Re: [VOTE] Move Jakarta to the Attic; close down Jakarta PMC

2011-11-11 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
+1

On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:28 AM, Mladen Truk wrote:

 +1
 
 On 11/10/2011 07:01 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
 A joint vote to retire Jakarta into the Attic and to ask the board to
 close down the PMC.
 
 
 
 Regards
 -- 
 ^TM
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
 


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



Re: Jakarta at the center of the (ASF) universe

2007-11-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:


Hi,

Earlier today I did some graphs on cross-pollination among Apache
projects and blogged a summary at [1]. Jakarta always ended up
dominating the graphs, so the version on my blog has Jakarta excluded.


Why?  W/o Jakarta, the diagrams don't make any sense.  For example,  
the Jakarta-free one has velocity's only relationship to DB (!), and  
for Harmony, to DB and XML!  Ant, arguably one of the most pervasive  
projects, has no connection to anything else...


geir




If you're interested, there's a version with Jakarta in it at [2]. :-)

[1] http://jukkaz.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/the-apache-cloud/
[2] http://people.apache.org/~jukka/2007/asf5.png




BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
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: Jakarta at the center of the (ASF) universe

2007-11-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:


On Nov 18, 2007 12:07 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:


Hi,

Earlier today I did some graphs on cross-pollination among Apache
projects and blogged a summary at [1]. Jakarta always ended up
dominating the graphs, so the version on my blog has Jakarta  
excluded.


Why?  W/o Jakarta, the diagrams don't make any sense.  For example,
the Jakarta-free one has velocity's only relationship to DB (!), and
for Harmony, to DB and XML!  Ant, arguably one of the most pervasive
projects, has no connection to anything else...


Ant as a piece of software is pervasive - but are the Ant committers
pervasive?


I'd guess certainly more than an island.


Jukka's cloud shows community/commiter relationships rather
than software. The Jakarta one is interesting as it shows so much of
JavaLand at the ASF sprang from Jakarta. I agree with Jukka though -
it distorts the landscape.


But that's the fact - that most of JavaLand sprang from jakarta...

geir





Niall


geir



If you're interested, there's a version with Jakarta in it at  
[2]. :-)


[1] http://jukkaz.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/the-apache-cloud/
[2] http://people.apache.org/~jukka/2007/asf5.png




BR,

Jukka Zitting


-
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: Jakarta at the center of the (ASF) universe

2007-11-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Nov 18, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:


On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 01:58:29PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


But that's the fact - that most of JavaLand sprang from jakarta...



Jukka's graph shows committer cross-polination, not *codebase*


I don't think that anyone confused codebase and committer.  I thought  
that many of the ant committers had much influence in what followed,  
since ant was one of the early arrivals in Jakarta as it was the build  
system for tomcat...  therefore the linkages are meaningful, IMO.


I think that the jakarta node represents meaningful information.

For example, Velocity came from core Turbine people, and you can't get  
any sense of that from the Jakarta-free graph.  Maybe that's the  
problem - that history isn't represented in current committer lists,  
and thus when you drop Jakarta, information is lost.




cross-polination (as I understand it)... So yes, since most
committers for most ASF java projects were in Jakarta (since
those projects were *in* Jakarta, after all), I still think
that the non-Jakarta page provides a more accurate representation
of the real dynamics, by removing the artifical aspects of
Jakarta.


I guess it comes down to what Jukka's trying to show


geir


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



Re: Nightly builds docu?

2007-01-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Jan 18, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:


On 1/17/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So how about biting the bullet and installing one of the well
established and obviously easier tools:


* Cruise Control (http://cruisecontrol.sourceforge.net/)


Just downloaded this the other day to sit and play with. When last I
looked at it I disregarded it because it insisted on a source only
distribution and its source wouldn't build on OS X.

They had a new release recently and a binary, so I'm aiming to give  
that a shot.


FWIW, I like it a lot.  When I was deciding on a CI system for  
harmony, I looked at a few and eventually settled on CC, because it  
had no inherent bias to what you were running, and while a bit rought  
around the edges, seemed to have lots of nice little features.


geir


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



Re: A chart/graph Library suite

2007-01-07 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:55 AM, J.Pietschmann wrote:


Senthil S wrote:

Expecting a chart/graph making library from Apache
that is similar to jfreechart and has enhanced features to create  
live and interactive graphs.


The question is: why do you think there should be another
charting/graphing library? Do you have problems with the
JFreeChart license (LGPL)?


Wasn't it a BSD license before?


You could go shopping around for other libraries, there are
at least 50 open source libs for Java and C# on sourceforge,
some using BSD or MIT license. For an ASL licensed library,
checv out krysalis wings http://www.krysalis.org/wings/,
although the project seems to be dead too.

J.Pietschmann

-
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: A chart/graph Library suite

2007-01-07 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.


On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Martin van den Bemt wrote:




Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:


On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:55 AM, J.Pietschmann wrote:


Senthil S wrote:

Expecting a chart/graph making library from Apache
that is similar to jfreechart and has enhanced features to create
live and interactive graphs.


The question is: why do you think there should be another
charting/graphing library? Do you have problems with the
JFreeChart license (LGPL)?


Wasn't it a BSD license before?


Are you confusing it with JChart maybe ?


Could be.   Was that the one that was BSD licensed and then switched?



Mvgr,
Martin

-
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: offtopic - Woodcrest vs. Xeon

2006-10-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.

Full disclosure, I work for Intel. :)

First, are you sure it's a 2GHz Woodcrest?  I thought it would be a 3GHz 
part.


Second, is it two Woodcrest (for 4 cores total) or just 1 Woodcrest?

Third, woodcrest is an internal code name, and the parts are sold 
under the Xeon brand, so which Xeon is a question you want to ask the 
vendor - it could be woodcrest based as well.


Finally, the current world record in spec's JBB2005 benchmark is held by 
IBM with their JVM on woodcrest (Xeon 5160) at 114k bops/JVM on a 4 core 
machine...


You can go see the results here :

   http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/results

geir


Will Glass-Husain wrote:

Hi,

This is a little off-topic but I thought I'd do a quick poll.  I've
got an opportunity to reconfigure my multi-server Tomcat/Java setup
for a computation-heavy webapp.  One vendor is proposing  dual process
Woodcrest (dual core) 2.0 GHz, the other is promoting dual Xeon
3.2GHz.  The Woodcrest's have slower clock speeds but the dual core is
supposed to make it faster.

Just curious if anyone has experience with the Woodcrest servers - in
particular if anyone has benchmarked Sun's JDK on the two processors
with a computation heavy app I'd love to hear from them.  (Can Sun's
JDK make effective use of the multi-processor, multi-core system?)

Cheers, WILL



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



Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

2006-09-24 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr


Nathan Bubna wrote:
 On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Nathan Bubna wrote:
  On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  I'm +1 and -1.
 
  I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
  necessary, but not unreasonable.
 
  I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
  planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
  going the wrong direction.
 
  Nothing new about it.  Velocity became just such an umbrella under
  your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
  VelocityTools?  :)

 Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
 and struts didn't want it.  We didn't create a replacement for struts.
 And yeah, it grew in scope.

 DVSL was similar.  Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
 was home grown.

 And Billy did it too! isn't really a good reason to do it :)
 
 Agreed.  And neither do i think Johnny couldn't do it is really a
 good reason not too do it. :)

I don't understand that argument.  You are trying to say no, we're not
an umbrella while saying yes, we are, but you did it too.  I'm having
trouble resolving these two confusing messages.

 
  And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
  that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
  for Velocity.  There are big differences between being free to invite
  projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses
  or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
  Velocity.

 How do you draw the line?
 
 That's the real question here.  I'd love to hear good thoughts and
 suggestions on this.  I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i
 could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the
 wording of the charter-ish stuff in there.  Of course, i'm probably
 explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these
 discussions than i did in that document...  So, to summarize, the
 line should be drawn:
 
 - On a case by case basis.
 - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC
 - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity,
 without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity
 template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase.

Sure - there could be a rule that it only works with velocity - IOW,
w/o velocity, it doesn't function.

Velosurf seems to be a good example of this.

 - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no
 lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the
 core Velocity codebase.

That's hard to measure.  If that's known as a criterion, people will
just say the right things.

 
 How's that sound?
 
  If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to
 come to
  Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
 
  And template engines are welcome too, right?  The question is whether
  being here would be just about them having the foundation and
  infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too.  If
  community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
  organizationally.  So rather than a blanket statement that any
  Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
  the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
  interested in joining the Velocity TLP.  And you, as a Velocity PMC
  member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
  decisions.

 Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.
 
 I would love it to be.  Please help!
 
  But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
 things
  that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
 
  Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)

 That's not obvious to me.
 
 Hopefully you mean that wasn't obvious to you.  I've gone to some
 pains to explain this... :)

I'm slow.

geir

 
 geir

 
  geir
 
 
  Nathan Bubna wrote:
   Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
  
   +1 votes:
Nathan Bubna
Martin van den Bemt
James Mitchell
Henri Yandell
Jorg Schaible
Henning P. Schmiedehausen
Will Glass-Husain
Torsten Curdt
Rony G. Flatscher
Jesse Kuhnert
Dion Gillard
Daniel Rall
Matthijs Lambooy
Niall Pemberton
Claude Brisson
Malcolm Edgar
Christoph Reck
  
   +0 votes:
   -none-
  
   -1 votes:
   -none-
  
   I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
   those votes are binding. :)
  
   thanks, everyone!
  
   On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
   proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
   umbrella and become their own top level project.  Martin has
 asked us
   to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
 the
   board.  So

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

2006-09-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr


Nathan Bubna wrote:
 On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This vote closed sooner than expected.  I was traveling and there was no
 stated deadline.
 
 Aw, c'mon.  It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
 and i gave the vote a full week!

Not complaining, just noting why :)

 
 Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)
 
 I'm +1 and -1.

 I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
 necessary, but not unreasonable.

 I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
 planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
 going the wrong direction.
 
 Nothing new about it.  Velocity became just such an umbrella under
 your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
 VelocityTools?  :)

Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
and struts didn't want it.  We didn't create a replacement for struts.
And yeah, it grew in scope.

DVSL was similar.  Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
was home grown.

And Billy did it too! isn't really a good reason to do it :)

 
 And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
 that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
 for Velocity.  There are big differences between being free to invite
 projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses
 or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
 Velocity.

How do you draw the line?

 
 If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
 Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
 
 And template engines are welcome too, right?  The question is whether
 being here would be just about them having the foundation and
 infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too.  If
 community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
 organizationally.  So rather than a blanket statement that any
 Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
 the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
 interested in joining the Velocity TLP.  And you, as a Velocity PMC
 member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
 decisions.

Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.

 
 But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
 that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
 
 Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)

That's not obvious to me.

geir

 
 geir


 Nathan Bubna wrote:
  Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
 
  +1 votes:
   Nathan Bubna
   Martin van den Bemt
   James Mitchell
   Henri Yandell
   Jorg Schaible
   Henning P. Schmiedehausen
   Will Glass-Husain
   Torsten Curdt
   Rony G. Flatscher
   Jesse Kuhnert
   Dion Gillard
   Daniel Rall
   Matthijs Lambooy
   Niall Pemberton
   Claude Brisson
   Malcolm Edgar
   Christoph Reck
 
  +0 votes:
  -none-
 
  -1 votes:
  -none-
 
  I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
  those votes are binding. :)
 
  thanks, everyone!
 
  On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
  proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
  umbrella and become their own top level project.  Martin has asked us
  to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
  board.  So...
 
  The proposal is available for your perusal at:
  http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
 
  For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
  thread:
  http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2
 
  And the vote happens here:
  [ ] +1 I support the proposal
  [ ] +0 I don't care
  [ ] -1  I'm opposed to the proposal because...
 
  Thanks!
 
 
  -
  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: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

2006-09-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Adding velocity-dev

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be another
 Jakarta (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that
 Jakata is always considered a bad example). 

Right - the only thing that was bad about Jakarta is that we grew too
fast for scalable Apache governance, and that people identified more
with Jakarta than with the ASF.

 
 On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the
 number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by
 Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects
 (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same
 goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity)
 will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP.

I understand the whole history.  I never understood the pressing need to
push things out of Jakarta - projects were leaving on their own - but it
doesn't really matter.

 
 I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity
 and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the
 new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider Clustering a good thing. 

I'd like a clearer charter.

 
 Having a small group of related projects available through a single
 point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing.
 Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects
 are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta
 would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow lost there. A
 project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is
 located somewhere else.
 
 For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net),
 and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation
 of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation
 (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and
 Click seem to be an even match.
 
 So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another
 Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number
 of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good
 thing IMHO.

I'm worried or I wouldn't be saying anything.

geir

 
   Best regards
   Henning
 
 
 On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote:
 On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 This vote closed sooner than expected.  I was traveling and there was no
 stated deadline.
 Aw, c'mon.  It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month,
 and i gave the vote a full week!

 Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :)

 I'm +1 and -1.

 I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
 necessary, but not unreasonable.

 I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
 planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
 going the wrong direction.
 Nothing new about it.  Velocity became just such an umbrella under
 your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
 VelocityTools?  :)

 And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
 that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
 for Velocity.  There are big differences between being free to invite
 projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses
 or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
 Velocity.

 If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
 Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
 And template engines are welcome too, right?  The question is whether
 being here would be just about them having the foundation and
 infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too.  If
 community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
 organizationally.  So rather than a blanket statement that any
 Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
 the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
 interested in joining the Velocity TLP.  And you, as a Velocity PMC
 member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
 decisions.

 But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
 that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
 Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)

 geir


 Nathan Bubna wrote:
 Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...

 +1 votes:
  Nathan Bubna
  Martin van den Bemt
  James Mitchell
  Henri Yandell
  Jorg Schaible
  Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  Will Glass-Husain
  Torsten Curdt
  Rony G. Flatscher
  Jesse Kuhnert
  Dion Gillard
  Daniel Rall
  Matthijs Lambooy
  Niall Pemberton
  Claude Brisson
  Malcolm Edgar
  Christoph Reck

 +0 votes:
 -none-

 -1 votes:
 -none-

 I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
 those votes

Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP

2006-09-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
This vote closed sooner than expected.  I was traveling and there was no
stated deadline.

I'm +1 and -1.

I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
necessary, but not unreasonable.

I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
going the wrong direction.

If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to
Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.

But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things
that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)

geir


Nathan Bubna wrote:
 Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
 
 +1 votes:
  Nathan Bubna
  Martin van den Bemt
  James Mitchell
  Henri Yandell
  Jorg Schaible
  Henning P. Schmiedehausen
  Will Glass-Husain
  Torsten Curdt
  Rony G. Flatscher
  Jesse Kuhnert
  Dion Gillard
  Daniel Rall
  Matthijs Lambooy
  Niall Pemberton
  Claude Brisson
  Malcolm Edgar
  Christoph Reck
 
 +0 votes:
 -none-
 
 -1 votes:
 -none-
 
 I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
 those votes are binding. :)
 
 thanks, everyone!
 
 On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a
 proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
 umbrella and become their own top level project.  Martin has asked us
 to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the
 board.  So...

 The proposal is available for your perusal at:
 http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity

 For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following
 thread:
 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2

 And the vote happens here:
 [ ] +1 I support the proposal
 [ ] +0 I don't care
 [ ] -1  I'm opposed to the proposal because...

