Re: [VOTE] Move POI to TLP
+1 On Friday 04 May 2007 2:47:44 pm Nick Burch wrote: > Hi All > > After lots of discussion within POI, and Jakarta in general, we think POI > is ready to graduate to its own TLP. Thanks to the magic of ApacheCon, > lots of people have been on-hand to help finalise the proposal for this, > which is attached below. > > So, now is the time to vote on the proposal: > [ ] +1 I support the proposal > [ ] +0 I don't care > [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... > > Voting will close in one week. > > Cheers > Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
> eg the legal issue, which still > remains partially unanswered. > Andy has already replied that this was done in the early days of POI's entry into Apache under discussion with POI's then mentor and the board. It was also done as a consequence of a specific issue that had arisen. Short of not believing him, what do you propose are the next steps to resolve this? Regards - Avik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation. The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight' requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather than attack it. All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis. The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so lets not go down that path. So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor' before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ... he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all jakarta committers for only asking. Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very gratefully accepted. This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me. Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , it doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it? I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong. Regards. - Avik Quoting Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi Avik, Avik Sengupta wrote: Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :) I know what you mean :) Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the thread till this point. Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread seems seems quite painful. At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of destroying a community, what's the use? I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either. I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already been said (and despite of what is said below here) How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't speak up ? However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more' If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can think of a couple : A lot of development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to invest energy in. The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI doesn't seem to realize that or to misuse your words "don't care about that". Everything that affects POI actually affects Jakarta. I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never had the feeling that POI was part of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what happens at POI. With the releases going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the ultimate trigger for this vote as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next steps (I summed them up already). So your remark about don't care anymore is not m
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Quoting Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: So.. I think we need to: 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the files etc. 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so. Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy. 3) Work on a TLP proposal. +1 on all three. This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Quoting Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hello Avik, I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and after Andy's first responses I also thought "hey, let's get them promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in Jakarta". I've since had time to reconsider and realize that this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting it to TLP or "hiding" it in commons will not change anything. If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you promote it to TLP". A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write a build process that generates release jars conforming to Apache standards? This is completely out of line (to say the least). It isn't as if the release contained encumbered code, or didn't include source. If I were to use your level of rhetoric, I'd say this sounds like a witch hunt. Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the POI developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous! Way back when the POI committers were among the first to conduct an audit of its dependencies. The results were on the old wiki As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major releases earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a reason [yes i know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to bash four years of existence on a project. Regards - Avik This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Report December
It feels like they are acting as a separate entity in Jakarta and even the ASF itself Let me put on record my severe objection to this statement. Regards - Avik Quoting Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Jakarta Board Report First of all I like to mention that I haven't be able to spent the time I wanted to spend, which is something I will try to improve. I like to request special attention is given to the POI subproject section in the report. Another improvement should be that the majority of the report should come from the community, which I am totally failing to delegate atm. I will start actively persuing additions to the board report by our Jakarta committers when events occur. I don't see this as a community problem, the failure is completely mine. Apachecon Austin was my first visit to apachecon and it was a great experience to meet the people I haven't met in person yet. One of the things I had planned was the Jakarta BOF, where I had the idea to give a presentation and get feedback on other peoples thoughts about Jakarta. It gave me some more insight in projects I didn't have too much knowledge about and the nature of the BOF turned out to be more of free discussion and thought outlet. On my todo list is to extract the points that were identified as needing attention and send them to the general list for discussion. Most important