Re: [VOTE] Resolution to graduate Apache FreeMarker to TLP

[David E Jones]

+1 (binding)

-David

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote:

> My +1 (binding).
>
> It has been an interesting journey. Now the project deserves more as TLP.
>
> On Feb 19, 2018 02:45, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jaco...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The FreeMarker community has discussed [1] and voted [2] positively on
> > graduating to a top level project (TLP). The resolution for the
> graduation
> > has been proposed and discussed in this list [3].
> > Information about FreeMarker can be found in the status page [4],
> > in the project maturity model [5] and in the website [6].
> >
> > I am now calling a VOTE to ask the IPMC to recommend the resolution to
> the
> > ASF Board:
> > the proposed resolution can be found at the bottom of this email.
> > The vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 recommend to the Board the resolution to graduate Apache
> FreeMarker
> > to a TLP
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 don't graduate Apache FreeMarker to a TLP (please specify a
> reason)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jacopo Cappellato
> >
> > References:
> > [1] Community graduation discussion: https://s.apache.org/gYMw
> > [2] Community graduation vote: https://s.apache.org/MNdd
> > [3] Incubator resolution discussion: https://s.apache.org/xdI3
> > [4] Project status page:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/freemarker.html
> > [5] Project maturity model: https://s.apache.org/ixlR
> > [6] Freemarker website: https://freemarker.apache.org/
> >
> > The proposed Resolution of the Apache FreeMarker project:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Establish the Apache FreeMarker Project
> >
> > WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
> > interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
> > Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> > Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> > open-source software, for distribution at no charge to
> > the public, related to a template engine.
> >
> > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
> > Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache FreeMarker Project",
> > be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
> > Foundation; and be it further
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby is
> > responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
> > related to a template engine, and be it further
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache FreeMarker" be
> > and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
> > serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
> > of the Apache FreeMarker Project, and to have primary responsibility
> > for management of the projects within the scope of
> > responsibility of the Apache FreeMarker Project; and be it further
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
> > hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
> > Apache FreeMarker Project:
> >
> >   * Dániel Dékány   <ddek...@apache.org>
> >   * David E. Jones<jone...@apache.org>
> >   * Jacopo Cappellato   <jaco...@apache.org>
> >   * Jacques Le Roux <jler...@apache.org>
> >   * Nan Lei <nan...@apache.org>
> >   * Sergio Fernández<wik...@apache.org>
> >   * Woonsan Ko  <woon...@apache.org>
> >
> > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Dániel Dékány
> > be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache FreeMarker,
> > to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
> > Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until
> > death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification,
> > or until a successor is appointed; and be it further
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache FreeMarker Project be and hereby
> > is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
> > Incubator FreeMarker podling; and be it further
> >
> > RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
> > Incubator FreeMarker podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
> > Project are hereafter discharged.
> >
> > --
> >
>

Re: Write access to January report page

[David E Jones]

On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 17:13 -0800, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> > Isn't the https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2017 supposed to be
> > editable by Mentors/IPMC members?
> 
> It's editable by anyone whose wiki username we add to the
> ContributorsGroup page.  What's your wiki id for
> wiki.apache.org/incubator?  (Which is distinct from your Apache ID and
> from logins for other Moin wikis.) I'll add you.
> 

I ran into the same issue trying to sign the Freemarker report, though it was 
setup and worked in the past (like the
last report 3 months ago).

Could you add my id as well? It is: 'jonesde'

Thank you,
-David

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

Re: [VOTE] Accept CarbonData into the Apache Incubator

[David E Jones]

+1

-David (jonesde@a.o)


> On 25 May 2016, at 13:24, Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> following the discussion thread, I'm now calling a vote to accept CarbonData 
> into the Incubator.
> 
> ​[ ] +1 Accept CarbonData into the Apache Incubator
> [ ] +0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do not accept CarbonData into the Apache Incubator, because ...
> 
> This vote is open for 72 hours.
> 
> The proposal follows, you can also access the wiki page:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CarbonDataProposal
> 
> Thanks !
> Regards
> JB
> 
> = Apache CarbonData =
> 
> == Abstract ==
> 
> Apache CarbonData is a new Apache Hadoop native file format for faster 
> interactive
> query using advanced columnar storage, index, compression and encoding 
> techniques
> to improve computing efficiency, in turn it will help speedup queries an 
> order of
> magnitude faster over PetaBytes of data.
> 
> CarbonData github address: https://github.com/HuaweiBigData/carbondata
> 
> == Background ==
> 
> Huawei is an ICT solution provider, we are committed to enhancing customer 
> experiences for telecom carriers, enterprises, and consumers on big data, In 
> order to satisfy the following customer requirements, we created a new Hadoop 
> native file format:
> 
> * Support interactive OLAP-style query over big data in seconds.
> * Support fast query on individual record which require touching all fields.
> * Fast data loading speed and support incremental load in period of minutes.
> * Support HDFS so that customer can leverage existing Hadoop cluster.
> * Support time based data retention.
> 
> Based on these requirements, we investigated existing file formats in the 
> Hadoop eco-system, but we could not find a suitable solution that satisfying 
> requirements all at the same time, so we start designing CarbonData.
> 
> == Rationale ==
> 
> CarbonData contains multiple modules, which are classified into two 
> categories:
> 
> 1. CarbonData File Format: which contains core implementation for file format 
> such as columnar,index,dictionary,encoding+compression,API for 
> reading/writing etc.
> 2. CarbonData integration with big data processing framework such as Apache 
> Spark, Apache Hive etc. Apache Beam is also planned to abstract the execution 
> runtime.
> 
> === CarbonData File Format ===
> 
> CarbonData file format is a columnar store in HDFS, it has many features that 
> a modern columnar format has, such as splittable, compression schema ,complex 
> data type etc. And CarbonData has following unique features:
> 
>  Indexing 
> 
> In order to support fast interactive query, CarbonData leverage indexing 
> technology to reduce I/O scans. CarbonData files stores data along with 
> index, the index is not stored separately but the CarbonData file itself 
> contains the index. In current implementation, CarbonData supports 3 types of 
> indexing:
> 
> 1. Multi-dimensional Key (B+ Tree index)
> The Data block are written in sequence to the disk and within each data 
> blocks each column block is written in sequence. Finally, the metadata block 
> for the file is written with information about byte positions of each block 
> in the file, Min-Max statistics index and the start and end MDK of each data 
> block. Since, the entire data in the file is in sorted order, the start and 
> end MDK of each data block can be used to construct a B+Tree and the file can 
> be logically  represented as a B+Tree with the data blocks as leaf nodes (on 
> disk) and the remaining non-leaf nodes in memory.
> 2. Inverted index
> Inverted index is widely used in search engine. By using this index, it helps 
> processing/query engine to do filtering inside one HDFS block. Furthermore, 
> query acceleration for count distinct like operation is made possible when 
> combining bitmap and inverted index in query time.
> 3. MinMax index
> For all columns, minmax index is created so that processing/query engine can 
> skip scan that is not required.
> 
>  Global Dictionary 
> 
> Besides I/O reduction, CarbonData accelerates computation by using global 
> dictionary, which enables processing/query engines to perform all processing 
> on encoded data without having to convert the data (Late Materialization). We 
> have observed dramatic performance improvement for OLAP analytic scenario 
> where table contains many columns in string data type. The data is converted 
> back to the user readable form just before processing/query engine returning 
> results to user.
> 
>  Column Group 
> 
> Sometimes users want to perform processing/query on multi-columns in one 
> table, for example, performing scan for individual record in troubleshooting 
> scenario. In this case, row format is more efficient than columnar format 
> since all columns will be touched by the workload. To accelerate this, 
> CarbonData supports storing a group of column in row format, so data in 
> column group is stored together and enable fast 