 Thanks!

 
 -
 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] Remove SVN restrictions

2006-03-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr

Would that group auth then include everyone in the jakarta group auth?

Yoav Shapira wrote:

Hi,
+1, with the hope that should a group state their intention to become
a TLP, the process for granting them a separate auth group is quick
and easy.

Yoav

On 3/27/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Vote to remove the SVN barriers within Jakarta such that all jakarta-*
groups are merged into the one jakarta group with the exception of
jakarta-hivemind, jakarta-slide, jakarta-cactus and jakarta-jmeter under
the assumption that they are moving to having their own PMCs. Tapestry is
already within its own auth group.

[ ] +1
[ ] -1

If your -1 is only for a particular subproject (ie: you don't care what
the rest of Jakarta does, feel free to say so).

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





--
Yoav Shapira
Nimalex LLC
1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310
Cambridge, MA, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com

-
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: [ANNOUNCEMENT] ApacheCon EU 2006

2006-02-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
I thought the Stanly Cup would be over by then what do you need the 
TVs for again?  Some game w/o scoring or contact?  ;)


Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:


You are surely aware of the fact that this is right on top of the round
of 16 and quarter-final games of The World Cup, aren't you?



IMHO you probably should plan to get T.V. sets in the common areas


LOL Way ahead of you.  The conference producer made similar comments, as did
I.  But not everyone shares out passion for The Beautiful Game.

--- 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]



Re: [draft] SD Magazine: request for change

2005-03-21 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Mar 20, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Bill Barker wrote:
- Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@jakarta.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [draft] SD Magazine: request for change

Henri Yandell wrote:

It may be that leading contributor is, while not an 'Apache Way' to
discuss something, a completely true piece of investigative 
journalism.
There are definitely parts of Commons where a little bit of 
investigation
could point out that Yes, on DBUtils 1.0, David Graham was the lead
developer (Sorry David :) ).

That may be true, but certainly we do have the right and 
responsibility
to ensure that our desires, as far as how we run and represent 
ourselves,
is accurate as well.

It has always been a major foundation of the ASF that projects
are built and developed by communities, not individuals.
Terms such as lead or main do cause harm to the community
and have always been actively avoided.
And, yet, all of the complaints about the article have been from 
people that aren't involved with Tomcat development ;-).
I don't think that's very fair.  The ASF spends considerable time 
protecting it's IP, including trademarks, for all projects.

Just imagine if you read about Sun Tomcat or IBM Tomcat or you read 
that Microsoft controls 45% of Tomcat  ;)

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Jakarta Apache Tomcat as a TLP ?

2005-03-21 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 21, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Please, lets calm the things down.
Henri will write an email to SD magazine, and the earth
will still spin tomorrow.
Well, actually, if it would pause briefly on Wednesday, that'd be OK.  
I
have to fly east, and would rather not chase the horizon for 3000 
miles.
Yeah, but that would result in some serious damage to the real-estate 
with all the buildings disintegrating and such.

Maybe the cheaper alternative is to get an upgrade to business class?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [draft-2] SD Magazine: request for change

2005-03-20 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
I think this is great.  More inline...
On Mar 20, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Added thanks for the award.
Removed the text about companies not being contributors as it is 
nitpicking.

Added note about Apache Tomcat, though I left it open to their 
discretion to avoid detracting from the main issue, that of the 
concept of a leading contributor.

Hen
===
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tomcat 5.0 error in JOLT announcement
Hi Kate,
I'd like to thank SD/Jolt on behalf of the Jakarta community for the 
JOLT Productivity Winner award for Tomcat 5.0. Media recognition of 
the work the Tomcat community puts in is always very welcome.

I'm also writing to let you know about a serious error on your JOLT 
product excellence awards press release because I am concerned it 
might be reproduced in your forthcoming June 2005 issue:

http://www.sdmagazine.com/pressroom/jolt_winners_2005.pdf
The release incorrectly attributes Apache's Tomcat 5.0 product to The 
Apache Jakarta Project and leading Tomcat contributor JBoss.

There is one big problem with this attribution for us, Apache does not 
have a concept of leading contributors. It is completely out of sync 
with the very philosophies that lie at the heart of the Apache 
Software Foundation (ASF), as there are 70 committers to the Tomcat 
codebase, many of whom are employed by other companies or contribute 
individually.

We would like to request that this be changed to:
Tomcat 5.0 (The Apache Software Foundation)
in both the press release (pdf url above) and the forthcoming June 
2005 issue.

Officially the name of the product is Apache Tomcat 5.0 and not just 
Tomcat 5.0, but I will leave it to your discretion as to whether 
you'd like to prefix Tomcat with Apache or not, as the subsequent 
mention of the ASF is fine.

I'd actually gently push as we want this to be named Apache Tomcat 
5.0.

Officially, the name of the project is Apache Tomcat 5.0, and not 
just Tomcat 5.0, and we'd appreciate the change if that was 
possible.

:)
Well done!
geir

Many thanks,
Henri Yandell
V.P., Apache Jakarta
Aw, spell this out.  You want this to be as impressive as it can be for 
this :

Henri Yandell
Vice President, Apache Jakarta Project
The Apache Software Foundation
:)
geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apache Agila : BPM engine

2004-09-30 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
Yes - this is currently at the Apache Incubator as it goes through IP 
checking and such - I added agila to the incubator site last night, and 
will be creating the mail lists later this weekend.  Until then, lets 
bring discussion over to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail list.

geir
On Sep 29, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Sounds interesting. Is a more detailed description availiable 
somewhere ?

Andreas
- Original Message -
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:27 PM
Subject: Apache Agila : BPM engine

All,
The Jakarta PMC has voted to accept in Jakarta the contribution of a
BPM engine from Gluecode, my employer, and I am starting the basic 
work
of getting it into [and out of] incubation.

Currently called Apache Agila, it is a small, lightweight BPM engine
that we have developed as the core of our BPM product.  BPM is an
important part of the Java server-side stack, and we feel that this
contribution will be a great 'seed' for a full-fledged BPM project at
Apache.  At the ASF, you can find a fairly rich set of parts for an
enterprise application stack, such as Geronimo, Tomcat, Derby,
Jetspeed, Pluto et al, and now there's the addition of BPM.
The engine has no dependencies upon platform (like J2EE), and I'm
guessing that it's easy to embed this engine into the popular 
framworks
and platforms, such as hivemind, spring, struts, pico, etc.  Agila 
will
arrive with simple HTML GUI via a servlet, and JDBC-based persistence,
but these are services that can be replaced with other 
implementations.
  For example, the Gluecode product does a JSR-168 portals and
J2EE-based implementation of the services.

Anyway, this is a notice of what's happening, and an invitation to all
to come and participate in the project.
I've CC-ed [EMAIL PROTECTED], but lets keep the conversation about it
here in the incubator for now.  I'll be setting up the mail-lists
first, and will note when that happens so we can switch .
Thanks
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without compromising the Apache License?

2004-09-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Sep 29, 2004, at 3:50 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 11:11, Brett Porter wrote:
is not ASF License compliant?
If yes, than I would really hate to have to point you at
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/maven-plugins/hibernate/src/main/ 
org/apache/maven/hibernate/beans/SchemaExportBean.java?annotate=1.7

This would compromise all Maven releases that include the
maven-hibernate-plugin. We distribute Binary and Source from  
apache.org
sites...
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to respond to this
thread with that in mind. I think we've checked this in the past and
because the ASF is not distributing the hibernate code, there wasn't a
problem (as you say, hibernate is downloaded from ibiblio when the
user chooses to use the hibernate plugin).
So what would the answer of the first question of Oliver (can I use
Hibernate in an ASF project) now be?
still no
If I got it right; Oliver wants to implement a Slide Store that uses
Hibernate as back-end. According to your answer, he could do this as
part of the official Slide distribution, as long as it does not contain
the hibernate.jar itself (which could be downloaded as part of the  
build
process (maven or ant)).

I agree, that we need a clarification (best would be a legal council
backed clarification).
This isn't a clear-cut legal issue, like speeding or stealing.  The  
problem is that the ASF position is that the LGPL is unclear, and the  
FSF won't clarify in an official way.

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without compromising the Apache License?

2004-09-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Sep 29, 2004, at 4:56 AM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 11:11, Brett Porter wrote:
is not ASF License compliant?
If yes, than I would really hate to have to point you at
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/maven-plugins/hibernate/src/main/ 
org/apache/maven/hibernate/beans/SchemaExportBean.java?annotate=1.7

This would compromise all Maven releases that include the
maven-hibernate-plugin. We distribute Binary and Source from  
apache.org
sites...
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to respond to this
thread with that in mind. I think we've checked this in the past and
because the ASF is not distributing the hibernate code, there wasn't  
a
problem (as you say, hibernate is downloaded from ibiblio when the
user chooses to use the hibernate plugin).
So what would the answer of the first question of Oliver (can I use
Hibernate in an ASF project) now be? If I got it right; Oliver wants  
to implement a Slide Store that uses
Hibernate as back-end. According to your answer, he could do this as
part of the official Slide distribution, as long as it does not  
contain
the hibernate.jar itself (which could be downloaded as part of the  
build
process (maven or ant)).
The problem, AFAIU, is that this Maven's code now has to become LGPL  
licensed itself, due to LGPL license requirements. And ASF  
repositories can't contain LGPL code. So the answer is to pull  
(quickly) this code from Maven, and not to introduce to Slide.

No - LGPL isn't viral unless you make derivative works of the LGPL-ed  
code itself.  Just using an LGPL-ed codebase as a library does not  
trigger the virality.

The problem is that for java, there are questions about the clarity of  
the provisions in the license that prevent the virality from taking  
effect, which is why the ASF doesn't allow LGPLed java usage.

This is a position that I'm trying to find a compromise for.
geir

I agree, that we need a clarification (best would be a legal council
backed clarification). Having to move every bit of maven code that  
references LGPL off-ASF
would hit quite a few plugins. :-(
Somebody could setup mavendev.org (see cocoondev.org) to host (L)GPL  
pieces.

PS Copying PMC because action is required
Vadim

--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Apache Agila : BPM engine

2004-09-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
All,
The Jakarta PMC has voted to accept in Jakarta the contribution of a 
BPM engine from Gluecode, my employer, and I am starting the basic work 
of getting it into [and out of] incubation.

Currently called Apache Agila, it is a small, lightweight BPM engine 
that we have developed as the core of our BPM product.  BPM is an 
important part of the Java server-side stack, and we feel that this 
contribution will be a great 'seed' for a full-fledged BPM project at 
Apache.  At the ASF, you can find a fairly rich set of parts for an 
enterprise application stack, such as Geronimo, Tomcat, Derby, 
Jetspeed, Pluto et al, and now there's the addition of BPM.

The engine has no dependencies upon platform (like J2EE), and I'm 
guessing that it's easy to embed this engine into the popular framworks 
and platforms, such as hivemind, spring, struts, pico, etc.  Agila will 
arrive with simple HTML GUI via a servlet, and JDBC-based persistence, 
but these are services that can be replaced with other implementations. 
 For example, the Gluecode product does a JSR-168 portals and 
J2EE-based implementation of the services.

Anyway, this is a notice of what's happening, and an invitation to all 
to come and participate in the project.

I've CC-ed [EMAIL PROTECTED], but lets keep the conversation about it 
here in the incubator for now.  I'll be setting up the mail-lists 
first, and will note when that happens so we can switch .

Thanks
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without compromising the Apache License?

2004-09-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Sep 27, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Tim O'Brien wrote:
For Oliver's sake, could we submit the question to ASF counsel and see
if there is any way to allow us to use Hibernate in even the most round
about way.
Our counsel would have no opinion different than what you've heard.  We 
(the ASF) have tried to get a clear statement from the FSF, and so far, 
none have been forthcoming.

Even though I'm fairly certain of the answer (no).  It would be nice to
get a firm answer - yes or no - from an officer or the board.  What is
the best way to bring this to the boards' attention.  Email to Greg,
copying Robyn Wagner?
board_hat
no
/board_hat
This is an issue important to me as well - I'd like to see this go 
away, so we can use software w/ the LGPL.  But until the problem is 
resolved, right now the only way is to use via a dynamic dispatch 
mechanism.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and have some funny 
solutions requiring a bit of classloader magic.  Happy to start 
something in the sandbox :)

geir
I just don't feel comfortable telling someone this is impossible 
without
getting a firmer legal opinion.   I'm certain that IANAL applies to 
most
of us.

Tim O'Brien
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 12:03 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: RE: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without
compromising the Apache License?
Mahler Thomas wrote:
You might consider Using Apache OJB (http://db.apache.org/ojb).
It can do everything that hibernate can do - and more.
We don't hear much (enough?) about OJB.  Has anyone written
up an OJB for Hibernate Users type document?
--- 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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without compromising the Apache License?

2004-09-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Sep 27, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
This is an issue important to me as well - I'd like to see this go 
away, so we can use software w/ the LGPL.  But until the problem is 
resolved, right now the only way is to use via a dynamic dispatch 
mechanism.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and have some funny 
solutions requiring a bit of classloader magic.  Happy to start 
something in the sandbox :)
Is the problem with LGPL at ASF only a Java issue? Can httpd depend on 
LGPL'd code?
Yes, because the LGPL was 'fixed' back in 92 to solve the problem what 
what C and C++ compilers do, namely create combined work at compile 
time.  For example, an inline function in a C++ header can be included 
completely by the compiler in an object file.

I think that' why they have the weird wording in the LGPL that allows 
20 lines or less, or something like that.

If so, then funny solutions sound useful. If it's a problem for all 
ASF languages, then it's pointless to do anything.

It applies to Java, and I'm sure other languages as well.  IMO the 
problem is that they patched the LGPL for a specific technology, and 
the world has moved on.

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Can I use Hibernate in an Apache project without compromising the Apache License?

2004-09-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Sep 27, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Sep 27, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
This is an issue important to me as well - I'd like to see this go 
away, so we can use software w/ the LGPL.  But until the problem is 
resolved, right now the only way is to use via a dynamic dispatch 
mechanism.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and have some funny 
solutions requiring a bit of classloader magic.  Happy to start 
something in the sandbox :)

Is the problem with LGPL at ASF only a Java issue? Can httpd depend 
on LGPL'd code?
Yes, because the LGPL was 'fixed' back in 92 to solve the problem 
what what C and C++ compilers do, namely create combined work at 
compile time.  For example, an inline function in a C++ header can be 
included completely by the compiler in an object file.
I think that' why they have the weird wording in the LGPL that allows 
20 lines or less, or something like that.
If so, then funny solutions sound useful. If it's a problem for all 
ASF languages, then it's pointless to do anything.

