
>
> But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
> the PPMC makes a good job.
> Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' NetBeans
> lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC member
> will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>
> And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
> past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 72h
> (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>
> BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
> list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
> But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
> emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > 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 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Mark Struberg]

Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the years. 
Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the initial 
committers list?


But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_ the 
PPMC makes a good job.
Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' NetBeans 
lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC member will 
at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.

And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the past 
and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 72h (VOTE 
time) to get him on board.

BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer list 
simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start. But people 
should know that we will fix this list over time.


LieGrue,
strub




> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold  
> wrote:
> > 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 

new Infrastructure Administrator (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans ...)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:

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

Oh. Heh. Fair point!

Niclas is referring to this:


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

> > how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
> > with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
>

"As Infra" ... On Wednesday, I gave up my various executive roles at the
Apache Software Foundation, and was hired as our first "Infrastructure
Administrator". My role is to work with our Infra staff in various
manager-y ways, but more importantly for *this* list is to provide an Infra
point of contact for the community.(*)

To the original thread, I've been assisting and discussing NetBeans with
Daniel. He remains the point contact for that.

Thanks!
-g

(*) please use our normal channels, but I will become an escalation point
for when things get blocked up. I am both your friend, and my team's
friend. So I may say "no", but will do what I can to say "yes".

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

[Gangumalla, Uma]

Congrats Spot team.

BTW, there were 5 binding votes.

Regards,
Uma

On 9/23/16, 3:33 PM, "Doug Cutting"  wrote:

>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
>


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