Re: Wiki Access - Podling Mentor

[David E. Jones]

Thanks John, worked just fine.

-David


> On 11 Apr 2016, at 17:25, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> Please give it a shot in a minute or two (moin moin is slow slow)
> 
> John
> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:33 PM David E Jones <d...@dejc.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I’m helping as a mentor for the FreeMarker project so need access to sign
>> reports (namely on this page now:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2016).
>> 
>> My Apache username (and account on wiki.a.o) is ‘jonesde’.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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

Wiki Access - Podling Mentor

[David E Jones]

I’m helping as a mentor for the FreeMarker project so need access to sign 
reports (namely on this page now: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2016).

My Apache username (and account on wiki.a.o) is ‘jonesde’.

Thank you,
-David


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

Re: Karma for new account (jonesde) on wiki.apache.org

[David E Jones]

Report time for FreeMarker has come around again and I still don’t have 
permission to edit wiki pages to sign the report, currently the page at:

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2016

Am I going about this wrong?

-David


> On 4 Jan 2016, at 09:15, David E Jones <d...@dejc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I am helping out as a mentor for the Freemarker project now in incubation and 
> setup an account using my Apache username (jonesde) to sign reports and such.
> 
> Could someone add the permission(s) necessary so I can make changes in the 
> incubator wiki (right now specifically the incubator/January2016 page)?
> 
> -David
> 


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

Re: Business Framework Project

[David E Jones]

I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this discussion, but it's a  
good discussion and I also can't really think of a better forum!


So

On Jan 22, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:

There are various commercial vendors doing this sort of thing. Most  
are aimed at having doing infrastructure for a centralized ASP- 
style environment, ie where there is one big application and people  
build or extend apps through web-based interfaces and everything  
lives on the server. The ultimate in lock-in, and an nice enabler  
of over-centralization (which I think most open source proponents  
realize the danger and downside of...). That's a good motivation  
for database driven business data structures, logic, screens, etc.



What could be considered as lock-in or over-centralization from one
perspective, could be looked at as being simplifying things or  
reducing

costs from another perspective.


Yes, the siren song From a due diligence perspective the promise  
of ease causes a good investigator to be all the more wary of what is  
lost in order to get that ease. It's easy to forget that compromises  
made in the name of ease often lead to more compromises and eventual  
full compromise.



Think of CRM/ERP/Accounting/Payroll/HR/etc.. just compressed into one
system, this would certainly promote less Excel sheet usage :)


Agreed, very valuable. This is one of the very important things we are  
doing with OFBiz.


The basic model of having 1 repository of customers is inherently  
better

than having multiple repositories at several systems, with data
fragmented allover, and backend migration/integration processes  
running.


This is another thing we are doing with OFBiz. The focus is on a  
single architecture and set of lower level business artifacts that you  
can build anything with. For companies that can afford the  
customization this means they have the ERP/CRM/ecommerce/etc/etc that  
they want. For companies that can't afford the customization there is  
already a growing set of vertically oriented solutions that are more  
tuned for out-of-the-box usage.



As you mentioned, yes, there *are* various commercial vendors doing
this, but no open source has this capability.


I'd be interested to hear more of what you had in mind for this  
capability.



Consider a small-medium business that has an ERP system, and one day
decides that they want to get a CRM system to track their sales force.
Which would be the best scenario of those?
(A) - A typical CRM implementation with data migration/integration  
work,

 user training, More systems to support.
-OR-
(B) - A small CRM implementation with no data migration/integration,  
not

 much user training, no more systems to support.


You've lost me a bit here It is definitely nice to avoid things  
like data migration and integration and user training and support of  
systems.


- Realistically you have to pay someone to support systems even if you  
don't do it yourself (and this is a good thing to pay someone to do...  
hosting companies that have expertise for different apps are a genius  
business model).


- The only way to reduce user training that I know of is to have  
applications that are built to guide users through the processes the  
business wants. That means the applications must be tuned to the  
specific business and if that business wants to change it must change  
its apps, or at least written for a particular type of business and  
leave in a bit of flexibility and require a little bit of training.


- If you have a good, complete system you don't need too many  
integration efforts, but some are almost always needed. For example  
very few companies do payment processing or shipping on their own, but  
fortunately once you have a small set of integrations in place  
additional work is not needed.


- If you can find clients that don't need data migration count  
yourself lucky! Usually unless you have a new company or a company  
that has serious budget limits and can't afford it, you'll need to get  
the data from the old system(s) into the new system (hopefully  
singular there...).


BTW, Compiere actually works more or less this way. Ie, things are  
heavily database-driven.


Yup, but they're mainly ERP, and they work with Oracle databases and
some postgreSQL fork. Plus, they don't have the extreme customization
abilities discussed.


Yeah, Compiere is an interesting project. The architecture is mostly  
old-school client-server style (ie client apps talking to a database,  
the only centralized logic is in stored procedures). There are also  
many quirks, as is natural when the design and development is mostly  
done by one person. It is admittedly impressive given its background  
though.


If you get to the point where you start looking at data modeling  
and the logic tier stuff, feel free to collaborate with us at  
OFBiz. More eyes on this stuff is always a good thing! Okay, well  
98% of the 

Re: Business Framework Project

[David E Jones]

On Jan 22, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Ahmad Khalifa wrote:


J Aaron Farr wrote:

Ahmad Khalifa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Ultimately, what this would be good for, is to offer several
pre-built applications along the lines of CRM, ERP, Accounting, POS,
etc... just like some already available applications, but the extra
customization features would make it much more adaptable/ 
extendable to

organizations, and much easier to extend to more business domains.