It applies to Java, and I'm sure other languages as well.  IMO the 
problem is that they patched the LGPL for a specific technology, and 
the world has moved on.
I know I keep repeating myself all the time, but for the special case 
of Hibernate doesn't this

http://www.hibernate.org/196.html
clarify the issue? Of course if you people say I must not use it in a 
Apache Project it is ok with me, but I still do not get the point why. 
But then, maybe it isn't that important that I - personally - get it 
;)
I don't think it fixes it because it's just some web page - it's not 
part of the license.  I've asked Gavin directly to modify the license 
to reflect this, hoping that it would resolve the problem.  He refused 
:)

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: FYI: Author tags

2004-09-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Sep 13, 2004, at 12:38 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
Recently, a new twist on @author tags came up, from a direction I
never would have expected.  It seems that the JDK 1.5 compiler whines
when you have non-ISO-8859-1 characters in Javadoc comments in your
source files.  Someone was kind enough to run a compile of a bunch of
open source projects with 1.5, to help identify projects that have
such sources.
It turns out that commons-beanutils has a few such occurrences --
because of non-ASCII characters in the authors's names in the @author
tags.
Guess we need to tell such people to change their names if they want
to be an @author :-).
Or tell Sun to fix their compiler...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


(Jakarta|Geronimo|Groovy|*)One

2004-06-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Seems like the Thirsty Bear is going to be the place to count on 
finding people, and seems like wed *and* thursday nights are going to 
be populated by people from the above...

Hope to meet as many as possible.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: [Fwd: JavaOne Blogger Meetup Next Monday - Confluence]

2004-06-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 25, 2004, at 4:48 PM, Kevin Burton wrote:
 We talked about a month ago of a JakartaOne gathering during  
JavaOne.  I figured it just makes sense for us to just meet at the  
bloggers meeting.

 Or does it make sense to have a dedicated Jakarta gathering? 
 Thoughts?
I'd like to propose that we do it wednesday at the Thirsty Bear.  We'll  
probably have two other groups there, a GroovyOne, and a GeronimoOne,  
and if we can get momentum of OSS groups, we can get more to come.

geir
  Original Message 
 Subject:
 [Dev] JavaOne Blogger Meetup Next Monday - Confluence
Date:
 Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:00:03 -0700
From:
 Kevin Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Date
 Monday 28th June 2004
 Time
 From 6:30pm
 Location
 The Thirsty Bearimage.tiff (at the back)
 Other locations
 ...to be staggered to later in the evening
 Who will be there?
 Hopefully, everyoneimage.tiff
http://confluence.atlassian.com/display/JAVABLOGS/2004/06/22/ 
JavaOne+Blogger+Meetup+Next+Monday

--
Please reply using PGP.
http://peerfear.org/pubkey.asc
NewsMonster - http://www.newsmonster.org/
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
   AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
  IRC - freenode.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #newsmonster
mime-attachment___
Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.sofari.com/mailman/listinfo/dev
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Hi:

2004-06-17 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
I'd ask this question on the struts user site.  find info here :
http://struts.apache.org/
On Jun 17, 2004, at 7:40 AM, gitanjali wrote:
Hi all,
i m trying to do connectivity in struts but failing .can any 
body tell me what exactely i have to do.

thnx in advance.
Anjali
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: nag email for dom4j project

2004-06-17 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 17, 2004, at 9:05 AM, Maarten Coene wrote:
Hi,
is it possible to send an email to the dom4j-dev emaillist everytime 
the build of dom4j fails?
The address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might want to send this to someone in the Gump project.
http://gump.apache.org/
thanks,
Maarten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-07 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 7, 2004, at 5:05 AM, Danny Angus wrote:


Geir wrote:
Well, I'm a little leery about sending watchdog traffic (even if none)
to general@ - all it takes is one guy getting interested :)
(My silence was due to temporary no-email-at-home, not indifference!)
I'd prefer to propose the following:
1/ that a PMC vote is taken *HERE* to decide if the community is happy 
to
see Watchdog downgraded to inactive
That's fine, although I see no need to 'downgrade'.  I think that the 
PMC is aware, and Yoav and yourself have karma now.

As for the rest, do what you think is best.  You've got Karma.  If 
someone doesn't like, they'll squawk.  :)

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-05 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On May 26, 2004, at 9:33 AM, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Hi,
I just tried to subscribe to the watchdog mailing list in order to
notify the developers of a bug I submitted against Watchdog.  But I got
a no such mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] error
response from the mail server.  What's the status of Watchdog?
I just added Yoav and Danny to the committer list for watchdog.  You 
guys decide on what you want to do with the mail list.  I think just 
getting the -dev and -user going again for watchdog would be a clean, 
unconfusing way to do it, but it's for you decide.

I don't think that working, used-by-users code is 'dead'.  There may 
not be an active community of developers, but if the code is done, it's 
done.

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-04 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:14 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
For interest's sake, let me explain what's been happening with 
Watchdog,
as I think it's a useful example for other graveyard or 
end-of-life
scenarios.

We use Watchdog as part of the tomcat release process.

A tiny change to the Watchdog build.xml would fix [a problem], and 
I've
submitted a Bugzilla enhancement request with the patch.  But there's 
no
one to act on my request
The idea of partitioning permissions within a TLP, as is extensively 
the
case within Jakarta, is broken.  A TLP is supposed to be a single 
cohesive
community.  Ideally, the PMC consists of all active committers.  Were 
there
a TLP for Tomcat and related tools, I suspect that Watchdog would be 
in that
TLP, even if Watchdog is also useable by other containers, and you 
would
have the necessary access rights.  Even in the current circumstance, it
seems to be that the Tomcat community might want to take 
responsibility for
Watchdog.
Well, I disagree that the idea is broken, but we can leave that for 
another thread.

Having Tomcat community take care of watchdog would be great, and it 
doesn't imply any major work like moving the code or site.  Just paying 
attention to the lists and putting a notice on the Watchdog site to the 
effect of dormancy would be an excellent start.

geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-04 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Hi,
OK, then let me propose this:
- We give Danny Angus and myself karma for Watchdog.  There are no
active committers to nominate us.
+1
- Either one of us will place a notice of dormancy (text TBD) on the
front page for Watchdog
+1
- I will fix the build script so that Tomcat builds can be automated in
this regards
I don't know what this means, but if you're happy, I'm happy.
We still need to take care of the mailing lists.  I see two options:
- We revive the watchdog-dev/watchdog-user mailing lists and redirect
them somewhere like [EMAIL PROTECTED], or
- We just leave them dead, take off the subscription links on the
Watchdog site, and indicate in our notice of dormancy that questions
about watchdog should be submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why not just monitor them?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-04 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Hi,
We still need to take care of the mailing lists.  I see two options:
- We revive the watchdog-dev/watchdog-user mailing lists and redirect
them somewhere like [EMAIL PROTECTED], or
- We just leave them dead, take off the subscription links on the
Watchdog site, and indicate in our notice of dormancy that questions
about watchdog should be submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why not just monitor them?
There's nothing to monitor: the lists are dead.  Emails to
watchdog-dev-subscribe/unsubscribe come back with an address not found
type error.  And yet those are the addresses linked on the watchdog
site.  So we actually have broken and misleading information there ;)
(!)
So why don't we just fix them?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Watchdog] Dead?

2004-06-04 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Hi,
There's nothing to monitor: the lists are dead.  Emails to
watchdog-dev-subscribe/unsubscribe come back with an address not
found
type error.  And yet those are the addresses linked on the watchdog
site.  So we actually have broken and misleading information there ;)
(!)
So why don't we just fix them?
The lists were not removed accidentally, so I assume the developers at
that time had some rationale.  Beyond that, I'm assuming the activity
level on these lists would be so low that redirecting them to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is fine.  If my assumption is proven wrong we can
recreate/revive the lists and update the watchdog web site accordingly.
Well, I'm a little leery about sending watchdog traffic (even if none) 
to general@ - all it takes is one guy getting interested :)

geir
Yoav

This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business 
communication, and may contain information that is confidential, 
proprietary and/or privileged.  This e-mail is intended only for the 
individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, 
printed, disclosed or used by anyone else.  If you are not the(an) 
intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your 
computer system and notify the sender.  Thank you.

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Any interest in a Jakarta JavaOne BOF?

2004-05-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
We've been chatting among ourselves about another JakartaOne, as we 
called the first one a few years ago.  it was a great get-together, in 
a bar near Moscone.

Lets extend the invitation too to the other Java-using groups.  I'll 
post a message to community@ and see what interest we can get.

geir
On May 21, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Kevin Burton wrote:
It's about a 1.5 months away but I figured I would try to get a pulse 
on how much interest there is in holding a JavaOne BOF.

We've contacted SUN directly and they seem interested... though to be 
honest I was thinking it would be better to just have us meet at a bar 
or maybe at our offices since we're 1/2 a block away from the Metreon.
So I'm thinking beer, pizza, wifi... music... could be fun.  We might 
not be able to host it at our offices but there are a few places 
around the hood we could rent out.

So how many people would be interested...?!
PS... We're hiring REALLY smart people experienced in Jakarta tools... 
email me
private for more info.

--
Please reply using PGP.
   http://peerfear.org/pubkey.asc  NewsMonster - 
http://www.newsmonster.org/
   Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
  AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
 IRC - freenode.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #newsmonster

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


[NOTICE] HttpClient is requesting to move from commons to Jakarta sub-project

2004-04-14 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
All,

The HttpClient project has voted to ask to become a Jakarta 
sub-project.  The PMC is voting on expanding Jakarta, and I personally 
apologize to the community for accidentally holding the vote on the 
private PMC list.  In order to keep confusion to to a minimum, we'll 
keep it there and do better next time.

If anyone has any comments, speak now or forever hold it... :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: [NOTICE] HttpClient is requesting to move from commons to Jakarta sub-project

2004-04-14 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Apr 14, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Adrian Sutton wrote:

Geir et al,
Sorry that was my fault.  It was my understanding that the PMC had to 
vote on it and thus logical to forward it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I had 
however forgotten to take into account the fact that pmc@ is a private 
list.
LOL.

You did the right thing.  HttpClient voted as a community to ask 
Jakarta to be a sub-project.  We the PMC had to initiate a formal vote, 
and I made the mistake of doing it on the pmc list...

geir

Regards,

Adrian Sutton.

On 15/04/2004, at 2:29 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

All,

The HttpClient project has voted to ask to become a Jakarta 
sub-project.  The PMC is voting on expanding Jakarta, and I 
personally apologize to the community for accidentally holding the 
vote on the private PMC list.  In order to keep confusion to to a 
minimum, we'll keep it there and do better next time.

If anyone has any comments, speak now or forever hold it... :)

geir
--
Intencha tomorrow's technology today
Ph: 38478913 0422236329
Suite 8/29 Oatland Crescent
Holland Park West 4121
Australia QLD
www.intencha.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Jakarta embracing the JCP?

2004-03-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 22, 2004, at 6:02 AM, Danny Angus wrote:








Having named leads of any sort is the antithesis of what I would  
like
to
see within the ASF.
Fair enough, but there's no reason I can see why a JCP lead  
shouldn't be
an OSS chair, I guess the JCP needs spec leads like the ASF needs
chairpeople, to be a single point of refrence from above and a single  
focus
for oversight from below.
THe difference is that the spec lead generally owns the resulting spec  
and licensing rights.

geir

I'm sure that a great many of us work in teams with a team leader who  
isn't
an autocratic megalomaniac, but largely the point of contact between
above and below

d.



*** 

The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the  
addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or  
responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient)  
please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message  
from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose  
its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are  
capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not  
accept any  responsibility for changes made to this message after it  
was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or  
opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation  
of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any  
liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility  
to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this  
e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and  
views of The Student Loans Company Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for  
the presence of computer viruses.

*** 
***

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Jakarta embracing the JCP?

2004-03-19 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 19, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

This is a little linked to the Apache-open source question raised a 
while
back, though it actually comes from trying to explain to someone what 
the
pro's and reasons for groovy as a jsr might be.

How about if Jakarta [or Apache-Java as a whole] embraced the latest 
JCP
process? If there's anything the ASF are not happy with in the JCP we 
can
adjust it, but generally we would manage our own projects in the same 
way
that ASF involvement in the JCP.org says we should manage standards.
Are you kidding?  We'd have to go to meetings and discuss process 
documents.  I do that 4 times a year as is as JCP rep, and that's more 
than enough!

What I'm largely interested in are the reasons why not, as these would 
be
perfect reasons why something like groovy, or ant or httpclient, should
not become jsr's.
Groovy is going through the JSR process so that the language will be 
formalized into a spec and protected for compatibility. This will give 
the Java ecosystem another language the runs on the JVM for which 
claimed implementations are guaranteed to be compatible.

So... why not run [EMAIL PROTECTED] under the JCP process?

Because there is no real need to assert that every project at the ASF 
in Java is some sort of standard, and further, doing a TCK is an awful 
lot of work.  If we do have something that is a candidate to be 
standardized, we can go to the JCP and do it there.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Jakarta embracing the JCP?

2004-03-19 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 19, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

How about if Jakarta [or Apache-Java as a whole] embraced the latest 
JCP
process?
In what way?  Can you be specific?  As I understand the JCP, what you 
are
asking makes little sense.

We don't have spec leads, nor do we want them.  We don't have 
ownership of
a project/specification.  Everything here is communal and consensual.  
That
is not true of the JCP.  Actually, I would prefer to see the JCP 
continue to
evolve to become more like the ASF.

What I'm largely interested in are the reasons why not, as these 
would be
perfect reasons why something like groovy, or ant or httpclient, 
should
not become jsr's.
A JSR is a specification.  It should have a TCK and an RI, but at 
heart it
is a specification.  Some people have talked about proposing the Apache
Repository Specification, which I understand Maven will evolve to use, 
as a
JSR.  If that happened, I'd prefer to see us run a JCP Expert Group 
more in
line with an ASF project, not run ASF projects like an JCP Expert 
Group.
That would be a good example of something that would be appropos for a 
JSR - something that others will/might implement, and if so, you want 
to be sure that your software which works with one implementation of it 
works with others.

Geir?  Your thoughts?
We are always working to help move the JCP towards the OSS model, but 
it's a slow process.  In JCP 2.5 (the guidelines for the JCP), the 
ASF's work was key in getting TCKs and RIs to be able to be licensed 
under and OSS license.  Before that, there was no way to do an OSS JSR. 
 Now, w/ 2.6 that just went into effect last week, the process now 
formally encourages as much openness and transparency as possible in an 
EG (although you still can do pretty much what you want...) as well as 
require an early release of the spec to the community to enable as much 
feedback and commentary as possible.  Previously, the EGs had to 
release a community draft late in the process, and that made them 
afraid to have not enough time to fix stuff, so they would tend to 
really delay.

The Groovy EG will be run as an OSS project, btw...

geir

	--- Noel

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Jakarta embracing the JCP?

2004-03-19 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
...

geir

Hen

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

On Mar 19, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

How about if Jakarta [or Apache-Java as a whole] embraced the latest
JCP
process?
In what way?  Can you be specific?  As I understand the JCP, what you
are
asking makes little sense.
We don't have spec leads, nor do we want them.  We don't have
ownership of
a project/specification.  Everything here is communal and consensual.
That
is not true of the JCP.  Actually, I would prefer to see the JCP
continue to
evolve to become more like the ASF.
What I'm largely interested in are the reasons why not, as these
would be
perfect reasons why something like groovy, or ant or httpclient,
should
not become jsr's.
A JSR is a specification.  It should have a TCK and an RI, but at
heart it
is a specification.  Some people have talked about proposing the 
Apache
Repository Specification, which I understand Maven will evolve to 
use,
as a
JSR.  If that happened, I'd prefer to see us run a JCP Expert Group
more in
line with an ASF project, not run ASF projects like an JCP Expert
Group.
That would be a good example of something that would be appropos for a
JSR - something that others will/might implement, and if so, you want
to be sure that your software which works with one implementation of 
it
works with others.

