Re: [VOTE] Retire ODF Toolkit
On 11/18/18 8:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > 7.5 years in the Incubator is long enough. This is at least their second, and possibly their third attempt at retirement. Let them retire in peace. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Affiliation vs. individual
On 11/04/2017 06:31 PM, Gunnar Tapper wrote: > company name involved. I don't know if it's a large problem but it's a bit > of a contradiction to operate as an individual just to involve your employer > in some of the ASF processes. It all depends upon the specific wording of one's contract with one's employer. Corporate culture provides only a rough guidelines. In the contracts I've seen, the scope has ranged from: * only the same type of work, using the same type of tools, as used for the job; through * all content, theories, and inventions created by the individual, regardless of the position with the company, or anything else; By way of example, the first company doesn't care if an advertising rep writes computer software in their time away from work. They will care, if the individual creates an advertising/marketing plan for another organisation. Likewise, they won't care if a staff programmer creates a marketing campaign for a third party in their free time, but they will care if that programmer starts writing code for third parties. The second company will come down as hard on a janitor who creates an advertising/marketing plan in their free time, as they will on a programming writing code for another party in their free time, as they will on a receptionist who writes books in their spare time. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)
Alex wrote: >sounds like PMCs are not empowrd to make a judgement call gere. >Here are two cases: Can anybody do the grunt work/due diligence in obtaining permission/authorization/whatever for ASF clearence, or is that function limted to current/former members of the community the cde originatedat/from? jonathon -- MultilingualODF Support - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer
On 06/04/15 17:05, James Carman wrote: I would love to help out. I don't know much about the problem domain, but I am a sciency kind of guy. Mentors don't need to know the problem domain. The most important quality of a mentor is outstanding communication skills. The second most important quality is knowing when to be diplomatic, and when not to be diplomatic. The third most important qualities are: * How to anticipate potential issues; * How to solve problems; * How to resolve points of difference; * How to guide a group into following _The Apache Way_; * Teaching the project how to solve problems; The legacy of a good mentor, is a project that anticipates potential issues, and solves them, without ever realizing that they have done so. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ASFIncubator now managed via TweetDeck
On 31/03/15 03:08, David Nalley wrote: the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see two alternatives here: * ASF Infra team collectively owns it * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it Neither IMO. Infra doesn't want it ... And burdening Sally, Jim, Joe, etc with scores of projects credentials isn't going to scale well. My impression was that Roman was implicitly suggesting that there be _one_ account/person somewhere with the Apache Software Foundation structure, that would have ultimate command and control of _all_ Twitter, and other social media accounts. This individual would _not_ be responsible for day-to-day activities, but rather, serve as: * an all points backup; * Single point of contact to find out who to contact regarding a specific Social Media account associated with either the Apache Software Foundation, or an Apache project. My thinking is an email account along the lines of social_media_direc...@apache.org, which either automatically forwards incoming email to the appropriate party, or lets email sit in a queue until a human looks at it. (Procmail recipes could forward/respond appropriately to at least 70% of the inbound emails, before doing any tweaking.) Where needed, a similar account on the specific social media platform could also be created. (For example, on Twitter, it would be ASF_Social_Media_Director.) I don't know where in the ASF hierarchy this position should be, though. Something along the lines of pr...@apache.org, but with the requirement of Marketing, Public Relations, and VP to approve everything that goes out/gets forwarded. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On 26/03/15 16:36, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: the project. What I was looking for is a more general statement along the lines of what Benson has provided earlier on this thread, but coming from a VP of legal. This is for the purposes of documenting it for future projects coming to ASF. From where I'm sitting, I think that the best legal can do is say: For Groovy, a general signoff on behalf of the Groovy Community is sufficient, but the ideal is for the major contributors to Groovy, and the initial committers to the Apache project, and the Groovy Core Team, and any other stake holders to also signoff on the transfer. Groovy has used AL 2.0 since 2003. That means a decade of code that is AL 2.0 licensed. A license that more or less allows The Apache Foundation to foster the code, regardless of the committers preferences. (The Apache Way considers the committer's preferences to be primary, but even in an adversarial situation, The Apache Foundation would not be in breach of the license.) That scenario is a whole different ball game from a project that had no legal organizational structure ^1 and had changed the license from GPL 3.0 to AL 2.0 less than six months before the project applied to The Apache Foundation as an incubator project. Both of those are different from an organization that had a legal structure, and changed the license from GPL 3.0 to AL 2.0 less than one month before the project applied to The Apache Foundation as an incubator project. In terms of documenting things for future projects coming to ASF, then what is needed is: # Specific project. @ What license it was under prior to applying for incubation: % How long it had used that license for; % Previous licenses that the code was distributed under; @ How the project was governed: % Legal organizational structure, if any; % Informal structure; @ Source Code: % How it was contributed; % How it was merged into the project; % Formal requirements, prior to accepting code; % Informal requirements, prior to accepting code; % How code becomes orphaned; % How contributed code is rejected; % How contributed code is accepted; @ What combination of ICLA, CCLA, and SGA was used: % Formal statements from Legal about the specific transfer; % informal statements from Legal about the specific transfer; I've probably missed a couple of important datapoints. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. ^1: By legal organizational structure, I mean an organization that has no paperwork saying it is incorporated. Government issued paperwork that says Unincorporated Non-Profit Organization, is a legal organizational structure, albeit rare, and poorly understood. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Groovy into the Apache Incubator
On 23/03/15 19:04, Cédric Champeau wrote: Awesome! Thanks everyone! Now we rely on our champion and mentors to help us get started :) This is when things start to get really interesting. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 14/01/15 19:37, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: What would be more useful and more easily digested is a general top level opaque metric, e.g. 55% of the mentors signed off on reports, and then for each podling a similar metric. If naming names is important, then list those who signed off on one, or more reports. Where I start having concerns, is if a mentor consistently skipped one or more reports. Rephrased, a mentor has five projects to mentor, and consistently signs off on only two or three of them, especially if they are same podlings, each month. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUtwr3AAoJEE1PKy9+kxpljDsQALllVJRv/I4Fu5F3Bw9Bq8oo WtXbNMk/YcERYv8Zts2TjCUdzqbqPhCXXWRPY9bwYow13vlTvWTfGVs3YHWgxeW6 RAYFtGAON/P52fmHKDJDRx34rm0L3YPYJXCfeR4r92sQzcYW+5tN+yTgUcVXiARu wruI6HDafqWtcVGyM7/cbu30SHC9r1CP4ILbyYSwYpQlM95HWGVu6G2v2lb6Zk9a fr/lCOJTfbX6Uw4T/+US+AD/xZLF9va7chE376eBicSW0dYoiCfPZse6N12xKXQd R++xGBgXV+l43TMl3COIDVyuTtuygoxS1lp0CAY8kA741od620hsI1ogzQvnPyEh zaHdENgKTWYMTR6bqvCGfJ/h9G1NsbHAsUNx5yuz+jS2nhSm3DTy4I4ZWBHFRus+ NEKRGgsacSCL99nh0Jp6tfQ8Lr/PEJamR3Nor91J/Q3yv3Id8ru+Yfj/FX0K5UCj 0WZl9evW/H9SZQM0qdz3XMOj8P9oJad+3zVYTCBJN8d1Afk3tnnYt4B6G3rJCtfD ll6XRelTgkqP8LvP0+VJgJdygQ7O/Zu6YzDoZi8FreqFCcx1wRGnl3ZAz5NIPYx/ cj9ZUxwHfHqAB2uEjFsnhtdh4KIsCcTCW1upvtHaGXNP/c921SVBeobjWVxECDTK 0+IgusJAPRcqX/LtfF3p =XiJF -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: P. An Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand
On 23/12/14 22:25, Ted Dunning wrote: I think that the time was well spent, but one of the three mentors was total AWOL during this process. Being absent during crucial discussions If a mentor can't show up at the beginning of the project, when things are being discussed, why is s/he a mentor in the first place? I can sympathize with the mentor that starts out, genuinely useful to a podling, but after several months, suffers side-effects from life, and consequently has to limit their interaction with the podling. it isn't politic to ask a high profile mentor to recuse themselves for lack of helping. Unless I've completely misunderstood The Apache Way, a mentor that doesn't help, and does not recuse themselves, is a mentor that is demonstrating their despoilment of The Apache Way. As such, they should be thrown off the list of mentors, regardless of the political consequences. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dashboarding incubator
On 23/11/14 20:41, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Metrics do not provide this information, and indeed can detract from the community health issues. In looking at http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-cloudstack/browser/, I'm wondering if any meaningful metrics can be provided. Take for example, Mailing List metrics. 1,690 thread initiators 1,467 first replies 1,973 participants; Does that mean almost 10% of the threads did not receive a response? Or, as is more likely, those are part of existing threads, but due to defective email clients, appear to be new threads? My point is that while some metrics can provide indicators of something that needs looking into we need to ensure that the metrics do not become more important than community health. +1 Going back to that Mailing List metric, is it useful to know that roughly 1.4 people participate in each thread, when those metrics give no indication of whether or not the responses help the person initiating the thread? The danger I see is that providing official metrics a) provides a level of authority to the metrics which most newcomers are ill-equipped to evaluate an b) could lead to shortcut rules like the metrics must show there is X level of diversity/activity/volume/foobar replacing proper evaluation of the project and its community. Using user support for Apache OpenOffice as an example. My sense is that the general user population uses https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ rather than us...@openoffice.apache.org. I'm aware of a non-Apache project where the only reliable support is IRC. The web-forum, mailing list, and other channels don't provide any indication of that factoid, though. A metric that just looks at mailing list activity falls short for projects where most interaction occurs on either web forums, or IRC channels. Metrics are useful indicators, but only when: * What they measure is clearly indicated; * What they don't measure is clearly indicated; * What their blind points are, is clearly indicated; * They measure what they purport to measure; Even with all those criteria, metrics will be misquoted, and otherwise abused, to push a point. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