I understand it's technically different from OFBiz, but have you
looked at Apache OFBiz?  Would it be something that team could use?
 http://ofbiz.apache.org/


I have taken a look at OFBiz. From what I understand in OFBiz you  
create
your entities, views, db table mappings, and business logic in Java,  
and

XML.

This approach is much different. It defines those things in the  
database
and interprets them at runtime from the database. i.e. there is no  
such

thing as 'Accounts.xml' or 'Employees.java', etc...

I don't see OFBiz benefiting from this at all. Unless they're  
willing to
do a huge re-write. On the other hand, what this project could use  
from
the OFBiz project, is the already developed logic they have. It is  
much

more mature in terms of the already created business functionality.


Being one of the architects of the OFBiz Framework I'm obviously  
biased toward that approach in general. It sounds like it would share  
some of the same ideals, like working with higher level artifacts and  
avoiding code generation. OFBiz is definitely XML-heavy (intentionally  
for now... ie until a better alternative surfaces), and has touch  
points all over the place to use lower level tools like Java classes/ 
methods and templating tools.


The idea of putting all business level stuff in the database is  
interesting, but I'm still a skeptic. You can certainly build revision  
control around it, but how do you get the same combination of off-line  
and remote work along with team collaboration and group effort  
synchronization? I guess you could build that too, ie some sort of  
database sync/merge. I have never done this formally, but based on  
discussions and informal cost/benefit comparison... well... I guess it  
is enough to say that I'm still a skeptic. ;)


There are various commercial vendors doing this sort of thing. Most  
are aimed at having doing infrastructure for a centralized ASP-style  
environment, ie where there is one big application and people build or  
extend apps through web-based interfaces and everything lives on the  
server. The ultimate in lock-in, and an nice enabler of over- 
centralization (which I think most open source proponents realize the  
danger and downside of...). That's a good motivation for database  
driven business data structures, logic, screens, etc.


Anyway, the two commercial companies that come to mind who are doing  
things this way are Tenfold Software and Bungee Labs.


BTW, Compiere actually works more or less this way. Ie, things are  
heavily database-driven.


If you get to the point where you start looking at data modeling and  
the logic tier stuff, feel free to collaborate with us at OFBiz. More  
eyes on this stuff is always a good thing! Okay, well 98% of the  
time. ;)


-David



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE][RESULT] Graduate OFBiz Podling

[David E Jones]

Here are the results for this OFBiz Podling Graduation vote on this  
mailing list. Also below is the most recent copy of the board  
resolution draft, including changes based on feedback from Noel, etc.


+1 - 7 (Binding): Yoav Shapira, David N. Welton, J. Aaron Farr, Leo  
Simons, Robert Burrel Donkin, Davanum Srinivas, Noel Bergman

+1 - 2 (Non-binding): David E. Jones, Christian Geisert
+0 - 0
-1 - 0

Thanks again to everyone who have helped get OFBiz to this point. I  
have been very impressed with the activity and interest by many  
people throughout the incubation process and speaking for others who  
have been involved with OFBiz for years we are looking forward  
working more with and in the foundation.


-David

==
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software related to enterprise automation, for
distribution at no charge to the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
Committee (PMC), to be known as the The Apache Open For
Business Project (also known as Apache OFBiz), be and
hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation;
and be it further

RESOLVED, that The Apache Open For Business Project be and
hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of
a software project related to generic enterprise information
automation such as enterprise resource planning, customer
relationship management, materials requirements planning,
enterprise asset management, enterprise content management
and electronic commerce that can be used as a basis for
custom solutions, industry specific products, and other
higher level systems.

RESOLVED, that the office of Vice President, Open For
Business be and hereby is created, the person holding such
office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as
the chair of The Apache Open For Business Project, and to have
primary responsibility for management of the projects within
the scope of responsibility of The Apache Open For Business
Project; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of The
Apache Open For Business Project:

  * David E. Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Jacopo Cappellato  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Si Chen([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Andy Zeneski   ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Hans Bakker([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Al Byers   ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Yoav Shapira   ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * David Welton   ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that David E. Jones be
and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Open
For Business Project, to serve in accordance with and subject to
the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the
Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or
disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it
further

RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Open For Business Project be
and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of
the Apache Incubator Open For Business podling; and be it
further

RESOLVED, that all responsibility pertaining to the Apache
Incubator Open For Business podling encumbered upon the Apache
Incubator PMC are hereafter discharged.



On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:12 PM, David E Jones wrote:

The Apache Open For Business Project community has voted internally  
and agreed on readiness to graduate from the Apache Incubator based  
on the Incubator Policy exit guidelines here:


http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ 
Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting+the+Incubator


The vote passed with 8 binding +1 votes, 20 non-binding +1 votes,  
and no +0 or -1 votes.


My understand of what this vote means is that based on the  
incubator policy and what we learned through the process of getting  
a test snapshot release approved, as a PPMC we believe that OFBiz  
has now satisfied all requirements for graduation from the Apache  
Incubator and there are no outstanding issues related to this left  
to resolve.


Based on early discussion about OFBiz at the ASF (around the time  
OFBiz entered the incubator) the best place for the project seems  
to be as a top level project (TLP). This is a separate thing to  
vote on, so I mention it here for information purposes only.


As we understand it the next step in the process is to request a  
vote in the Incubator community to get graduation approval by the  
Incubator PMC. So, here we are...


Everyone is welcome to vote, and we appreciate the expression of  
support and interest, though the Incubator PMC member votes are the  
only binding ones.


Please cast your votes:

[ ] +1 Graduate OFBiz Podling
[ ] +0  Abstain
[ ] -1 Do not Graduate OFBiz Podling

For those reviewing the project there are URLs of resources with  
more

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

[David E Jones]

On Nov 22, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:


Hi,
I'm guessing we'll close this vote next Monday, after the long  
holiday weekend?


Because activity has slowed on this vote I was thinking of announcing  
the result today, but there is no hurry so Monday is fine.


-David



On 11/20/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

robert burrell donkin wrote:

 Apache OFBiz - The Open For Business Project
 (anyone see any issues with that?)

Not me.  As noted, my concern was regarding the Apache Open For  
Business
Project, particularly when used in out-of-context references.   
Even yours

can lend itself to that, but its seems a good compromise.

And Justin doesn't seem to have a problem with any of it, so ...  
shrug


--- Noel



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

[David E Jones]

On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:


The Apache Open For Business Project community has voted internally
and agreed on readiness to graduate from the Apache Incubator



The vote passed with 8 binding +1 votes


Those would be which ones?  I do not see 8 binding votes (yet).