Geir?  Your thoughts?
We are always working to help move the JCP towards the OSS model, but
it's a slow process.  In JCP 2.5 (the guidelines for the JCP), the
ASF's work was key in getting TCKs and RIs to be able to be licensed
under and OSS license.  Before that, there was no way to do an OSS 
JSR.
  Now, w/ 2.6 that just went into effect last week, the process now
formally encourages as much openness and transparency as possible in 
an
EG (although you still can do pretty much what you want...) as well as
require an early release of the spec to the community to enable as 
much
feedback and commentary as possible.  Previously, the EGs had to
release a community draft late in the process, and that made them
afraid to have not enough time to fix stuff, so they would tend to
really delay.

The Groovy EG will be run as an OSS project, btw...

geir

	--- Noel

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apache should join the open source java discussion

2004-03-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 18, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Leo Simons wrote:

Something big is stirring in the java world. There's talks between Sun 
and IBM about releasing an open source version of java. There's talks 
between the linux desktop movers about adopting java as the glue that 
binds the major desktop projects together.

Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and 
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.

Apache is one of the biggest open source communities, and the leader 
of the pack when it comes to open source java.

I think the Apache community should work together on an open letter to 
Sun, IBM, and the rest of the open source community stating our shared 
position on the subject. Like Havoc Pennington writes 
(http://ometer.com/desktop-language.html), the Community Should 
Decide and It's time to start the discussion.

WDYT?
The ASF has always been a proponent for 'open source java', and while 
I'm glad to see the rest of the world catching up, I believe the path 
we are on is fundamentally a good one, and we shouldn't deviate too far 
from it.

Here's something I wrote a little while ago for the members list, 
describing what we do and will do :

1) Keep working to make TCKs available to ASF projects that implement 
JSRs, and when needed, infrastructure to run the TCKs.  We cover the 
spectrum - from smaller WS stuff (including something for J2ME, IIRC), 
to the big mosnster, J2EE.  The main activity is getting TCKs in the 
hands of non-members to use in ASF projects, something thats just 
requiring some legal paperwork.  Given that we'll have a larger and 
larger group using TCKs, willing to fix them if given the chance, I see 
oppo for OSS-ing TCKs.  Maybe I'm a dreamer.  (Note that new the 
proposed JSR 241 for Groovy is going to be an OSS TCK and OSS RI).

2) Bring RIs here to the ASF.  We have a good tradition of this 
already, Tomcat and JSP for example, and we need to continue it, either 
by taking on ownership of existing RIs, such as we are working on for 
JavaMail, or hosting RIs for EGs on which the ASF has a rep (or not).  
This will tend to force the open spec issue, as you can't get the 
free help of an OSS community if they can't read the spec and know 
the motivations behind APIs.

3) Do what we can to connect the various JSR-implementors in the OSS 
community.  For example, we'd like to connect all J2EE implementors, 
both OSS and non-OSS (so JBoss would be invited), to talk 
confidentially with each other about issues they face to pass the TCK.  
This would expose the OSS communities w/ the commercial community in a 
deep, technical way, which I think will help the commercial crowd form 
an accurate picture of OSS.

We are the only open source entity on the Executive Committee of the 
Java Community Process.  The efforts of the ASF (w/ Jason as rep) 
resulted in pro-OSS changes in a de-facto international standards 
group.  These changes included free JCP participation for individuals, 
academics and non-profits, the ability to actually create a TCK and RI 
under an OSS license, and the creation of the scholarship program for 
individuals, academics and non-profits to get TCKs and RIs free of 
charge w/ free support to certify open source projects.  One very 
visible result of this is that the ASF and ObjectWeb are both J2EE 
licensees, and working to create certified open-source J2EE stacks.

Since this recent brouhaha started, the intention is to get involved 
(me wearing the VP JCP and VP Jakarta hats makes me itch to do 
something :)  At first I wanted to make a public statement too, but 
after thinking about it for a while, and since we had a nice quote from 
Brian in the first news cycle, I put that aside for a little while.  
This is a somewhat tricky issue due to the compatibility concerns and 
politics involved, and it's clear that we can be most effective if

a) we are sure to continue to be a neutral party in what is currently 
visible as a Sun vs IBM public pissing match - IOW, we don't pile on 
Sun (nor ignore IBM)

b) we completely understand the issues facing all sides (well, both 
sides, Sun and IBM, as I don't really care what ESR's issues are...)

To that end, I've been working privately (w/ JCP hat on) with a few 
people, and wish to continue that way for a little while.  I don't want 
this to appear as anything more than me just talking to people - not an 
official ASF action by any means - and I really wanted to keep quiet 
about it, but your post brought this front and center.

I think the best thing that ASF community members can do for now, until 
the next news flareup, is in blogs, conversations etc, is point out how 
much the ASF does wrt 'open source java' - how this isn't a new idea 
and we're working hard to make it happen.  And we're doing it not in 
the press, but where the rubber meets the road - through code and 
community.  This isn't a meme to be planted - just a fact to 
disseminate. :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr

Re: Apache should join the open source java discussion

2004-03-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
sheepish
I wasn't subscribed to community@ until now, so if there's something 
there that wasn't xposted to general@, let me know...
/sheepish

More inline :

On Mar 18, 2004, at 11:21 AM, Leo Simons wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
the intention is to get involved snip/ really wanted to keep quiet
about it, but your post brought this front and center.
little did I know! See what happens when stuff happens on private 
mailing lists? Duplication of effort :-P
LOL

it wasn't on a private list.  There was some informal discussion, and I 
kept meaning to bring it up to the community in general...

I'll happily shut up, since you're obviously on top of things. And 
thanks for letting us know you're on top of things :D
I won't claim to be on top of anything yet, but certainly will keep 
trying...

geir

--
cheers,
- Leo Simons

---
Weblog  -- http://leosimons.com/
IoC Component Glue  -- http://jicarilla.org/
Articles  Opinions -- http://articles.leosimons.com/
---
We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
 people wouldn't obey the rules.
-- Alan Bennett
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Apache should join the open source java discussion

2004-03-18 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
On Mar 18, 2004, at 11:06 AM, Costin Manolache wrote:

Serge Knystautas wrote:

Leo Simons wrote:

Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and 
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.


In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a whole, what about 
organizing/encouraging/guiding people who want to participate?  Maybe 
specific resources that should be targetted, such as where the most 
active and/or productive discussions are taking place.

What about starting by making sure Apache java projects _do_ work with 
the 2 open source JVMs that are mentioned in the
article ?  That would be a statement, much better than we like open 
source java, but our software doesn't run on it because it doesn't
really matter.
Perfect - this is the way that the ASF has always supported open-source 
java - by actually doing it...

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


[VOTE RESULT] HiveMind as Jakarta sub-project

2004-03-12 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
The vote has been running a week now (actually longer), the count has 
been unanimously supportive (there were two +0 votes, all the rest were 
+1), so HiveMind is now a Jakarta sub-project.

Congratulations to Howard and the rest of the HiveMind community.

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: entering jakarta

2004-03-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Mar 3, 2004, at 7:24 AM, Paulo Simao wrote:

Hi Folks
I´m new in the group. I read all the docs in jakarta site, but I´m not 
sure about the process for donating code and starting a project.
It would be very helpfull, if someone could give me a small guidance.''
If you have some contributions to make for an existing Jakarta 
sub-project, work with that community via the mail lists.  If you have 
and idea about something new to start, you have two options.  If 
appropriate to the Jakarta Commons, you might try to ignite a 
discussion about your ideas there.  If it's larger and far enough along 
in development, the Apache Incubator would be a good place to discuss.

geir


Thank you all for the attention.
Paulo Simao
_
MSN Messenger: converse com os seus amigos online.  
http://messenger.msn.com.br

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


[VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project

2004-03-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
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 :)

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: [VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project

2004-03-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Mar 3, 2004, at 9:58 AM, 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*.

[X] +1  I support this proposal
[ ] -1  I don't support this proposal
[ ]  0  I abstain from voting for or against this proposal
--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: news reorganization

2004-03-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Mar 3, 2004, at 4:24 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 25 Feb 2004, at 13:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

On Feb 24, 2004, at 5:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

i've just committed the reorganization i proposed last week. i've 
moved all the news documents into the news subdirectory and all now 
have date-related names (so no renaming should be necessary and 
therefore the urls will be permanent). the html versions of the old 
pages now redirect to the new ones. i'm considering adding some 
other redirects into the .htaccess file.
That's great.  Any support for moving the link to Martin's page up, 
have a separate section above news In memoriam or like?
done.
Thanks.  Very nice.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [VOTE] HiveMind as a Jakarta sub-project

2004-03-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Mar 3, 2004, at 6:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[X] +1  I support this proposal
[ ] -1  I don't support this proposal
[ ]  0  I abstain from voting for or against this proposal
Comments :
Are releases going to use HTTPD release numbering or the Jakarta 
method ?
There is a jakarta method?

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: questions license for site documents

2004-02-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 29, 2004, at 5:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

the generated html does not contain an explicit license just a 
copyright. am i right in thinking that now it would be better to 
publish them under the apache license 2?

also, am i right in thinking that all the source documentation should 
have license notices added?
Might as well make it explicit

- robert

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Wiki Migration

2004-02-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 8:38 PM, Scott Eade wrote:

According to
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?MigrateFromThisWiki
and
http://wiki.apache.org/general/UseModMigration
we eventually need to migrate the existing Usemod wiki content over to 
the new MoinMoin wiki.

For jakarta I would imagine that we will want a subwiki per subproject.

I would like to migrate the turbine project pages across as a subwiki 
called turbine under a Jakarta heading (with change diffs going to the 
turbine-dev mailing list).

I am only volunteering to migrate the turbine project pages, but if 
others want to put their hands up for other subprojects then perhaps a 
single request to infrastructure could be used to request multiple 
subwikis.

As I understand it there needs to be a consensus in the jakarta PMC 
that this is the way forward before a request can be made to 
infrastructure to create any subwikis.  Do any PMC members object to 
this approach?

Does this mean we can have

   ./jakarta
   ./jakarta/turbine
   ./jakarta/whatever
Where turbine and whatever are distinct and separate, not just parts of 
/jakarta?

geir

Thanks,

Scott

--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au


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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Wiki Migration

2004-02-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:31 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote:

What about non-project related wiki content like the following, where 
would that go in the new wiki?

http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?GettingInvloved
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ToolChest
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IrcChannels
I'd like for us to have a general Jakarta wiki for the whole 
community

geir

-Mark

Henri Yandell wrote:

Sounds good to me, I think Commons can work fine as a single Wiki.
Continues to allow for interesting inter-component relations. Taglibs 
also
fits well as a single Wiki.
+1 (PMC)
I'm unsure if either have a wiki, but am prepared to learn the 
necessaries
to migrate if need be.
Hen
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Scott Eade wrote:
According to
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?MigrateFromThisWiki
and
http://wiki.apache.org/general/UseModMigration
we eventually need to migrate the existing Usemod wiki content over 
to
the new MoinMoin wiki.

For jakarta I would imagine that we will want a subwiki per 
subproject.

I would like to migrate the turbine project pages across as a subwiki
called turbine under a Jakarta heading (with change diffs going to 
the
turbine-dev mailing list).

I am only volunteering to migrate the turbine project pages, but if
others want to put their hands up for other subprojects then perhaps 
a
single request to infrastructure could be used to request multiple 
subwikis.

As I understand it there needs to be a consensus in the jakarta PMC 
that
this is the way forward before a request can be made to 
infrastructure
to create any subwikis.  Do any PMC members object to this approach?

Thanks,

Scott

--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au


-
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]
--
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Wiki Migration

2004-02-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Scott Eade wrote:

Mark R. Diggory wrote:

What about non-project related wiki content like the following, where 
would that go in the new wiki?

http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?GettingInvloved
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ToolChest
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IrcChannels
If the PMC is agreeable the Jakarta heading (I see it is there now 
with a jakarta-cactus subwiki) could itself be a subwiki to provide a 
place for these non-project documents (with change diffs emailed to 
this list).  The Incubator and Logging projects seem to take this 
approach.
That answers my first question.  We can't structure the wiki's such as 
I was thinking before.

+1

Scott

--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au


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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Wiki Migration

2004-02-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 27, 2004, at 8:13 AM, Scott Eade wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Does this mean we can have

   ./jakarta
   ./jakarta/turbine
   ./jakarta/whatever
Where turbine and whatever are distinct and separate, not just parts 
of /jakarta?
Not quite - the wiki urls would all be at the same level.

Using separate wikis thus:

   ./jakarta
   ./turbine
   ./jakarta-commons
has a few advantages:
1. Oversight can be improved by sending change diffs to the list most 
appropriate to the wiki concerned. 2. Potential migration of 
subprojects to top level projects could simplified (especially if we 
use, for example, turbine rather than jakarta-turbine as the name 
of the turbine wiki).
3. Separate wikis means independent namespaces for WikiWords.
All if these could be solved if the design of the wiki system wasn't 
broken.  The URL should be just that, the URL, and structure of the 
Wiki was distinct.

IOW, it would be nice for separate wiki's to be able to be assembled 
any way we wanted.

Including links between separate wikis is easily achieved through the 
use of InterWiki links.

Would anyone like to comment on a preferred naming convention - i.e. 
turbine vs jakarta-turbine (I see we now have jakarta-cactus and 
jakarta-tapestry).  I don't know if it is difficult to change the 
name of a wiki from say jakarta-cactus to just cactus if say 
cactus were to become a top level project in the future, so perhaps 
just cactus might have been a more future-proof choice.
If we can do 'jakarta-cactus' until it's a TLP w/o much work to 
convert, that would probably be better...

geir

Scott

--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au


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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: news reorganization

2004-02-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 24, 2004, at 5:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

i've just committed the reorganization i proposed last week. i've 
moved all the news documents into the news subdirectory and all now 
have date-related names (so no renaming should be necessary and 
therefore the urls will be permanent). the html versions of the old 
pages now redirect to the new ones. i'm considering adding some other 
redirects into the .htaccess file.
That's great.  Any support for moving the link to Martin's page up, 
have a separate section above news In memoriam or like?

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: chairmen..

2004-02-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Danny Angus wrote:

If its not too patronising of me I'd like to propose vote of thanks to 
Sam as outgoing chair,

Sam, I know you've been more involved elsewhere lately, but from a 
personal point of view I've learned to respect and appreciate the 
low-key, mature and consensus building way in which you have steered 
Jakarta through a period of great change. You have worked hard to 
ensure that allegations of conservatism couldn't be levelled at 
Jakarta, and have sucessfully encouraged project after project to grow 
up and follow their own star. If more of us were more like you we'd've 
achieved so much more by now. Thanks its appreciated.

Thanks Sam, for everything that you've done.  And thanks for sticking 
around :)


On a related note, welcome Geir, I'm sure you can count on us to 
continue to be a bunch of cranky opinionated blowhards who couldn't 
reach a real decision if our lives depended upon it. :-)

I'm counting on it!

geir

d.





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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [HiveMind] There's that grant!