on that list is the identity of Jakarta, easy access information of the state the projects are in and Jakarta being more proactive of getting people aboard on the less active or non active projects. Another idea the recently popped up is having experienced mentors "assigned" to projects. With a 100+ projects this seems like a good idea (see JCS for an example of this) PMC : New pmc members: Nick Burch Roland Weber Change : Dany Angus requested to be removed from the PMC. Not acted upon this yet, since he is an ASF member, a change in the committee-info.txt probably is sufficient. New committers : Jurgen Hoffmann was voted on to be able to commit to Jakarta. He earned this because of his devotion on Turbine. Antoine Levy-Lambert, so he can work on Slide (on his own request and voted on by the PMC). Releases : - HttpComponents HttpCore 4.0-alpha3 - Commons Digester 1.8 - Commons Discovery 0.4 - Commons DbUtils 1.1 - Commons Validator 1.3.1 - Commons HttpClient 3.1-beta1 - BSF 2.4.0 - Commons Lang 2.2 - Commons Configuration 1.3 Not yet project commons-ssl: There were announcements on the httpcomponents list (and on the tomcat list) about a release of commons-ssl, which in real life isn't a commons project at all, but an external project, with the intention of joining Jakarta. An CLA is on file and currently an envelope is on the way to Jim, since his employer wants to have a signed copy back. I asked Julius Davies if he could start a proposal on the Jakarta to discuss if we could sponsor the donation. The thread kind of died and I will restart the thread when the paperwork is handled. place. Julies fixed the naming of commons-ssl by calling it Not-Yet-Commons-ssl, with giving an explenation. Link can be found here : http://juliusdavies.ca/commons-ssl/ Projects (currently 15 main projects) BCEL Bcel hardly has any activity and during the BOF I learned that Torsten Curdt adopted BCEL. With the Google summer of code Torsten mentored 1 person working on BCEL and BCEL supports 1.5 now. It could be worth investigating if the 2 forks of BCEL that are out there (Findbugs and AspectJ) can be merged back to BCEL itself, however Torsten said that both forks probably don't want to invest there time in a merge, since the current situation works for them. Currently BCEL is considered legacy and since projects are using it, it is still maintained. If there are signals of people wanting to become active, we will definitely take that opportunity. BSF After about 4 years of no releases, BSF finally got their release, which was in the Apachecon press release. Since the release things have become a bit more quiet and the user list still points to fact that not a lot of users have picked up on the release yet, since there were problems with the downloadscript. It will probably also take time to get the users back that were lost in the past by not having any releases. Personal note : I would like to thank the BSF committers for doing a great job. Cactus Cactus is currently unmaintained. There are still users, but most questions don't get an answer. A lot of people also are wondering if maven2 will be supported and with what j2ee versions cactus will work. There is definitely work to do here (Cargo integration comes to mind). Commons Commons has 33 proper, 11 sandbox and 16 dormant subprojects. Currently there is a huge release boom going on at commons. After past problems with votes not getting any attention I think things have picked up for the better and most votes get attention. The situation is still not perfect and still needs focus. ECS ECS is mat
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :) Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the thread till this point. Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread seems seems quite painful. At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of destroying a community, what's the use? I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either. However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more' I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project Regards - Avik Quoting Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi everyone, You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Updating PMC bylaws
+1 On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 21:28, Henri Yandell wrote: > Suggested new bylaws are at: > > http://www.osjava.org/~hen/jakarta/management.html > ... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where is Cloudscape?
It'll be part of the DB project, AFAIK. And will probably take a while to land in CVS. On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:03, Kevin A. Burton wrote: > Hm... wanted to check this code out of CVS but can't find it :-/ > > Maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit... I can be patient ;) > > http://infoworld.com/article/04/08/03/HNclouscape_1.html > > Kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project
+1 - Avik On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 20:28, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > All Jakarta Community Members : > > Howard M. Lewis Ship, on behalf of the committers of the HiveMind > project in the Jakarta Commons sandbox, has proposed HiveMind as a > Jakarta sub-project. The proposal was sent to this list, a copy of > which can be found here : > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09244.html > > Please read the proposal and vote, and add any comments you deem > appropriate. > > All Jakarta community members are encouraged to vote, although only the > votes of the PMC members are legally binding as per the ASF*. > > [ ] +1 I support this proposal > [ ] -1 I don't support this proposal > [ ] 0 I abstain from voting for or against this proposal > > Comments : > > > > * If the bit about PMC members having binding votes bothers you, solve > the problem by indicating interest in joining the PMC :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] POI 2.0 final release
Dear Jakarta PMC The POI community has voted to release POI 2.0 final, including 5 committer yea's and no nay's. The dev list thread with the vote (and details of the release) is accessible here: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=621794 We request to the PMC to ratify this release. [ ] +1 [ ] 0 [ ] -1 Herewith, my +1 Thanks - Avik (on behalf of the POI team) PS.Sorry for the cross-posting (wasn't sure) but I imagine its best to keep replies and votes to [EMAIL PROTECTED] PPS. With many "elected but pending" members on the PMC, someone please help me count the votes! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