I apologize for not providing more details on this. The thread can be  
seen here in the ofbiz-dev archives:


http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/ 
200611.mbox/thread?4


The people on the OFBiz PPMC who cast binding +1 votes are: Hans  
Bakker, Si Chen, Al Byers, Jacopo Cappellato, David Welton, Yoav  
Shapira, Andy Zeneski, and David Jones.




As for my own vote, -1 on a procedural basis:


Based on early discussion about OFBiz at the ASF (around the time
OFBiz entered the incubator) the best place for the project seems
to be as a top level project (TLP). This is a separate thing to
vote on, so I mention it here for information purposes only.


As has been discussed, the Incubator PMC would want to see the  
proposal that
is to be put before the Board, so please submit one, and I'll  
revise my

vote.

Otherwise, at first glance, things look pretty good.  The STATUS file
(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html) may or may not be  
entirely
accurate (I haven't cross-referenced the Committer list, for  
example), but

on the face of it, it is as complete as any I've seen lately.


My understanding based on the policy document is that the first step  
is to have the graduation accepted by the Incubator PMC, and then  
depending on where the podling will migrate to there are different  
steps to take after a Podling has successfully completed Incubation.


If I understand correctly what you are saying there is one more step  
to take before we seek an approval vote from the Incubator PMC,  
namely creating and submitting a proposal to the Incubator PMC that  
they will send to the Apache Board for the whole TLP thing.


What would this proposal look like? Is this the (or I guess it seems  
more part of the) recommendation or draft resolution mentioned here:


http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ 
Incubation_Policy.html#Migration+as+a+Top+Level+Project


I apologize for the questions and the omission, I've tried to look  
around a bit but I still feel like I'm flying blind...


-David



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

[David E Jones]

On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:


Hi,

On 11/14/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Those would be which ones?  I do not see 8 binding votes (yet).


The voting thread from ofbiz-dev@incubator.apache.org is available at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ofbiz-dev/ 
200611.mbox/browser


It's in the November 2006 archives, currently on page 5 within those
archives.  The thread subject is [VOTE] OFBiz Graduate from Apache
Incubator.  The binding votes are from David E. Jones, Hans Bakker, Si
Chen, Al Byers, Jacques Le Roux, Jacopo Cappellato, A. Zeneski, David
Welton (a mentor), and myself (also a mentor), for a total of 9 (not
8).


I counted 8 because Jacques was added as a committer during  
incubation and is not yet part of the PMC. I'm not entirely sure  
counting this way is correct, so I erred on the side of not including  
his vote because we had plenty of other votes for the internal  
podling approval.


-David


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] Graduate OFBiz Podling

[David E Jones]

The Apache Open For Business Project community has voted internally  
and agreed on readiness to graduate from the Apache Incubator based  
on the Incubator Policy exit guidelines here:


http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exiting 
+the+Incubator


The vote passed with 8 binding +1 votes, 20 non-binding +1 votes, and  
no +0 or -1 votes.


My understand of what this vote means is that based on the incubator  
policy and what we learned through the process of getting a test  
snapshot release approved, as a PPMC we believe that OFBiz has now  
satisfied all requirements for graduation from the Apache Incubator  
and there are no outstanding issues related to this left to resolve.


Based on early discussion about OFBiz at the ASF (around the time  
OFBiz entered the incubator) the best place for the project seems to  
be as a top level project (TLP). This is a separate thing to vote on,  
so I mention it here for information purposes only.


As we understand it the next step in the process is to request a vote  
in the Incubator community to get graduation approval by the  
Incubator PMC. So, here we are...


Everyone is welcome to vote, and we appreciate the expression of  
support and interest, though the Incubator PMC member votes are the  
only binding ones.


Please cast your votes:

[ ] +1 Graduate OFBiz Podling
[ ] +0  Abstain
[ ] -1 Do not Graduate OFBiz Podling

For those reviewing the project there are URLs of resources with more  
information about it below.


-David


The project status page is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/ofbiz.html

The project web site home page is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ofbiz/

For information about the Test Snapshot 5 Release, including download  
links, see:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Incubating+4.0.0 
+Test+Snapshot+Release



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE][RESULT] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5

[David E Jones]

The vote for the OFBiz podling Test Snapshot Release 4.0.0 TS5 has  
passed:


+1: 3: Robert Burrell Donkin, Yoav Shapira, David Welton
+0: 0
-1: 0

Being a Test Snapshot release we don't plan to market this  
publicly, so we plan to end the process for this release with the  
result of this vote. The main purpose was to review legal artifacts  
and the general release preparation process (and signing/checksum  
artifacts). We plan to do a real release once the incubation is  
complete (ie OFBiz graduates), and that will be a community supported  
release with a branch and so on.


Thanks again for Robert Donkin for his thorough review of all of this  
and help getting things cleaned up.


-David


On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:20 PM, David E Jones wrote:



The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus  
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are  
now requesting a vote for review and approval from the general  
Incubator group and the Incubator PMC.


The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of test  
snapshot release, and it appears from recent conversations that  
this will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing  
graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable  
exercise and through these 5 tries we have made significant  
improvements to the legal and other aspects of OFBiz and eventual  
releases. You'll recognize most of this from the similar message I  
sent on September 22nd for our TS3. Thanks to feedback from various  
people (especially Robert Burrell Duncan and the RAT tool) we have  
corrected many license header issues and fleshed out the NOTICE  
file, which are now both hopefully up to par.


The intent of this release is not to be something that will be  
maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there  
is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot  
release was to create an initial release process and make sure that  
all of the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes:


- all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers)
- no remaining old copyright notices or headers
- NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place
- test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each
- put README file and other such things in place to make it  
(hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB


Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot  
experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after  
graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time  
and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are  
not the intents of this test snapshot release.


The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org  
account, see the links below for detailed locations.


-David

http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc


http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5

[David E Jones]

On Nov 7, 2006, at 12:40 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:


On 11/7/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

 On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip


I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I
think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle
it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files
and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet.
This way we can refer to them, but not include them.

Would that solve the problem?


probably

IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the
medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license)


 ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so
 this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example,  
this

 means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository.

 do you intend to ban distribution by maven?

I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't
considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/
server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just
an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz.

For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include
the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just
changing the ant scripts.


yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE
and LICENSE files


Thanks for the feedback. The OFBiz build files now all copy the  
NOTICE and LICENSE files into the META-INF directory for each jar.  
So, from now on all OFBiz jar files will include the NOTICE and  
LICENSE files to make their (re)distribution more flexible.