2004-02-24 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:

I guess this is as much of a notification as we get? In any case, the 
grant appears to have been
recorded.
Fabulous.

Since I believe that your intention is to make it a Jakarta 
sub-project, the Jakarta PMC should vote to accept or reject it's 
addition to Jakarta.  If you agree, then we should probably do this 
first, and assuming success, approach Incubator with the project and 
the wish of Jakarta to host the project once it passes all incubator 
requirements.

Comments?

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


CLAs : Deadline is March 1, 2004 to avoid suspension of commit privs

2004-02-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Jakarta Committers,

The March 1 CLA deadline for CLAs is approaching quickly.

As you are aware, all committers working on Apache Software Foundation 
projects are required to have a CLA filed with the ASF.  This document 
clearly defines the terms under which intellectual property has been 
contributed to the ASF and thereby allow us to defend the project 
should there be a legal dispute regarding the software at some future 
time.

Every committer is responsible for ensuring a CLA is on file with the 
ASF by March 1, 2004.  Any committer that does not have a CLA on file 
will have their committer privs suspended.

To check to see if one is on file for you, please look here :

   http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html

If your name is *not* in italics, there is no CLA on file. f you are 
not listed as having a CLA on file, read about it and get one :

   http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas

and follow the instructions.  It's really easy.

Please direct all questions and problems to

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

or the public list if you don't mind public discussion of your 
situation.

We will do what we can to help resolve any issues that arise.  Silence 
on this issue isn't an option.  The ASF is working to tie up any 
IP-related loose-ends, and this is an important one - they will suspend 
commit privs.

Thanks

geir, writing on behalf of the Jakarta PMC

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: Apache License 2.0 came into effect

2004-01-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 28, 2004, at 9:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

If all licenses must be updated by March 1st 2004, you'd better get us
some using instructions really quickly, e.g.
what goes in

Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]

for all our existing code? Will someone need to look up the original
author and all updaters in CVS?
Why? The Apache Software Foundation is the copyright owner for any and 
all code in ASF CVSs and projects.

geir

--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:  http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/


Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/01/2004 12:01:01 PM:

Hello, Jakarta-Folks,

Just a note (but very important)

++ brief summary ++

The Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that
license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
The Board has also mandated that all ASF software must be switched to
the new license by March 1st, 2004. Please watch this space for
further instructions on how to use the new license.
-

++ description ++

The 2.0 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF (The
Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0) in 2004. The goals of
this license revision have been to reduce the number of frequently
asked questions, to allow the license to be reusable without
modification by any project (including non-ASF projects), to allow
the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every
file, to clarify the license on submission of contributions, to
require a patent license on contributions that necessarily infringe
the contributor's own patents, and to move comments regarding Apache
and other inherited attribution notices to a location outside the
license terms (the NOTICE file [1]).
The result is a license that is compatible with other open source
licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the original
goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development
across both nonprofit and commercial organizations.
All packages produced by the ASF will be implicitly licensed under
the Apache License, version 2.0, unless otherwise explicitly stated.
For more information, see Apache Licenses Page [2]
[1] - http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
[2] - http://www.apache.org/licenses/
-

You can also read this above from here:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/elsewhere.html#20040121.1
Sincerely,

-
Tetsuya Kitahata --  Terra-International, Inc.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.terra-intl.com/
-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)

2004-01-14 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:



On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in
private.
There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for 
hand
picking (if hand picked) and a public results list
If you are nominated and not elected people would know.  Otherwise, 
there is
privacy.  I do agree that when the results are known they could and 
should
be published.
Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but 
choose
not to accept?
I don't think so.  We want *everyone* to accept.

Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being
recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a
[RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the
results].
Yes - once we get the list complete (based on acceptance)...



Hen

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Differences

2004-01-14 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Ted Husted wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:00:31 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a
good place to ask (its more of an administrative list).  You'd be
better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably
send you links to their website).  Generally these messages devolve
into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about
their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in
fact) so asking them all in a room together what's the difference
is well...often not pretty.
Actually, this used to be the place where people could ask questions 
like this, and chat about everything under the Java sun.

A while back, we co-opted the General list for use as the PMC public 
list. And subscribes to General have been falling every since. Less 
than a third of what they once were.

Perhaps once most of the Committers are on the PMC list, we can move 
the administrative nonsense there again, and let the General list be 
the General list again :)
+1

-Ted.



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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: New Project Proposal

2004-01-08 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 8, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Chad Meadows wrote:

Hi Danny,
After reading some replies and further review, I am going to attempt  
to get this project hosted on IBM's developerworks Open Source site  
first.
Once we can then establish a community of interest, then at that later  
time it may be better to evaluate this project as a potential member  
of Jakarta.
When the project does become available, I will inform everyone on this  
list.
That's a great approach, IMO.  And as for the velocity bits, please  
come over to velocity-land and discuss with us.  If appropriate for  
general use, we should talk.

geir

Thanks,

Chad Meadows, Software Engineer
Research Triangle Park
T/L 526-2894
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
image.tiffDanny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]



image.tiff

image.tiff

Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]

01/08/2004 04:11 AM
Please respond to Jakarta General List
image.tiff
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: New Project Proposal




Chad,
 I am an IBM employee who has developed a new type of framework
Please first read:http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html
also readhttp://incubator.apache.org/
You might consider approching the incubator project (subscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) I would certainly suggest it as the best  
next
step for you.
You might consider contributing this to jakarta-commons.
Alternatively you might also consider approaching one of the existing
Jakarta sub-projects if you believe that there might be benefit in  
creating
a joint project combining the two things, or even of simply donating  
and
joining an existing sub-project.

Jakarta has a high bar for entry of new sub-projects, higher still  
since we
have been encouraged by the ASF board to flatten the structure of  
Apache.
This doesn't mean that we are unable or unwilling to consider new
sub-projects but it does mean that we might have to work hard to  
justify
it.

One final word of advice, Apache is not sourceforge, and whilst we do
welcome new projects it will require you to convince people of its  
worth
and you would do well to find someone who can champion your cause and  
do
some evangelising on your behalf.

d.



*** 

The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the  
addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or  
responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient)  
please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message  
from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose  
its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are  
capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not  
accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it  
was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or  
opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation  
of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any  
liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility  
to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this  
e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and  
views of The Student Loans Company Limi!
ted.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for  
the presence of computer viruses.

*** 
***

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


--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2004-01-03 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 3, 2004, at 9:53 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Everything is back on the private list again.  Odd to discuss 
including more
people in the PMC while excluding them from the discussion.
Oh, quit it.

Discussing individual people should be done in private to let people 
speak freely and avoid potential embarassment of those being discussed.

geir

--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are 
almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or 
its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree 
with
everything espoused in the above email.

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-31 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
 does not grant write-access lightly. I think people understand 
that.

In the normal course, virtually all ASF committers are PMC members,
because its the committers make the decisions and do the work.
It is true that on occasion an ASF committer will not yet be member 
of
the project PMC. Their votes may not be binding, and their commits 
will
be scrutinized by PMC members (which is to say other members of the
development team). But, in due course, the PMC that made them a
committer also makes them a member.

When our community elected all of our committers, it was with the
understanding that they were the ones with binding votes, that they 
were
the decision makers, that the Jakarta Committers were, in practice, 
the
Jakarta PMC.

In my humble opinion, it is the duty of the PMC to now ratify the
decisions our community has already made. Since we now know that the 
PMC
is *not* a steering committee and is in fact the active managers of 
the
codebase, we are obligated to finish the job our community started: 
give
the committers the legal rights and responsibility that we always
believed they already had.

Make the committers the PMC, because they are the only true PMC that 
we
have ever had.

Each and every one of our committers have earned their stripe. They 
have
all proven to the community that they are thoughtful, responsible
self-starters capable of managing our codebase on the community's
behalf. These are the individuals that have been creating, 
maintaining
and releasing the products we all cherish. These are the individuals
that have been doing the true work of the PMC.

Where things have gone wrong, they have gone wrong because we were 
still
using a bootstrap PMC that excluded all but a few of our decision
makers. I'm sure that there are Jakarta committers that would be
unwilling to serve on a bootstrap PMC, but serving on a true,
inclusive PMC may be a different matter.

Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers 
one-by-one
on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I
believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the
PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let 
each
decision-maker decide for himself or herself.

If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to 
hand-pick
which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and 
which
are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is 
nothing
but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the
community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to 
be.

But 'nuff said, I have a release to co-manage :)

-Ted.



-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 29, 2003, at 10:17 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
SNIP/

Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
All active committers should be interested or else they wouldn't be 
active committers.
Please - interested in participating on the PMC.

Oversight is not some otherwordly task to be conducted by an elite 
subset of our committers. IP oversight is something *every* 
decision-maker should be thinking about *every* time they commit a 
line of code. Consensus oversight is something *every* decision-maker 
should be thinking about *every* time they post to the DEV list. If 
committers aren't thinking about this now, it's only because they have 
no reporting requirements to remind them.
Ted, we all agree.

Our community has already decided who its decision-makers should be: 
the committers.

The Jakarta PMC doesn't need to second-guess the Jakarta community. We 
simply need to ratify the choices the community, in its wisdom, has 
already made.

Moving forward, we may want to distinguish between newbie committers 
and the silver-haired PMC members. But, as it stands, when each of 
these committers were selected, they were selected to be *the* 
decision-makers. They were selected to do what the PMC does: actively 
manage the codebase.

We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer 
decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to 
be.
I never understand why you keep doing this.  There is no 'schism' 
between the PMC and the community, and no one is proposing it.

I hate to appeal to authority because the ASF charter does provide a 
healthy bit of freedom for any given PMC, but for example, if we want 
to follow the model of the httpd project, from which the ASF bylaws 
were fashioned, and I know you are a vocal proponent of the 'ASF Way', 
it is my understanding they invite committers onto the PMC after some 
time after receiving committership when it's clear that is appropriate 
for that person.  Committing != oversight.

There are people who are committers that may not wish to participate on 
the PMC.  We want everyone to, but if they aren't *interested* in doing 
it, putting them on the PMC achieves nothing, and actually, IMO, 
weakens the PMC.  There are all sorts of valid reasons to not want to 
be on the PMC, I suppose, and we should never stop inviting that 
person.

100% should be the goal, not the requirement.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
+1!

On Dec 29, 2003, at 6:01 PM, Danny Angus wrote:


We should trust the judgment of our community, let each committer
decide for themselves, and then Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to 
be.
+1 I totally agree, and I would hope that no one seriously holds any 
other view.

Concern about oversight has been flagged as an issue for us to address 
and we are duty bound to explore the ways in which we can achieve 
this.
I would hope that by debating the issue we are bringing it to the 
wider attention of our community, and disseminating fact and opinion 
(perhaps, indeed, for a third or fourth time) which will help to 
inform the actions of every commiter and PMC member and bring us 
closer to our goal without any radical or authoritarian steps being 
required.
Frankly I would regard either step as being at best a partial failure, 
and at worst potentially more damaging to the community than any 
failure to _quickly_ resolve the situation.
I still believe that by continuing to have an open debate we are 
making progress, and I hope that others can see how frank and honest 
examination of the various opinions and potential directions is in 
itself vital to bind and re-unify the project and engage the whole 
community in shaping our mutual future.

At the end of the day (Oh I hate it when I say that!) the most 
important asset we have is each other, and we have nothing to keep us 
here apart from the attraction of a healthy community, it is not 
bylaws or oversight or promotion that should be the focus of our 
efforts to restore some balance, rather it should be the community, 
and through the actions of a united community we will achieve the 
technical requirements of procedure and oversight in much the same way 
that a healty community will produce high quality software with very 
little management effort required.



d.

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks 
for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to 
Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us.
The board isn't hassling.  They have valid concerns that they know we 
are working on, and they are even helping.  This doesn't mean we are 
out of the woods by any means, but we're not being hassled.

 This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in 
favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I thought 
I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.

Background info:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
Stephen

PROPOSAL
The Jakarta PMC shall proactively encourage subprojects to reach Top 
Level
Project (TLP) status.

It shall do this by
- drawing up a list of advantages that TLP status brings
- explaining the effect of the ASF only recognizing Jakarta on a
subproject's rights
- documenting the process, by receiving advice from recent new TLPs
- produce a draft template board resolution for creating a TLP
- clearly identifying board meeting dates for TLP creation
- proactively encouraging proposal then vote on developer lists
- setting a timefame of 3 months for the votes
In order to respect current reality, voters on each dev list shall be 
those
of committer and PMC member status who have made recent contributions, 
with
the exact list to be determined by the dev list.

-1 from me

I fully support and respect sup-projects deciding on their own to leave 
Jakarta and be a TLP if they feel it's better for their community and 
code, but I see no reason for the PMC to make it their purpose on life 
to encourage them.  Seems rather pointless.  You might as well just 
disband Jakarta and save everyone time.

geir



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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

* We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta, 
that means *all* the committers, and
No, it doesn't.  We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but 
it's not required to be all.  We can also have people that aren't 
committers on the PMC.

* We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with 
some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about 
consensus and oversight.
Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this.

If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to 
the As it ever were proposal  under another thread. Let's see if we 
can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that 
works.

IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to 
let it.
I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works.  I think we all 
know it does.  I think we disagree what the ASF Way is - I think it 
simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to 
feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on, 
namely project direction and oversight.  Thus, the PMC does not 
necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that 
percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules 
and reporting content and format.

I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring 
CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are 
interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be 
in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the 
day-to-day PMC process.  Until we achieve the former, the latter is 
somewhat of a intellectual game.  As you like to point out, we all are 
adults working for the best interest of the organization.

Please work with us on this.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir,

I agree with everything that you said, except one.  You have the idea 
that
when a project moves to TLP status it leaves Jakarta, and that saddens 
you.
In the above sentence, there is one correct statement :

.. when a project moves to TLP status, it leaves Jakarta.

(this is a correct and true statement) and one sort-of correct 
statement :

... and that saddens you.

As it's bitter-sweet - it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta 
and continue to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving 
a friend after a visit.

What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.

You said the same thing when Logging was promoted, and Ceki tried to
reassure you that it wasn't going far.
I was 100% supportive of logging going, and hope to see it prosper. 
However, it did go. :)

Although I concur that projects that been promoted to TLP status have
reduced their ties somewhat with Jakarta, that need not be the case.  
If you
want Jakarta to be an active community hub, it can be so without a
monolothic PMC.
Jakarta will always have a PMC.  Unless the board changes the Jakarta 
PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and 
communications of Jakarta.  We may allow other Apache projects to have 
links and resources on our website, for example, but as it is the 
Jakarta PMC legally required to oversee such resources and activities, 
it's entirely up to us.

geir

 --
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 10:25 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

+1

I agree that interested volunteers should:

* setup a Wiki area describing the TLP process and rationales , AND
Do you think we all should setup our own individual Wiki page, or work  
together?  I'm getting the feeling you don't want to work together on  
this.

* give notice to each and every Jakarta DEV list that the area exists.

My main beef is that we have not done due diligence in alerting ALL of  
the subprojects of the latest developments.
What 'developments'?  We are discussing things here on general@, and as  
far as I can see, we have no developments yet.  Ted, you seem to be in  
a terrible hurry to push this through.  Can you wait until people come  
back from the holiday break and read and catch up?  the point of doing  
things here is to *increase* participation, not reduce it by rushing  
something through during a generally world-wide western holiday.

I've outlined a wiki page as described by this proposal  
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi? 
JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectApplication, and setup a draft TLP  
resolution.

I would also volunteer to subscribe to each of the DEV lists and post  
a message pointing them to the archive of this thread. (Unless another  
volunteer already has an account setup to do such things. )
Instead of doing it yourself, why not try to work w/in the PMC  
structure and get a message that we all agree on, and have one person  
from each project on the PMC send to their community.  It would be a  
good step in the direction you just were espousing in a different  
thread, namely increased participation.

Whether a subproject follows through or not can be totally up to each  
subproject. The important thing is that we do the due diligence in  
making sure *everyone* concerned has been apprised.
LOL. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a  
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each  
sub-project.  Let others join in this...

-Ted.

- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:39:30 +
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks  
for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to  
Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this  
is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in  
favour
of multiple TLPs just can't be bothered with the arguing. So I  
thought I'd
place the alternative proposal on the table. If you like it, +1 it.
SNIP/



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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
 Jakarta from a place that is 
supposedly governed by an other wordly elite to a place that 
practice minimum threshold meritocracy -- both socially and legally. 
Today our social order is out-of-synch with our legal status. This 
proposal legalizes what already happens in practice.

* It provides a forum where ALL the decision makers can discuss 
oversight (not just a chosen few).

AND,

* It puts reporting in the lap of the decision-makers for each 
product, which ensures it stays on the *decision-makers* radar, and is 
not pushed up to some body that cannot possible oversee our products.

-Ted.



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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going 
on?  This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to 
Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous 
case Stephen)

geir

On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

On Dec 28, 2003, at 8:43 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

* We need to put *all* the decision-markers on the PMC. At Jakarta,
that means *all* the committers, and
No, it doesn't.  We need to put as many as possible, hopefully all, but
it's not required to be all.  We can also have people that aren't
committers on the PMC.
* We need to insist that all subprojects file regular reports, with
some statutory bullets to ensure everyone is still thinking about
consensus and oversight.
Erm, I'm not so sure that this needs to be legislated like this.

If anyone reading this message agrees, or disagrees, please respond to
the As it ever were proposal  under another thread. Let's see if we
can build a consensus and then create and maintain a solution that
works.
IMHO, the ASF Way *will* work if we let it; we've just never tried to
let it.
I don't think that anyone is debating if the ASF works.  I think we all
know it does.  I think we disagree what the ASF Way is - I think it
simply requires inclusive participation on the PMC of those willing to
feel responsible for more than just the code they are working on,
namely project direction and oversight.  Thus, the PMC does not
necessarily mean forced 100% committer participation, although that
percentage is the goal, nor does it mandate strict reporting schedules
and reporting content and format.
I do believe that if we continue on the way already started - ensuring
CLAs, putting as many active Jakarta committers on the PMC as are
interested, educating them as to their oversight role, then we would be
in a much healthier position and able to then grapple with the
day-to-day PMC process.  Until we achieve the former, the latter is
somewhat of a intellectual game.  As you like to point out, we all are
adults working for the best interest of the organization.
Please work with us on this.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me 
that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be living at home, expecting his
parents to do the washing, feed him and make his bed. Instead, the good
parent should be gently enabling the child to set out on their own in 
the
next phase of their life.

Sometimes letting go is the hardest part of being a parent.
It's a good analogy, but makes the assumption that the Jakarta PMC will 
do for the sub-projects whatever is analogous to the care for children 
- washing, feeding and bed making.

In fact (from my POV anyway), the Jakarta PMC has done no such thing in 
the past, and should do no such thing in the future. [Some proposals 
seem to want to enforce bed-making and ironing, but I don't think we 
should do that...]

All we're trying to do is get the PMC populated w/ as many committers 
as possible, educated as to what oversight means, to satisfy the 
oversight requirements of the ASF.That's not something to take 
lightly, but it doesn't mandate additional process, control and 
procedure either.  The board or ASF by-laws require no such 
scaffolding.

Things will continue to be community-centered and decisions 
community-led.  Sub-projects still govern their own activities.  The 
PMC - composed of all the sub-projects - just makes those activities 
legal, in line w/ the oversight requirements of the ASF, and w/ proper 
education of the PMC members, helps catch problems.

By becoming a TLP, a sub-project has changed nothing other than remove 
some antiquated-and-should-be-changed Jakarta charter restrictions, and 
removed itself from the larger community that is Jakarta.   And yes, I 
recognize that people don't believe me about the last point.  :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
No worries.  I was just truly baffled.

geir

On Dec 28, 2003, at 11:59 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

Mea culpa.

I'm trying a new mail client and managed to press the wrong buttons. 
Sorry for the confusion.

-Ted.

- Original message 
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:19:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Indemnification of the PMC
Is it my mailer that's making a mess here, or is something else going
on?  This is the second message I've seen today that is attributed to
Ted but was written by someone else (in this case me, in the previous
case Stephen)


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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

it's good to see projects come out of Jakarta and continue
to grow, and it's sad to see them leave, like when leaving
a friend after a visit.
I understand.  And I understand why you view Jakarta that way.  Why do 
you
not feel that Jakarta could be an active community hub, as has been the
subject of several discussions?
I just don't think it will happen.  It will be a website at best, and a 
bad website at worst.

As an example, look at the difference between Jakarta Commons to Apache 
Commons.


Jakarta will always have a PMC.  Unless the board changes the Jakarta
PMCs responsibilities, the PMC will be responsible for the code and
communications of Jakarta.
The Jakarta PMC must oversee all codebases within its project.
And it's website, the project websites, the mail lists and the usage of 
CVS.

  This
implies that we should start by adding almost all currently active
Committers to the Jakarta PMC.
That's what we're trying to do.

 That is something the PMC could do,
pro-actively, right now without further delay.  Taking that action 
would
mean that the majority of Committers would be on the PMC and general 
lists,
improving the ability of the PMC to represent a true consensus of where
Jakarta should go, and addressing a concern that we both share regard
educating the Committers about their oversight responsibilities.
But we've discussed this, and just glomming everyone wouldn't result in 
the best outcome as we want to make sure that people are explicitly 
signing up for project oversight, rather than being drafted to meet a 
quota.

Personally, I don't feel that a 400+ person PMC overseeing dozens of
codebases represents a truely functional solution, but we can give it 
a go.
I can't see why not.  The point of oversight is to catch the cases 
where things aren't right (i.e. code comes into the CVS that shouldn't 
w/o incubation) rather than continuously report when things are going 
well.

It is my belief that subsequently more projects are going to want to 
seek
TLP status, and that we will be all the better for it in terms of 
oversight
and direct participation.  So the question remains whether Jakarta 
should
turn itself into a hub, so that when the subprojects acquire TLP 
status,
they aren't forced to leave the community.
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous 
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.  I 
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight 
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of 
work.

The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community 
versus Jakarta as a website.

Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might 
illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.

geir


it's entirely up to us.
Exactly.  :-)

	--- Noel

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Costin Manolache wrote:
I see jakarta more like a union ( EU-style ), were the different
projects that joined are mature entities that choose to be part
of jakarta ( and can choose to get out - all that's needed is a
vote ).  And the PMC role is to make sure the rules are respected
Project maturity aside, I was with you up until the last sentence.
Then you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about 
over-regulation...

 The PMC
is supposed to be performing the active management of one or more
projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC is not
supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as describing
self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC, who operate a
collective for the common good.
Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management 
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.

geir

	--- Noel

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 3:49 PM, Danny Angus wrote:

-1

I don't think the PMC should be doing anything other than encouraging 
sub-projects to *consider* TLP at this stage.
I don't even think they should do that.  I don't think the PMC should 
take a position either way.  I don't think there should be any 
communication that can even be confused as coming from the PMC.

The proposal contains a number of detailed actions most of which I'd 
wholeheartedly support as they will help sub-projects to consider 
pro's and con's of promotion.

However I think it is inappropriate to be talking about proactively 
encouraging proposal then vote.
I would much rather that individuals who are active participants in 
the sub-project reach this stage, or don't, without having being 
prompted by the PMC.

For the record I think that many sub-projects would benefit from 
promotion, but not all of them, but I think the process would be made 
much harder is the sub-project is hustled into applying before the 
participants are really comfortable with the nature and consequences 
of the change.
And I think that once we have the PMC enlarged with all active, 
interested committers, these kinds of discussions and awareness will be 
a natural, open thing, not requiring any special schemes or campaigns

geir

d.

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC.  I
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's the same amount of
work.
Well this is a key point. I believe that now I am a Jakarta PMC member 
I
have direct responsibility for ALL subprojects. Given the breadth of 
Jakarta
this is a ridiculous position. So, it is more work. Much more work. For
example, I have spent much less time coding in the last 4 weeks. And 
thats
just plain wrong.
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that 
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever 
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key 
word is directly.

Think about it.  How could this possibly work in ANY ASF project of any 
useful size?  You couldn't do a Commons TLP (be it A-C or J-C) if every 
participant was directly and personally responsible for every shred of 
activity.

Here is what the ASF bylaws say :

Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of 
each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for 
project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish 
rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for 
which the committee is responsible

A reasonable person should *not* read this to mean the PMC chair is 
directly, actively responsible in that he or she must read every 
commit, watch ever mail list, and see every site and wiki change - 
rather he or she is able and required to organize the day-to-day 
management as he or she sees fit (subject to board approval) such that 
all code, site, mail and wiki's are covered by active, responsible 
oversight.  In the event that the management does *not* do this, the 
chair is responsible, but that's a huge difference from the 'every 
shred' model.

Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one 
committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand 
the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the 
Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is scalable, 
and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.

Isn't that reasonable?

If I'm not careful, I'll go crazy like Robert. So I may choose to 
leave the
PMC. Others will too, either actually resign, or just ignore it. 
Oversight
is NOT increased - the basic approach of sign 'em up is flawed.
sign 'em up is flawed, but not for the reason above (which I think is 
simply a misunderstanding on your part.)  It's flawed because we can't 
assert that those tasked with oversight (of their projects) on behalf 
of the ASF as PMC member is doing their job is they didn't ask to do it 
and/or be trained to do it.  I first floated the 'deputize them all' 
approach on the PMC list a while ago, and I'll be the first to say that 
I was wrong.


The question is how much value you place on Jakarta as a community
versus Jakarta as a website.
The communities are the subprojects.
And the subprojects together are also a community.  I'm not the only 
one that recognizes this.


Again, I'll suggest that Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons might
illustrate a bit about what I keep [unsuccessfully] trying to say.
Sorry, but I don't get you. A-C was a board invention. If it didn't 
exist
then J-C would be able to TLP cleanly. Perhaps you need to explain 
more. In
fact, perhaps you should set out in a separate thread as to where you 
see
Jakarta in 3-6 months time.
I'll be happy to do the latter.  As for the former:

A-C was a board invention, as you note, and I think a well-intentioned 
one.  However, after 14 months, it has a single codebase (a http client 
written in C).

J-C was a 'bottom-up' effort of multiple people in the Jakarta 
community from many *different* sub-projects that self-organized, 
debated independently (and incessantly) about the charter, presented 
the proposal to the PMC, had it approved and then rolled up their 
sleeves and got to work, with the resulting vibrant, productive 
community.

The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force 
behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion 
that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
I'll try to be brief.  I agree w/ you - I don't want to have to watch 
ever project.  I'm also not interested in endless debate.  I'm also not 
interested in legislation, process or overbearing procedure. And I'm 
not interested in breaking up Jakarta.  All I want to do is get CLAs 
signed and maximize participation on the PMC that covers all projects 
to satisfy the ASF oversight requirements.

My only concern about Lucene (to use your example) is that the code 
that comes into the ASF's CVS is free from any problems of provenance, 
and that the releases are done with the support of the Lucene 
community, and I would be comfortable w/ that if I knew that the active 
participants of the Lucene community were on the PMC and understood 
what the PMC does.

(Note that we are not advocating any layer of management separate from 
the codebase, and have not had that to date.)

As I think that your view of your responsibilities as a PMC members is 
mistaken. I'll ask for a clarification of the responsibilities from 
someone outside of Jakarta w/ no stake in this debate.  I too have no 
interest in being forced to be involved w/ any project other than those 
I choose to participate in.

geir

On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
word is directly.
As a PMC member, I should care whether there is a new Tapestry 
release, or a
new Lucene committer. These are PMC votes (or should be). But I don't 
care
(especially ;-). Thus there is a tension between my mandated 
responsibility
and my actual interests.

This aspect of 'do I care' is key. I read every vote on J-C, I may not
choose to vote (since adding lots of +0's wastes space), but I care 
about
the release or new committer. But I don't care about Lucene. Not one 
jot.
Yet I have equal responsibility for it. This just isn't right.

All I have heard from the original ASF projects indicate to me that 
the PMC
should represent one codebase and one tight community. Anything else 
leads
to a layer of management separate from the codebase (aka Jakarta PMC). 
All
the current debates exist because we have a layer of management which 
we do
not need.

These debates waste vast amounts of time and energy. Thus PMC members 
are
given the choice:
- debate/manage continuously and don't code,  or
- code and ignore the PMC
I'm unusual in that I'm bothering putting any effort at all into the 
former.
It won't be long before I'll give up and do the latter. Your POV will 
win on
the PMC because everyone else has better things to do than argue 
incesantly.


Therefore I would think that given we have coverage of more than one
committer per sub-project on the PMC, and those committers understand
the oversight role and are actively performing that role, then the
Jakarta PMC is compliant with the requirements of the ASF, is 
scalable,
and puts minimal additional responsibility on those on the PMC.

Isn't that reasonable?
No. What you are arguing for is just not human nature. As long as 
there is a
PMC away from the dev list, with other people from the dev list, with 
other
responsibilities and issues, people will not associate with it. People 
look
after what they own, and don't care about what they don't own. They 
may be
on the PMC in name, but that simply isn't enough. It really isn't.


The fact that participants from multiple sub-projects were the force
behind J-C (and not the PMC or the board) to me validates my assertion
that Jakarta as a whole is also a community.
The question that we cannot know the answer to (without a time 
machine) is
whether the same result would have occurred if Jakarta had not 
existed. ie.
Is J-C a product of Jakarta, or a product of the need for shared Java 
code.
You believe its the former, I wasn't around so can't really comment, 
however
I see no great reason why exactly the same J-C couldn't have occurred
without Jakarta.

Stephen



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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
 nothing of significance.

It changes everything. It turns Jakarta from a place that is 
supposedly governed by an other wordly elite to a place that 
practice minimum threshold meritocracy -- both socially and 
legally. Today our social order is out-of-synch with our legal 
status. This proposal legalizes what already happens in practice.

* It provides a forum where ALL the decision makers can discuss 
oversight (not just a chosen few).
AND,
* It puts reporting in the lap of the decision-makers for each 
product, which ensures it stays on the *decision-makers* radar, and 
is not pushed up to some body that cannot possible oversee our 
products.
-Ted.



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


--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
over-regulation...
LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either 
Costin or
I live in the EU.
I don't either.  I live in Connecticut, USA.

I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate 
proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed 
the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at 
Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop 
at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs 
said the total trip was too long.  The whole thing is something like an 
hour. :/

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being served. 
 Ug.