On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for
this Test Snapshot release?


possibly

AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses
but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the
LICENSE file.

apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing
redistributable binary components which are not open source but does
not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult
corner case. much better to create clean room implementations.

since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial
legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that
this issue is resolved before graduation.


In the case of all of these DTD/XSD files they are not frequently  
used in OFBiz and after a bit of research I was able to get all  
existing XML files pointing to files available over the internet  
instead of from/though OFBiz. I don't think this will become much of  
an issue in terms of inconvenience or making things inflexible, and  
in a way it is nice to have one less thing to keep track of in the  
resources we manage and host. So yes, these files are now removed  
from SVN and there are README files in place to describe where the  
files can be obtained, and the XML files that use them point to the  
public locations.



I've notice that no one else has really
voted on it yet.


that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy
which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's
still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations.


From my own experience I totally understand and there is certainly  
no hurry on this. We'd all like to see this finished up of course and  
will be happy to do whatever we can to smooth out the process. I know  
that OFBiz is fairly large will require a good bit of time from  
anyone who reviews it.


I think this wraps up these new issues that Robert identified so that  
once this or another Test Snapshot is approved we won't have these  
delaying the OFBiz graduation.


-David



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5

[David E Jones]

On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:


On 11/2/06, David E Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator
group and the Incubator PMC.


+0 ATM (i have a couple of questions)

important notes
--

(please read but IMHO action is not required for this release)

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/applications/ 
pos/dtd/jcl.dtd

is CPL'd. note that under this draft
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html distribution would not be
allowed. this is draft policy ATM. may need to either create a clean
room implementation or raise issue on legal-discuss.

queries
-

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd

may not be under an open source compatible license (note that
modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not
restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used
are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that
a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under
the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker
than untangling the legal issues. same goes for
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd
and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd


would this be possible?


I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I  
think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle  
it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files  
and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet.  
This way we can refer to them, but not include them.


Would that solve the problem?


ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so
this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this
means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository.

do you intend to ban distribution by maven?


I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't  
considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ 
server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just  
an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz.


For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include  
the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just  
changing the ant scripts.


On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for  
this Test Snapshot release? I've notice that no one else has really  
voted on it yet.


-David



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How to get a source OFBiz release WAS: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5

[David E Jones]

Robert, others interested,

I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going  
forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used  
for a project like OFBiz. Still, if there is any demand for it then I  
agree we should do it.


However we go in the future, this would be a good thing to include in  
our Test Snapshot process, so I've added src distribution files for  
this release.


They are listed on the release page here:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/wAE

For convenience I'll including the URLs below as well.

Thanks again to everyone for reviewing this and for help in moving  
OFBiz through the incubation process.


-David

http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.zip
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating- 
src-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5




On Nov 4, 2006, at 5:20 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:


On 11/2/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi all,


hi Jacopo


based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a
pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are  
already

set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can
take up to 20 minutes (with slower hardware) to build the whole  
project

from scratch and this could waste too much of your (and that of the
persons that just want to give a look at it) time.


i think some confusion has arisen over the terms we use.

in apache terms, a source distribution is a plain export from the
source repository whereas a binary distribution is anything else. lots
of projects here ship binary releases with source in: just because a
release contains some source it doesn't make it a source distribution

binary distributions are mainly for the convenience of users.

source distributions target other audiences including (potential)
developers, downstream packagers and archivists. they are quick and
easy to create (all the release manager needs to do is export the tag
and compress) so it's recommended that source distributions are
produced for each release as well as any binaries.


However, if you want to play with a clean source distribution (for
example, if you want to run the RAT tool etc...), just run the
clean-all ant script: all the objects and the db will be removed.


run RAT against binary and source distributions of a release but not
very many binary checks have been automated yet.

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS5

[David E Jones]

The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus  
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now  
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator  
group and the Incubator PMC.


The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of test  
snapshot release, and it appears from recent conversations that this  
will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing  
graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable exercise  
and through these 5 tries we have made significant improvements to  
the legal and other aspects of OFBiz and eventual releases. You'll  
recognize most of this from the similar message I sent on September  
22nd for our TS3. Thanks to feedback from various people (especially  
Robert Burrell Duncan and the RAT tool) we have corrected many  
license header issues and fleshed out the NOTICE file, which are now  
both hopefully up to par.


The intent of this release is not to be something that will be  
maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there  
is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot release  
was to create an initial release process and make sure that all of  
the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes:


- all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers)
- no remaining old copyright notices or headers
- NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place
- test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each
- put README file and other such things in place to make it  
(hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB


Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot  
experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after  
graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time  
and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are not  
the intents of this test snapshot release.


The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org  
account, see the links below for detailed locations.


-David

http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.zip.asc


http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS5.tgz.asc




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OFBiz: we need help to complete the NOTICE and LICENSE files

[David E Jones]

On Oct 20, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Leo Simons wrote:

I think this looks good, too. However, it has some content at the  
bottom:


***
Apache 2.0
***
...
***
JDBM LICENSE v1.00 (BSD)
***

which I guess can be removed.


Thanks for the feedback Leo. I just committed a change to the NOTICE  
file to remove this section. It is available at the same place:


http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE

With these basic entries in place, if I understand it right, the next  
step for the NOTICE file is to go through all of the NOTICE files of  
libraries and such and we include, and to more or less copy their  
contents into our NOTICE file.


Is that correct?

Thanks,
-David


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3

[David E Jones]

I've done another pass on the LICENSE file to hopefully address this  
problem, but I'm not really sure that I understood exactly what it  
needs to look like, so feedback on this would be great.


The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE

Thanks,
-David


On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:


On 9/25/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There's one important gotcha:
- the NOTICE file has information on the licenses of various third
party jars, which in some cases are not a subset of ALv2, even if
compatible. I believe that info should go into the LICENSE file; but
can't find an authortive reference on our website right now. Cliff,
Robert? This is important because the notice file cannot modify the
terms of the LICENSE that are supposed to apply to the work as a
whole, whereas obviously a LICENSE file can modify LICENSE terms.


That is correct.  LICENSE should be the collection of all licenses
that file is under.  See:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/NOTICE

HTH.  -- justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3

[David E Jones]

On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

NOTICE should not have the list of licenses that apply - that's for  
the

LICENSE file.

NOTICE should contain any required informational notices required  
by those
licenses.  For example, JDBM (the last entry in LICENSE) requires  
in Clause

5 that 'due credit should be given to the JDBM Project (
http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/)'.  That's the type of entry that goes in
NOTICE.