The PMC is supposed to be performing the active management of one or
more projects, not ensuring that other people are doing it.  The PMC
is not supposed to be a body of auditors.  I see your analogy as
describing self-managing bodies, i.e., projects with their own PMC,
who operate a collective for the common good.

Because the PMC would consist of those doing the active management
(i.e. the active, interested committers) , we have things covered.
As I've said, let's do it.  Get them on.  And then see which projects 
decide
to form their own PMC.  The issue I was commenting on is not to lose a 
sense
of community with those projects who choose to form their own PMC.
True.

geir

	--- Noel

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Scalability and oversight (Was: Just in case you're curious)

2003-12-27 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 27, 2003, at 1:39 PM, Santiago Gala wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El lunes, 22 dici, 2003, a las 16:32 Europe/Madrid, Geir Magnusson Jr. 
escribió:

You are free to do what you want.  Is this then about personal google 
hitcount?

To the risk of re-starting a extinguishing discussion, I think google 
(or any outsider looking) plays an important role here, but not in the 
personal hitcount sense.
I'll simply note that as you didn't quote what I was responding to, 
some readers unfamiliar with the thread might incorrectly assume that 
this was about an effort to keep this from being an open discussion.

No one wanted to keep this from being an open discussion.  It was first 
suggested by Peter a while ago, and I think everyone was in agreement.  
The issue was trying to get some organization and planning around a 
complicated subject before bringing it public.

I think openness of product *and* process is the only thing that makes 
us scalable and fault-tolerant, when comparing Apache with more 
traditional organizations.
I fully support openness, but I'll also note that a bit of organization 
and planning go a long way.  And there are plenty of traditional closed 
organizations that do just fine due to planning and organization, such 
as IBM and Microsoft.

Scalable because big groups of people can coordinate, even if they 
don't give specific input or they were not there while the decision 
was taken.
Yep, all helped by a bit of planning and organization.

Fault tolerant because the public audit trail left in CVS and mailing 
lists makes it easy for third party observers (or interested parties) 
to spot any error in oversight.
Yep, all helped by a bit of planning and organization.  Note that 'CVS' 
and 'mailing lists' are two examples of planning and organization.

If we go to the cathedral versus bazaar metaphor, nothing beyond a 
small group conversation remains private in the bazaar. So, if some 
merchant down there is selling cheaper, notice propagates fast. Same 
if some merchandise is faulted.
Maybe.  I'll note that the most successful OSS projects I've seen also 
had a strong individual or group of individuals that helped via (you 
can guess what's coming...), ...a bit of planning and organization.  
Apache httpd, linux, emacs, hibernate, mysql, the list goes on...

Same w/ Jakarta.  There have always been a strong group of people 
guiding the sub-projects and the project overall.  What we are trying 
to do now is increase that group, or better, recognize those that are 
doing it already, and conforming to legal structure needed by the ASF.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were

2003-12-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 12:11 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:

Ted,

I think we must focus on what we agree on - it seems nobody is against
expanding the PMC to include most committers ( or all active 
committers who don't decline ).

I'm not sure I understand Geir's current position, but I think he still
agrees we need to include most people. I don't think anyone can argue 
for excluding some active committers - I'm ok with a wait period ( i.e
people who have been active committers for at least N months ), but it 
has to be a deterministic process.


My current position hasn't changed.  We should try to include 100% of 
Jakarta committers, but recognize that we won't find that number who 
are willing to assume the oversight responsibility of being on the PMC. 
 This isn't surprising, and is what other projects like httpd 
experience as well.

And I agree, it must be a deterministic process - not a sweep.

In addition to that, there are other things we need to do - like 
making sure we have clearly identified people who will prepare the 
reports for
each codebase ( be it moderators, release managers, rotation, drafts 
or whatever a project wants to do - as long as the result is 2-3 names 
and
a monthly report ).
We also need to clearly identify what the board means by oversight ( 
to be honest - I don't know, I just have a vague idea, haven't seen 
any official definition :-). Since this oversight is motivated by 
legal concerns - I think we need a definition understandable by 
everyone, not just guesses.

But doing it all at once is very unlikely to work - with all the 
strong opinions around jakarta. Divide and conquer - first step is to 
grow the PMC - IMO you need to simplify your PROPOSAL to make it 
focused to one point ( instead of solving more problems at once ), and 
move to VOTE.

I don't understand why he's going about it this way.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were

2003-12-25 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
Exactly - lets not overdo this with too much process.  Lets just get 
people who have genuine interest onto the PMC, covering the project(s) 
they work on, and then keep growing.

geir

On Dec 24, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

Post a list of projects and get PMC people to volunteer to post 
reports,
chase up CLAs and improve PMC-to-non-PMC ratio, and record who has
volunteered. Keep going until all projects are covered by the minimum
number, which can be 1 to start with.

Hen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote:

(Again, sorry about the quoting.)

o·ver·sight

1. An unintentional omission or mistake.
2. Watchful care or management; supervision
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oversight

The board expects PMCs to exercise (2) so as to avoid (1). :)

For a PMC this boils down to issues of committer consensus and
intellectual property. In the past, there have been incidents at
Jakarta on both counts that lead to suspension of access, for both
individuals and modules (on different occasions).
IMHO, if we were to

* require subprojects to file regular reports with bullets regarding
consensus and oversight, and
* subscribe all committers to the PMC list where these reports are 
filed

then we'd be able to defuse these happenstances before they turn into
incidents.
IMHO, the one and only set of individuals that can provide watchful
care over a codebase is the set of committers we already have for 
each
subproject.

IMHO, each and every committer to a Jakarta subproject has already
passed through a gauntlet that proves they are PMC material and 
entitled
to binding votes.

All we need to do is complete the process that promotes our committers
to PMC members with binding votes, as our original guidelines
contemplated, and require subprojects to provide regular status 
reports.
(Just as the board requires our project to report.)

As both Roy and Greg have said, if the Jakarta committers truly
understood how few rights and privileges they have, they would be
demanding both ASF and PMC membership. Few do, so few have.
-Ted.



-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were

2003-12-24 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 6:28 AM, Ted Husted wrote:

My complaint is this:

Our current base of committers were led to believe they have binding 
votes. We are now told this is not the case. The committers we now 
have were all elected on the premise that they had binding votes and 
oversight responsibilities for their codebase. They were in fact 
elected as if they were to be members of the PMC.

Personally, I feel it is an abomination to think we have the right to 
hand-pick a subset of these committers and bestow upon them binding 
votes. Our communities deserve to be represented by the set of 
committers that they have already chosen, not an arbitrary subset 
deemed to be PMC material.

I call for the Jakarta Chair, as the ASF Vice President in charge of 
Jakarta, to do the Right Thing and promote all Jakarta committers to 
the Jakarta Project Managemenet Committee.

I disagree, and I think you are going a bit far.  I call for the 
Jakarta Chair to let us continue the discussion and keep working 
towards our solution :)

Anything less breaks the covenant we made with each and every Jakarta 
committer, as published in the original Jakarta guidelines. We said 
committers had binding votes, and it is now our obligation to make it 
so. If we fail to make a good faith effort to correct our oversight, 
then we will have accepted all these contributions under false 
pretenses.
False pretenses means that there is the intent to cheat.  I assume 
you didn't know that, and thus will retract it.

What we have said is that the committer has write access to the 
repository and voting rights allowing them to affect the future, and so 
far, that's how it worked.  I don't remember one complaint to the 
contrary.

We have a community that respects the vote of every committer.  Period.

The fact that we have a *legal* structure, the ASF as a corporation, 
that requires the board to know about every corporate activity is what 
the PMC is for - the board delegates oversight to the PMC.  So when a 
community votes, and that community isn't all on the PMC, then you have 
a vote which is legally not binding,  although totally respected by the 
community, which becomes a legally-binding vote when the PMC is 
informed, and the PMC acknowledges it.

So while the argument that a vote of committers is not binding legally, 
it is socially binding, and it becomes a binding legal vote when the 
PMC approves it, as the PMC is in effect voting by proxy, respecting 
the decision of the community.  That actually is no different than the 
board representing the wishes of the ASF membership.

What we are thus solving is not a community issue, but a legal one.  
Bringing as many informed, interested people as possible onto the PMC 
increases oversight, increases communication between the subprojects, 
and IMO, strengthens community.  Right now, we couldn't make a clear 
case that we have enough PMC representation for all the codebases.

I'm assuming the source of this idea of yours was the conversation we 
had on the PMC list about grandfathering in every committer.  While 
suggesting it originally as I too thought it would be the fast approach 
to the desired solution, I no longer support the idea of doing it in a 
blanket maneuver, and here's why :

1) Being on the PMC does imply responsibility.  Some people are not 
interested in that responsibility and just want to commit.  I think 
that should be allowed.  Not encouraged, but allowed.

2) Roping everyone into the PMC without ensuring things like CLA and 
understanding of responsibilities makes the whole thing a farce - we 
couldn't demonstrate that the chain of oversight from the board to the 
sub-projects is clear and manageable, because we have no clue who we 
just asked to represent the ASF in project governance, nor do we have 
any indication of their interest.

Thus, while painful and work intensive, adding people one by one lets 
us produce a healthy, active PMC rather than simply a redefinition of 
terms.   I hope you can see what I'm trying to say, and hoping you want 
to help out on the 'work intensive' part :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
Here is the clearest description I've found.  It's by Roy Fielding, ex  
chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely  
knowledgeable in these matters.  It was posted here :

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=2642

Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal
  expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject
  to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions
  under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person
  acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably
  believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the
  corporation.  In other words, a member is only indemnified for
  their actions as a member (not much).  A director or officer is
  only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the
  scope of their mandate as an officer.  A PMC member is indemnified
  under the category of who is or was serving at the request of
  the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation,
  partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise and only
  to the extent of that enterprise (the project).  A committer
  who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to
  make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation,
  and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions
  regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer.
  Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's
  ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the
  assets held by the ASF.  Beyond that, we are on our own as far
  as personal liability.
  It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot
  successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision
  made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all
  of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members
  of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws).
So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on  
behalf of the corporation.  I think that this would be limited to the  
official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board for  
the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general day-to-day  
committer activities, such as technical discussion and personal code  
commits.  Of course, that will probably need to be clarified too.

However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only  
up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much.  So try to  
keep the litigation to a minimum :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

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


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
Oh, and thanks to Noel for the links...

On Dec 23, 2003, at 6:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Here is the clearest description I've found.  It's by Roy Fielding, ex  
chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, extremely  
knowledgeable in these matters.  It was posted here :

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=2642

Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal
  expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject
  to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions
  under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such  
person
  acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably
  believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of  
the
  corporation.  In other words, a member is only indemnified for
  their actions as a member (not much).  A director or officer is
  only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the
  scope of their mandate as an officer.  A PMC member is  
indemnified
  under the category of who is or was serving at the request of
  the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation,
  partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise and only
  to the extent of that enterprise (the project).  A committer
  who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to
  make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the  
corporation,
  and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions
  regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer.

  Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's
  ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the
  assets held by the ASF.  Beyond that, we are on our own as far
  as personal liability.
  It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot
  successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision
  made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all
  of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members
  of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws).
So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on  
behalf of the corporation.  I think that this would be limited to the  
official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board  
for the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general  
day-to-day committer activities, such as technical discussion and  
personal code commits.  Of course, that will probably need to be  
clarified too.

However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is only  
up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much.  So try to  
keep the litigation to a minimum :)

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [VOTE] ORO 2.0.8 maintenance release

2003-12-23 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
+1

On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:39 PM, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:

I know now may not be the best time to have a vote, but I would ask
the PMC to vote on approving the release of jakarta-oro 2.0.8.
The current code base contains important bug fixes and has gone too
long without a public release.
[ ] +1  I approve the release of jakarta-oro version 2.0.8.
[ ] -1  I do not approve the release of jakarta-oro version 2.0.8.
This vote will last until the end of Saturday 27th, 2003 (72 hours
minus the Christmas holiday).  In accordance with
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html, at least three binding
+1 votes are required for this vote to pass and the number of +1 votes
must exceed the number of -1 votes.  Non-PMC members are encouraged
to cast their non-binding votes (please indicate your vote is
non-binding to facilitate vote tabulation).
RELEASE INFORMATION:

The 2.0.8 release will be a maintenance release incorporating the  
following
changes since the 2.0.7 release made in January (taken from
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/~checkout~/jakarta-oro/CHANGES?content- 
type=text/plain):

 o examples moved to an examples package and com.oroinc migration tool
   moved to tools package.
 o Fixed bug whereby compiling an expression with
   Perl5Compiler.MULTILINE_MASK wasn't always having the proper effect
   with respect to the matching of $ even though
   Perl5Matcher.setMultiline(true) exhibited the proper behavior.  For
   example, the following input
 aaa bbb \n ccc ddd \n eee fff 
   should produce bbb , ddd , and fff  as matches for both the
   patterns \S+\s*$ and \S+ *$ when compiled with MULTILINE_MASK.
   Perl5Matcher was only producing the correct matches for the second
   pattern, producing only fff  as a match for the first pattern
   unless setMultiline(true) had been called.  This has now been fixed.
 o Fixed embarrassing bug whereby an expression like (A)(B)((C)(D))+
   when matched against input like ABCDE would produce matching groups
   of: A B  null D instead of A B CD C D.
These changes have been available to the public in the CVS repository
for testing since May 2003.  There are no outstanding/unresolved issue
reports for the code.
Daniel Savarese (dfs.apache.org) will serve as the release manager for
this release.  A release announcement will be sent to
{oro-dev,oro-user,[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 21, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 07:17:57AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
That's the point of getting as many people as are seriously interested
in the subject on the PMC.  Then all can participate, and if we 
discuss
something sensitive (as defined by the discusser), it doesn't all have
to be on Google.
No, that is not correct. The point of having most committers on the PMC
is not to keep discussions out of google. The point of getting them on
the PMC is so that the ASF can legally protect them, and so that they
are legally empowered to participate in the decisions that govern
the project.
The reason is *not* that the ASF will protect them. There is no reason 
to believe that committers are guaranteed legal protection, nor should 
there be an expectation that they will receive protection.

I'd bet that the ASF would do all it could to help a committer, but 
that's totally different than what you believe.

The only people granted legal protection are directors, officers and 
members (and I'm sure that's only if they are dragged into a suit just 
because of membership status itself), and in some special cases, others 
working as 'agents' on behalf of the corporation, at the direction of 
the corporation.  Only the PMC Chair is an officer of the corporation.

The point of getting the committers on the PMC is to ensure that any 
action made on behalf of the corporation is overseen by those 
designated by the corporation to oversee such activities, namely, by 
the PMC.

geir

-aaron

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Sign those CLAs!

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Members of the Jakarta Community :

With the privilege of committership in the ASF comes the requirement 
that each committer sign a document called the Committer License 
Agreement, or CLA.

The CLA is a legal agreement between you, the committer, and the ASF in 
which you state that the contributions that you make to the ASF in form 
of code, documentation, etc is your work that you are free to 
contribute, and that you are granting an unfettered copyright license 
to the ASF for that work.  The purpose is to allow the ASF to be sure 
that the code that it offers to the world is, to the best of it's 
knowledge, free of questions about source and ownership.

To that end, it is required that every committer in Jakarta has a 
signed CLA on file with the ASF.  In the past, we have been negligent 
in ensuring this document was completed and filed, and wish to 
immediately rectify the situation for the ASF.   This is a simple 
procedure, generally requiring just a few minutes of your time to fill 
out and mail or fax to the ASF administrative office.  It will be 
greatly appreciated if this could be taken care of immediately.

To check to see if you have a CLA on file, look here :

http://www.apache.org/~jim/committers.html

or

http://www.apache.org/~jim/projects.html

and find your name on either.  If it is in italics, it means the CLA 
has been received and is on file.  If not, please get one in.

If you don't have a CLA on file, the CLA form can be found here :

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

and a PDF version can be found here :

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla.pdf

We will be sending out gentle reminders during the upcoming week or so 
for those that don't have a CLA on file,  so the sooner the better as 
there will be less follow-up work for other Jakarta community members 
to do - after all, this is your responsibility and we're all 
volunteers.

If there are any questions or problems, please bring them to this list 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).  If you have private concerns, because of 
employment or otherwise, feel free to post to the Official Jakarta 
State Sekrets List ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), send a private message to 
one or more of the knowledgeable people here on general@, post to the 
board list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - fair warning - readership is bigger 
than just the board - or to one of the board members or officers 
directly. This is an important subject, and people will give help if 
asked.

Thanks for looking into this serious matter.

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


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:27 AM, Vic Cekvenich wrote:

BIG SNIP

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
... sensitive things should be on the PMC
 list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list.
/end Geir 
What could be something that is sensteive in an open source community? 
This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are 
ashamed of it, don't do open source community.
There are lots of things.  Committer votes, for example, are considered 
a sensitive issue.  Inter-personal disputes.

If you would have been fair with your attribution, you would have 
included what I then said next, namely that I felt it sensitive

because of the confusion that it sews.  My hope was for us to get our 
act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it 
as a group.

IOW, simply to get a handle on how we approach the community to make 
things clear and non-confusing.

For a developer ... lets have some code in open, and the bad code we 
will just have in a encrypted jar. Is this open source?

What do I mean by that:
ASF used(?) to be Libreterian: If you want code to do something, 
commit the code to do it.

ASF used(?) to be run by commiters.
Now some are trying to develop rulling class, that is carving out 
roles for itself and rules to legislate iteligence and integrity for 
commiters, but does not committ itself?.
What happend to emritius commiters? People who did not CVS a chunk of 
code in a while lose vote rights and their berucrat office.
The people that are vocal on berucracy are same people I wonder where 
have they CVSed latelly.
Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are 
trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta 
onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary.

Please re-read.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 22, 2003, at 8:05 AM, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:38:54 -0500
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
What could be something that is sensteive in an open source 
community?
This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are
ashamed of it, don't do open source community.
There are lots of things.  Committer votes, for example, are 
considered
a sensitive issue.  Inter-personal disputes.
I agree. Also, I think [PROPOSAL] As it ever were mail
was very reasonable. However, just one question came to my mind.
Have The Committer Votes (I mean, [VOTE] in to elect new committer)
to be taken place at Jakarta PMC list? ... This is very sensitive
issue (maybe causes inter-personal dispute), i guess.
Could you please explain more?
Committer votes haven't taken place on the Jakarta PMC list.  PMC 
member votes have, but that's a different thing.

Here in Jakarta (as well as other projects, I assume), the sub-projects 
do committer votes in public.  Some people outside of Jakarta feel that 
this is improper, and should be done in private to ensure that open 
discussion can happen in a way that doesn't hurt peoples feelings.

I can see both sides of this - do it in public because it's a good pat 
on the back for a person to see fellow community members supporting 
him or her, but on the other hand, it would be a shame for people to be 
unable to say how they feel about a proposed committer and have that 
POV understood by others w/o possibly hurting the feelings of the 
person being voted on.

I hope this is something we take up when we have this PMC issue sorted 
out.

geir

Thanks in advance.

-- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

P.S.
Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are
trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta
onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary.
Well said.

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
I realize that arguing with you on this will have no effect, but I want 
to keep working to extinguish the meme you keep trying to plant.

IIRC, the thread in play at the time was my note to ask the opinion of 
all PMC members re the CLA signing, to make sure that it was a clear 
message we all wanted to go out with.  IRRC, you never even responded 
to it.

Further, IIRC, there was broad consensus that things should be public 
(I think it was Peter's first nudge), and we were working that 
direction.

geir

On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:04 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Well, saying please and asking nicely had no effect.
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are 
almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or 
its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree 
with
everything espoused in the above email.

From: Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: mvdb.com
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Dec 2003 01:53:20 +0100
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious
Sorry to hear you didn't understand my mail at all
If that is the way a PMC member communicates, I can never be part of
that PMC.
Mvgr,
Martin
On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 23:10, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Now the conversation is here, that is the solution.  You're welcome.

-Andy


-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
You are free to do what you want.  Is this then about personal google 
hitcount?

On Dec 21, 2003, at 11:06 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

I think the problem isn't the private list, on which we will continue
to do work, such as voting, but follow up.
geir
Heads up,

FYI, except where I feel the situation absolutely mandates it, I will 
be
voting/discussing here.

While I'm not sure I agree, out of courtesy, I will vote privately for:

* PMC nominations/discussion
* legally precarious issues
* things too likely to cause me to get slashdotted.  I favor openness, 
but
the peanut gallery isn't helpful.

Pointedly,

I will not discuss the organization, structure, software, etc. of 
Jakarta on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  I will discuss it here.  This is my personal choice.  I choose 
to
work in the open.  I choose to be googled.  I volunteered for it in 
fact.

-Andy
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are 
almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or 
its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree 
with
everything espoused in the above email.

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:45 -0500
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 3:51 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El domingo, 21 dici, 2003, a las 02:35 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell
escribió:


On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Santiago Gala wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El jueves, 18 dici, 2003, a las 15:52 Europe/Madrid, Henri Yandell
escribió:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html lists the PMC members
up
until the previous addition of 20 or so. That list has to go to 
the
board
etc and I plan to add them to the list as soon as I see them 
appear
on
the
board's list [in the committers/ cvs module].

I have just discovered I'm listed as PMC member in the web page.

When was I appointed? is there no notification to elected people?
Ack. Sorry. Completely my mistake.

I added you along with three others, thinking you'd been part of a
batch
vote with them. Instead your vote was separate one.
This is the kind of problems that happen with private lists.
I think the problem isn't the private list, on which we will continue
to do work, such as voting, but follow up.
geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 22, 2003, at 10:31 AM, Danny Angus wrote:





While closing out everyone else.  Like those who are not yet 
committers.
I certainly think that increasing the size of the PMC makes it easier 
for
things to get discussed on the PMC list, but if people care (and you 
do for
one) about visibility the very nature of things mean that it won't 
happen
for long before someone starts to get obstreperous.
Just to save everyone the trip to dictionary.com :

ob·strep·er·ous    Pronunciation Key  (b-str
p
r-
s, 
b-)
adj.
 1. Noisily and stubbornly defiant.
 2. Aggressively boisterous.
I know from the past that you'd favour a fully open process, but we  
don't
have that. I don't think this should _necessarily_ be a social  
experiment,
in open management, this isn't a political project its about software.
No one wants things unnecessarily private.  The less the better.  The  
less organizational conversation the better - more tech, more  
community.

This stuff is tiring :)

geir

d.

--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are  
almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or  
its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree  
with
everything espoused in the above email.

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:38:54 -0500
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:27 AM, Vic Cekvenich wrote:

BIG SNIP

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
... sensitive things should be on the PMC
 list, and non-sensitive things should be on the general@ list.
/end Geir 
What could be something that is sensteive in an open source  
community?
This is new direction. Gray areas should be well exposed. If you are
ashamed of it, don't do open source community.
There are lots of things.  Committer votes, for example, are  
considered
a sensitive issue.  Inter-personal disputes.

If you would have been fair with your attribution, you would have
included what I then said next, namely that I felt it sensitive
because of the confusion that it sews.  My hope was for us to get our
act together before we approached the rest of the community, and do it
as a group.
IOW, simply to get a handle on how we approach the community to make
things clear and non-confusing.
For a developer ... lets have some code in open, and the bad code we
will just have in a encrypted jar. Is this open source?
What do I mean by that:
ASF used(?) to be Libreterian: If you want code to do something,
commit the code to do it.
ASF used(?) to be run by commiters.
Now some are trying to develop rulling class, that is carving out
roles for itself and rules to legislate iteligence and integrity for
commiters, but does not committ itself?.
What happend to emritius commiters? People who did not CVS a chunk of
code in a while lose vote rights and their berucrat office.
The people that are vocal on berucracy are same people I wonder where
have they CVSed latelly.
Vic, if you've been paying ANY attention, you'd know that what we are
trying to do is just the opposite - get *every* committer in Jakarta
onto the PMC, *eliminating* this needless boundary.
Please re-read.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[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]




*** 

The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the  
addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or  
responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient)  
please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message  
from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose  
its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are  
capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not  
accept any  responsibility for changes made to this message after it  
was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or  
opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation  
of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any  
liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility  
to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this  
e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and  
views of The Student Loans Company Limited

Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
I don't think that crossposting would be good  keep it here

On Dec 22, 2003, at 4:52 PM, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:

Hello, folks.

I am a moderator of three -dev lists in jakarta.
What should I do next? Forwardin' this Pro-forma to
each -dev lists?
T.I.A.

-- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:07:26 -0500
(Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
This is what I proposed some weeks ago.   I think you would serve the
community well if you also posted a summary of pros and cons that we
had discussed.
On Dec 21, 2003, at 6:14 PM, Ted Husted wrote:

Re: Proposal to grandfather Active Committers to Jakarta subprojects 
as
PMC Members.

As it stands, most Jakarta committers have assumed that they already
have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities granted PMC 
members.
(Mainly because it was written that way in the Jakarta bylaws).

When all these committers were elected, it was with the understanding
they had binding votes and oversight responsibility, as stated by the
original Jakarta bylaws. It could be said that we have been electing
PMC
members, rather than only committers, all along, without realizing 
it.

Following our original bylaws and practices, there is no such thing 
as
a
committer without the rights and responsibilities of PMC membership.
Accordingly, a stipulation of becoming (or remaining) a committer to 
a
Jakarta subproject can said to be PMC membership, as it is described 
by
the ASF bylaws.

To complete the process we've already begun, I suggest a [VOTE] be
brought on each [EMAIL PROTECTED] list to nominate the list of
its active committers to the PMC. This vote will also serve as notice
to
committers who wish to opt-out.
To bootstrap the process, the current moderator of each DEV list can 
be
asked to bring the vote and report the result. If necessary, a new
moderator can be installed by the Chair.

The moderator of each dev list will also act as the PMC steward for
the subproject. The list moderator is suggested since that individual
is
already suppose to be monitoring the list where this activity occurs.
The steward will have the responsibility of immediately
reporting any new committers/PMC members elected to a subproject, so
that they can be affirmed by the chair and notice given the board.
All PMC members (which is to say all active committers to jakarta-* 
CVS
repositories) will be subscribed to the PMC list, which will be a
required list for PMC membership, like [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The PMC business for each subproject will continue to take place on 
its
own dev list. The steward for each project will report to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list
the status of his or her subproject, covering such points as:



* What code releases have been made?

* Legal issues:

* Cross-project issues:

* Any problems with committers, members, etc?

* Plans and expectations for the next period?



The chair can then summarize these reports for presentation to the
board.
Effectively, each dev list becomes a sub-committee of the PMC. 
(Divide
and conquer.) The list moderator/steward becomes the subcommittee's
secretary, with the additional responsibility of summarizing the 
result
of our ongoing meetings.

As appropriate, the steward or any PMC member can bring up oversight
issues to the PMC list. Routine matters, such as releases, can be
approved by the PMC members who are committers to a given subproject.
So
long as the usual 3+ quorum is met, there would be no reason to bring
routine votes before the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Of course, the result would be
tabulated on the steward's report, which *is* published to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list.
-Ted.

Pro-forma [VOTE]

It has come to our attention that the Committers to a Jakarta
subproject
must also be members of the Jakarta Project Management Committee to
have
binding votes. To complete the legal process, the current PMC is 
asking
each subproject to nominate it's active committers to the PMC.

Since we have never supported the idea of non-voting committers at
Jakarta, and only PMC members have binding votes, if a committer is
unwilling to serve on the Jakarta PMC, we will be unable to continue 
to
extend write access to any jakarta-* CVS to that individual.

Each PMC member will also be subscribed to the Jakarta PMC list.
*However, all subproject business can continue to occur on this DEV
list
as always!* In the future, we anticipate that the PMC list will be 
very
low-volume. (Really, we do!)

The only change is that the owner of the DEV list must also serve as
the
PMC steward for the subproject. The steward must submit monthly 
status
reports for the project and immediately report any new Committers to
the
PMC list.

But, other than that, it will be business as usual.

Accordingly, we ask that the Committers to this subproject nominate 
the
following individuals to the Jakarta PMC. Please check all that 
apply.

[ ] $committer

Any committer who wishes to opt-out may notify the Jakarta chair

Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

Larry,

I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw).  From 
what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability 
protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf 
of the organization.  Further is it seems that the ASF does not 
believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my 
personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone 
would like to join a PMC).  This protection is usually referenced when 
people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other areas.

I'm not aware of an official statement on this, but it would be nice 
to have one.

I did respond.  As I understand it, here is no protection for PMC 
members except for the chair, if he or she was acting on behalf of the 
corporation in good faith.

And if you don't know Larry, he's a well-known attorney specializing in 
OSS matters.

geir

Happy Holidays

-dain

/*
 * Dain Sundstrom
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network
 */
On Dec 21, 2003, at 9:08 PM, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

No, that is not correct. The point of having most committers
on the PMC is not to keep discussions out of google. The
point of getting them on the PMC is so that the ASF can
legally protect them, and so that they are legally empowered
to participate in the decisions that govern the project.
Would someone please explain what protection committers expect from 
ASF?
And what legal empowerment is being granted?

/Larry Rosen

-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 22, 2003, at 7:07 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

On Dec 22, 2003, at 5:58 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

On Dec 22, 2003, at 6:23 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

Larry,

I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw).  From 
what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability 
protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf 
of the organization.  Further is it seems that the ASF does not 
believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my 
personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone 
would like to join a PMC).  This protection is usually referenced 
when people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other 
areas.

I'm not aware of an official statement on this, but it would be nice 
to have one.

I did respond.  As I understand it, here is no protection for PMC 
members except for the chair, if he or she was acting on behalf of 
the corporation in good faith.
Sorry missed your reply.  From what I have seen there are vastly 
differing opinions on this matter (from ranking people in ASF).  
Anyway, it would be nice to see something official on this matter, but 
it is a legal matter and therefore unlikely to happen (at least 
anytime soon ;)
Feel free to send them to me.  I'm interested.  I'll be happy to report 
back a summary or correction.


And if you don't know Larry, he's a well-known attorney specializing 
in OSS matters.
I know Larry.  He used to a company I used to do business with.
Ah  Sorry. :)

geir

-dain

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  1   2   3   4   >