HTH.  -- justin


Okay, I think I'm starting to see the distinction. I moved the  
library list to the LICENSE file (not sure if it's needed there, but  
it doesn't seem to be needed/appropriate in the NOTICE file.


I also started a section in the NOTICE file for the actual notices. I  
threw in the JDBM notice at the bottom and left the place holders for  
each other license as we determine which licenses do and don't  
require such notices.


From the license text it is hard to tell... Many of them do require  
copyright notices or headers in source files or inclusion of the  
license text, but if I'm understanding right none of those concerns  
the NOTICE file, but rather the LICENSE file and the various source  
files under those licenses.


The AL2 license mentions the notice file specifically, and sounds  
like we need to go through ALL libraries we include and copy the  
contents of their NOTICE files to our NOTICE file... Is that correct?


For other licenses are there any phrases to watch out for, or is  
there a list of license compliance guidelines in any of the ASF  
documentation?


The updated LICENSE and NOTICE files are available here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/NOTICE

-David


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3

[David E Jones]

On Sep 28, 2006, at 8:05 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:


On 9/28/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Robert,

I'm one of the OFBiz committers and I'd like to thank you for your  
great
scrutiny: this is very helpful and we are currently working to fix  
all the

issues that you (and others in this list) have found.

Please see my comments inline:

robert burrell donkin wrote:

 ***IMPORTANT***
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionClientSocketFactory.java,
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionInputStream.java
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionOutputStream.java,
 framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionServerSocketFactory.java,
 framework/service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionSocket.java,
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionServerSocket.java
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ 
service/src/org/ofbiz/service/rmi/socket/zip/ 
CompressionConstants.java


 do not appear to be licensed under an OSI compliant license. IMO  
the

 terms are badly drafted and discriminate against the profession or
 vocation of comedian (no laughing matter ;-) basically anyone using
 the software must agree not to use the software to make fun of sun.
 but IANAL and this needs to be raised on legal-discuss.


We are currently working on this.


you may want to hold off doing anything about this for a few days


Any reason for this? We discussed it internally and it turns out  
these files are not used by default, and while might be useful for  
some are certainly not necessary in OFBiz and if someone did need  
them they could still get them, just not from us automatically... ;)


-David


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] OFBiz Test Snapshot Release: 4.0.0 TS3

[David E Jones]

The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus  
internally approving the 4.0.0 TS3 test snapshot release. We are now  
requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator  
group and the Incubator PMC.


The current incubation docs recommend doing this sort of test  
snapshot release, and it appears from recent conversations that this  
will most likely soon be required for all podlings nearing  
graduation. Based on our experience this has been a valuable exercise  
and it actually took us 3 tries to get to one internally approved in  
the podling community.


The intent of this release is not to be something that will be  
maintained over time or used be end-users of the project, and there  
is no branch for it in SVN. Our goal with this test snapshot release  
was to create an initial release process and make sure that all of  
the artifacts are in place as needed. This includes:


- all license headers and copyright notices in place (ASL2 headers)
- no remaining old copyright notices or headers
- NOTICE, LICENSE, KEYS, et cetera files in place
- test proper zip and tgz files, plus the md5 and asc files for each
- put README file and other such things in place to make it  
(hopefully) easy for an end user to run OOTB


Based on what has been established as part of this test snapshot  
experience we plan to do a real release (version 4.0.0) after  
graduation with a branch and such that will be maintained over time  
and that is meant to be used by end-users, but those (again) are not  
the intents of this test snapshot release.


The files for the release are available in my people.apache.org  
account, see the links below for detailed locations. There is also a  
wiki page describing the test snapshot release here:


http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/wAE

The wiki page for the proposed OFBiz release plan is here:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/1wE

-David

http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.zip.asc


http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz-incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz.md5
http://people.apache.org/~jonesde/apache-ofbiz- 
incubating-4.0.0.TS3.tgz.asc



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OFBiz - next steps

[David E. Jones]

On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:26 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:


On 2/13/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

J Aaron,

thanks for your feedback.
Sorry but I still have some doubts about this:

if a guy signs an iCLA in which he states that he agrees to release
under the ASL all the work (present and future) that he sends to  
the ASF
(thru mailing lists, Jira, SVN etc...), in which way this  
agreement will

address the work that the guy did and donated in the past under a
different licence and to a different project/community?


Incubating OFBiz = present contribution.

For former contributors, the purpose of the iCLA is to cover this
current contribution to the Incubator.  While the contribution may be
in the past as far as OFBiz is concerned, it's in the present as far
as the ASF is concerned.  In other words, the contributor is
re-contributing the code as part of the incubation grant.


Yes, this makes sense. We are basically getting together as a big  
group of people who have written things for OFBiz and contributing  
them all to the ASF. This is the only way to do it as technically no  
single entity owns all of the OFBiz code.


As far as picking on the term present goes it could be interpreted  
as the initial code contribution as J Aaron described, or the way I  
was thinking of it was that technically in licensing there is no  
past it is the present state of the work or a particular state of  
the work that is of concern.


-David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFBiz - next steps

[David E. Jones]

On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:


Hi all,

I have a question for you: what is the iCLA template we should  
collect from the OFBiz's contributors? The one here:


http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt

?

If so, maybe I'm wrong but... I don't see how this document will  
address the change from a BSD to ASL license since it clearly  
states that the CLA is for present and future Contributions  
submitted to the (Apache Software) Foundation.


Am I missing something?


I don't know if those words have any loaded meanings from a legal  
perspective, but I think present would include past contributions  
in the sense that at present they are part of the code base.


Or perhaps that isn't a safe way of looking at it?

-David




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFBiz - next steps

[David E. Jones]

Okay, I think this thread is clearing up the issues pretty well. The  
iCLA is the most important part in this case, and will be much easier  
to get through with everyone than a license grant.


Technically The Open For Business Project is a legal entity, but it  
doesn't really own any of the code as it has never had any money or  
paid anyone to write anything. Everything is a contribution from an  
individual (sometimes working for a company) and so we (contributors  
to OFBiz) will all need to submit an iCLA and perhaps in certain  
cases a cCLA.


We'll get going on the list and start sending out requests...

-David


On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:



On 08.02.2006 09:48:39 Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

On 2/7/06, David E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that
would necessitate a license grant document?


You would just need a CLA not a software grant form for each  
contributor.


That seems contradictory to what the IP clearance page says. Now I'm
totally confused because that would mean we don't need that complex
process of getting the software grant together for that contribution
we're planning to integrate in Apache FOP because we have ICLAs on  
file

for all three contributors.



The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that
says I/We own this software and we are granting it to
the ASF. So unless there is a legal entity that owns
the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to
relicense it.

In that case, each person who ever committed a line of
code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches
(and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the
complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFBiz - next steps

[David E. Jones]

On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:


Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright
to some part of the work.  So, it is those people who have contributed
functionality greater than a simple bug fix.

OTOH, the mentors should be aware that, because this work is already
licensed under BSD terms, there is no LEGAL risk to the foundation if
we can't get all the signatures -- those remaining are simply  
considered
reuse of BSD-licensed code.  However, we still want the CLAs for  
social

reasons and to confirm that moving the contributions to Apache License
is a voluntary act.  Also, it reduces the vulnerability of the  
original

OFBiz group if we obtain this permission now, while their contributors
are still in the mood.


I guess we'll start with everyone that has been a committer or who  
has submitted a patch. For OFBiz this will be a fairly large list,  
I'm guessing around 100-200 people. Some of these have not been  
involved for a long time as people have been involved on and off over  
the nearly 5 years of the project so far. I guess once we get down  
the road a bit and find out who we can't get in contact with or who  
won't sign an iCLA we can decide how to resolve those issues...


-David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFBiz - next steps

[David E. Jones]

On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:04 AM, David N. Welton wrote:


*) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here,
/incubator/site-author/ip-clearance.  I'll try and get that done over
the weekend.


I have some questions specific to the IP clearance issue for OFBiz. I  
looked at the legal-discuss mailing list, but it appears to only be  
open to committers. I have my iCLA on its way, though I'm not sure  
how long that takes and if I should wait for that to ask this question.


The main question is that while one of the strengths of OFBiz is that  
there is a good community made up of a number of people and a LOT of  
people (dozens) who have contributed code to the project, but that  
also means that if I understand it right the initial license grant is  
somewhat tricky...


The main resources I've found for the license grant are:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html

Under the MIT license we have been using there is no assignment or  
granting of copyright. All of the code is licensed under the MIT  
license, and the copyright everywhere is listed under The Open For  
Business Project. I don't know if this is an issue or not as the  
Apache license doesn't involve ownership of copyright, just a use
license grant and such. Do we need to get any sort of license grant  
from other contributors? Under the MIT license terms we can add a  
license to it, but not remove that license, but if read literally the  
license comes from The Open For Business Project. So, I guess I'm  
not sure what we really need in this area...


Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that  
would necessitate a license grant document?


I guess one way or another we need to go through the commits and pick  
out who we need to get a document signed by. Before getting started  
with this we made sure that all current contributors were okay with  
it, but it is sounding more and more like the group of people who  
need to sign over a license grant for OFBiz may be pretty large...


So, it is clear that all current committers and those who have  
contributed larger chunks of code need to sign and submit a license  
grant, but I'm wondering where we can (or need to) draw the line...  
For example, if someone submits a patch and we apply it, do we need  
to get a license grant from that person no matter the size of the patch?


If this is better to put and discuss on the legal-discuss list just  
let me know and I'll do what is needed to get on that list, or  
perhaps David, Yoav, or J. Aaron could help with this.


-David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [VOTE] OFBiz Proposal

[David E. Jones]

On Jan 24, 2006, at 8:44 PM, J Aaron Farr wrote:


http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OFBizProposal

= OFBiz Proposal =


+1 (non-binding)

I'm obviously a little biased on this because of my involvement in  
OFBiz and not sure if my vote is even appropriate, but I wanted to  
make sure everyone knew that I am still very much behind this  
proposal from the OFBiz side.


-David




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFBiz Marketing and Services

[David E. Jones]

This isn't a problem at all. That is an area that we have tried to  
make more clear over time, ie that Undersun does not own nor have any  
exclusive relationship with the OFBiz project. This is actually one  
thing that I really like about the potential OFBiz/ASF relationship:  
it clarifies this separation.


In the past the only reason we have charged something and had certain  
requirements for being listed was to make the list more useful to  
consumers of the list (ie a smidgeon of quality control), but this  
really isn't much and I have no problem with removing the money  
requirement and revising any other requirements (or perhaps make them  
more guidelines or something), and of course through SVN make it  
possible for others in the core committer group to be able to modify  
it as needed.


I appreciate the feedback and agree that this is a page that needs to  
have some changes. That may be true of other pages, and perhaps the  
layout and such of the ofbiz.org site in general, and if so that's  
fine (it's needs some beautifying and reorganization in certain areas  
anyway...). In a way I'd also like to make some very clear changes to  
the site as we go through the incubation process to make it clear  
that while our approach has been pretty similar to the ASF philosophy  
in the past, we are very serious and public about moving even more  
(and all the way) in that direction.


This might be better as a general discussion or a discussion for  
another board/list, but has a more structured service/product/etc  
provider database ever been considered for Apache in general? We have  
considered this in the past for OFBiz to have better information  
maintained by the companies/individuals themselves to show the areas  
of expertise, live sites or clients they have worked with,  
relationship and contributions to various projects, and so on.


-David


On Jan 19, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:


Hola,
Sure, but J Aaron already beat me to it ;)

One other decent page not included in his post is
http://www.apache.org/info/support.cgi of HTTP support providers.  The
text at the top is good.

This is not a high bar: OFBiz won't have a problem meeting it before
it goes out of incubation I think...

Yoav

On 1/19/06, Si Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Yoav,

Can you provide us with an example of a good services provider page
from some other Apache projects?

Si

Yoav Shapira wrote:


Hola,
IMHO, as long as no one provider is preferred over another, the
current stuff is not a problem.  If you list one provider of
commercial services related to Apache Foo, you should list other
competing providers if/when they request to be listed on the same
page.

Yoav

On 1/19/06, Al Byers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



J Aaron,

As one of the committers, I would have no problem have any  
reference to my

company removed, if that is necessary for the process to continue.

But I wonder if there is not a bigger aspect to this whole  
thing. I see your
remarks about ASF encouraging commercial efforts, but OFBiz is  
significantly
different in this regard. As has been mentioned earlier, up  
until this time
ASF products have mostly been tool oriented. With OFBiz, ASF  
will be
offering a product that is ready for businesses to plug in with  
very little
effort - adding a huge new market for its services. No longer  
need its
client-base be programmers only. Of course, I want to also  
restate that

OFBiz is both a programming framework and set of end-user modules.

The big service that ASF offers is to provide quality tools and  
products for
free. This is very important for small businesses and developing  
economies.
With OFBiz, it would be greatly expanding its value to these  
sectors and I
wonder if some good PR could come of it - if ASF makes an  
announcement that

it is moving to more directly benefit SMB/Es, etc.

-Al Byers







--
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal for OFBiz to Join the ASF

[David E. Jones]

On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:57 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:


This proposal has caught my interest.  I'd be willing to help mentor.


That would be great. I've been skimming through the policy emails  
that have been on this list for the last few days and it's sounding  
like 3 mentors is something that would be a good thing. For the  
reason you mentioned (below) and others having a good group of  
mentors will likely be pretty important for a project like OFBiz.



A couple of points:

The proposal says that this project is to be sponsored by the ASF
Board.  Is that correct?  Did the Board already +1 on or are we still
searching for a sponsoring entity?


As I understand it in order to become a top level project the Board  
must be the sponsor, which is why the proposal was written that way.  
We did send a this proposal to the board mailing list and as far as I  
know there hasn't been a +1 from the Board yet, but they said the  
proposal should initially be sent here to the general incubator list.  
I guess after it has been discussed here in order to go forward as  
proposed approval and acceptance from the board will be required (or  
maybe not?).



Apache has generally stayed away from end user applications and
instead focuses on infrastructure and middleware.  That's not
completey true, but is a good rule of thumb.  For example, a lot of
contributors and supporters of the ASF use our code to create
ecommerce products.  I'm a little worried that some may view this
proposal as the ASF attempting to compete with these contributors.


Yes, this was one of my initial concerns and probably why I never  
really thought of the option before (even though I like the Apache  
way of doing things and about a year ago we started looking into  
changing the OFBiz license from MIT to Apache 2.0). This does seem to  
be a bit of a new direction for Apache, though in a way it is just  
going another level or two up a stack that various Apache projects  
have been progressing up over time.


In general where I see OFBiz fitting in the world is not so much an  
out of the box use piece of software anyway. Some companies  
certainly can and choose to use it this way, but for the most part it  
is a starting point for customized software for internal use within a  
company or even commercial or open source derivative works. These  
typically have a more specifically defined scope, like a particular  
industry or type of company. Doing things in this way makes software  
projects and products possible that wouldn't be otherwise, just as  
lower level (infrastructure, middleware, etc) open source components  
do though at a different level. OFBiz has a framework oriented for  
data and service driven enterprise apps and a data model, set of  
services, and set of generic user interfaces that can be used in some  
cases as it though in most cases just as artifacts that can be reused  
in other projects.


Not that this wouldn't compete with other commercial and even open  
source efforts, but hopefully this short description makes it more  
clear how I see OFBiz fitting in the world. For those who have home  
grown ecommerce and other enterprise systems (CRM, ERP, and so on)  
for either internal or commercial use, perhaps we can help them out  
by allowing them to share lower level data model and service and  
possibly even UI artifacts and therefore focus on higher level more  
differentiating things. In the end it is the end-users who benefit  
most from this, as is the case with most open source software, and so  
it is from the edge (end users) that most of this is driven and  
service and product providers have a new option to either cooperate  
or compete, but either way they will have to explain their choice and  
direction to their clients, and there is no universal principal that  
says that in all cases one is really better or worse than the other...


One way or another I guess bringing in a project like OFBiz does  
perhaps expand the scope, especially the publicly perceived scope, of  
the ASF. In a way this is a validation of the ASF model and this type  
of licensing and community interaction in general. It shows that  
these things apply to lots of different types of software and not  
just the more common and established perception of open source  
software in operating systems, server infrastructure (web, mail,  
other servers), middleware, databases, etc.


-David



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal for OFBiz to Join the ASF

[David E. Jones]

On Jan 12, 2006, at 1:25 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:


There IS a conceptual and code-level separation between the OFBiz
framework and components built on top of it, but I think it makes a
nice cohesive project together.  It's sort of like if Tomcat and
Struts were under the same umbrella: not necessary, but not hurtful as
long as people can independently download, use, develop, and
contribute to either layer.  My understanding is the OFBiz has always
been like that, which is good.


Just a quick comment on this to save people reading in having to dig  
stuff up... We have been working more and more toward a separation of  
the framework and the applications. It has always been possible,  
though for some situations not real easy, to use specific tools in  
the framework and such, so the direction we are working toward is to  
have perhaps even separate releases for the framework and the  
applications. If you look in the OFBiz SVN repository the  
applications part is the applications directory and the framework  
is everything else. Oh, well, except the specialized directory  
which is sort of growing into a commons type of area for people  
working on specific open source extensions to OFBiz.


So, anyway, the framework release would include all of the tools, the  
example component (with entity defs, service defs and  
implementations, and UI level artifacts for an example UI following  
certain best practices patterns), and the only other webapp would be  
the webtools component which has a UI for various framework related  
or more technical tools that can be used while the server is running  
(like cache viewing/stats/maintenance, and UIs related to framework  
components like the Service Engine, Entity Engine, Workflow Engine,  
Data File Tool, etc).


In another email the applications were described as kind of the  
ultimate example of how to use the framework for real world business  
problems, and that is a good way of looking at it and one way of  
using these parts of OFBiz.


It may not happen right away as we work on getting OFBiz into Apache,  
but eventually these are some of various distinct sub-projects  
mentioned in the proposal that could go under a top level OFBiz project.


-David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Proposal for OFBiz to Join the ASF

[David E. Jones]

On Jan 12, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:


On Friday 13 January 2006 04:27, David E. Jones wrote:

As I understand it in order to become a top level project the Board
must be the sponsor, which is why the proposal was written that way.


That is a misconception. For projects targetting top-level, EITHER  
the Board

or the Incubator PMC must sponsor.
Board doesn't like to sponsor, and do so only in exceptional cases.  
So the
Incubator PMC is the right folks to address. (And probably why you  
get the

What is this doing here? response from the Board.)


Yes, that would explain it... I'll adjust our proposal to mention  
both as options.


So, I guess the most likely and preferred option is the Incubator  
PMC, so we'll hope for more comments from PMC members. I just read  
through the Incubator PMC list and it looks like Yoav Shapira is on  
it, which is great since he was interested in this early on and has  
volunteered to champion this proposal.



Anyway.
I am also quite intrigued by this proposal. OFBiz has been on my  
radar for

quite a few years, but never got into any active work I am doing.

However, I am currently working on a competing product which I  
think would
benefit from being based on something like OFBiz instead of all in- 
house
development. I think the company in question would also benefit is  
some of

the generic stuff is pushed out into OFBiz, to lower the man power
requirement. After all, this company doesn't sell the underlying  
technology,
they sell the end-user system, totally customized for a particular  
company.


I am in favour of bringing this to ASF, and would also like to  
assist in the

incubation process.


Thank you for your comments. It's great to see interest and support  
for moving in this direction.


-David



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature