Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>
>> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
>> very, very explicitly:
>>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
>> had
>> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
>> like
>> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
>> qualify them
>> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
>> automatically added
>> to that list, but rather:
>>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
>> we already saw
>>  somebody did on this very thread)
>>
>> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
>> proof, we need
>> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
>> missed as part
>> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
>> once the project
>> enters incubation.
>>
>> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
>> proposal (you don't
>> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
>> comfortable about
>> casting my vote.
>
>
>
> For #1, we contacted a number of different communities around NetBeans to
> ask for individual contributors: (1) individuals and organizations within
> Oracle who are invested in NetBeans, (2) individuals and organizations who
> have built applications on top of the NetBeans Platform and NetBeans IDE,
> (3) the NetBeans Dream Team, which is a community of NetBeans enthusiasts
> around the world who don't work for Oracle yet advocate NetBeans to their
> communities as a free and open source development environment, tooling
> platform, and application framework, (4) a subset of the individual
> contributors of plugins, published at plugins.netbeans.org, (5) the
> NetBeans Platform mailing list, which is where potential individual
> contributors with NetBeans API knowledge are found.
>
> We have also talked about this a lot and actively last week at JavaOne and
> at NetBeans Day. We have tweeted about it. There have been discussions on
> internal and external mailing lists.
>
> What can still be done -- track down ex-NetBeans developers who used to
> work at Sun or Oracle. Some of these have already been contacted, though
> not all of them yet. It's also a question of identifying who these are,
> i.e., we don't have a list of these somewhere, we need to recall who worked
> with us in the past and contact them on a case by case basis. Something
> else that can be done is to contact the NetBeans users mailing list. We
> have already done the latter in terms of informing them about the Apache
> plans, we have not yet actively asked people to volunteer to be individual
> contributors from the NetBeans users mailing list -- I propose we wait to
> do that until a bit later because we could end up with literally 100's of
> individual contributors if we do that and it might be advisable to keep te
> list down to something semi manageable, which is what we have now.
>
> For everyone in the NetBeans community, all this is quite new, the Apache
> process, etc. We'll take it step by step. Once we're in incubation, and
> we've set up the Wiki, and the mailing lists, we can take the next steps of
> appealing more broadly for individual contributors, who we will then vote
> in. I'm concerned that the longer we make the initial contributors list and
> the more we add to it, the more insulted someone might feel for having been
> omitted. :-)
>
> All the above info can be added to the proposal, if this is desirable,
> though the long list of individual contributors already there should be
> evidence enough in itself that we're working hard on being inclusive and
> getting broad involvement in this project.

This is very reasonable. Please put it into the proposal.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
>> ...The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
>> made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list...
>
> I agree with that, I guess what Roman would like to see is a statement
> that you guys have made reasonable efforts to build the list of
> initial committers, by contacting people who were previously involved,
> etc. - which I think you definitely have.
>
> Roman, does that work for you?

Yes.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> ...All the above info can be added to the proposal, if this is desirable,..

I don't think that's needed, your explanations here are now recorded
in the archives of this public list, that's good enough IMO.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Mark Struberg
+1

I assume we will have a 'contribute' section on the official site which 
explains this and also educate people to please mention their previous 
contributions on their first contact on the Apache NetBeans mailing lists. That 
way we can easily pick up people with merit that predates the ASF time.

LieGrue,
strub





> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 11:00, Emmanuel Lécharny  
> wrote:
> > Le 26/09/16 à 22:49, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
>>  Thankl of the below has been done.
>> 
>>  Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
>>  insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. 
> None
>>  will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
>>  another in the NetBeans community.
> 
> And that is just fine !
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 26/09/16 à 22:49, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> Thankl of the below has been done.
>
> Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
> insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None
> will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
> another in the NetBeans community.

And that is just fine !


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-27 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
> very, very explicitly:
>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
> had
> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
> like
> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
> qualify them
> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
> automatically added
> to that list, but rather:
>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
> we already saw
>  somebody did on this very thread)
>
> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
> proof, we need
> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
> missed as part
> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
> once the project
> enters incubation.
>
> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
> proposal (you don't
> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
> comfortable about
> casting my vote.



For #1, we contacted a number of different communities around NetBeans to
ask for individual contributors: (1) individuals and organizations within
Oracle who are invested in NetBeans, (2) individuals and organizations who
have built applications on top of the NetBeans Platform and NetBeans IDE,
(3) the NetBeans Dream Team, which is a community of NetBeans enthusiasts
around the world who don't work for Oracle yet advocate NetBeans to their
communities as a free and open source development environment, tooling
platform, and application framework, (4) a subset of the individual
contributors of plugins, published at plugins.netbeans.org, (5) the
NetBeans Platform mailing list, which is where potential individual
contributors with NetBeans API knowledge are found.

We have also talked about this a lot and actively last week at JavaOne and
at NetBeans Day. We have tweeted about it. There have been discussions on
internal and external mailing lists.

What can still be done -- track down ex-NetBeans developers who used to
work at Sun or Oracle. Some of these have already been contacted, though
not all of them yet. It's also a question of identifying who these are,
i.e., we don't have a list of these somewhere, we need to recall who worked
with us in the past and contact them on a case by case basis. Something
else that can be done is to contact the NetBeans users mailing list. We
have already done the latter in terms of informing them about the Apache
plans, we have not yet actively asked people to volunteer to be individual
contributors from the NetBeans users mailing list -- I propose we wait to
do that until a bit later because we could end up with literally 100's of
individual contributors if we do that and it might be advisable to keep te
list down to something semi manageable, which is what we have now.

For everyone in the NetBeans community, all this is quite new, the Apache
process, etc. We'll take it step by step. Once we're in incubation, and
we've set up the Wiki, and the mailing lists, we can take the next steps of
appealing more broadly for individual contributors, who we will then vote
in. I'm concerned that the longer we make the initial contributors list and
the more we add to it, the more insulted someone might feel for having been
omitted. :-)

All the above info can be added to the proposal, if this is desirable,
though the long list of individual contributors already there should be
evidence enough in itself that we're working hard on being inclusive and
getting broad involvement in this project.

Thanks,

Gj




On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thankl of the below has been done.
>
> Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
> insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None
> will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
> another in the NetBeans community.
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 26, 2016, Emmanuel Lécharny 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>> >
>> > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would
>> mean
>> > we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not
>> what
>> > we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
>> > NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
>> > Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a
>> number
>> > larger than 40.
>>
>> The number doesn't matter.
>>
>> Just ask the existing 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-26 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Thankl of the below has been done.

Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None
will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
another in the NetBeans community.

Gj


On Monday, September 26, 2016, Emmanuel Lécharny 
wrote:

> Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
> >
> > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
> > we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not
> what
> > we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
> > NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
> > Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
> > larger than 40.
>
> The number doesn't matter.
>
> Just ask the existing committers if they want to keep going under an
> Apache flag. Some will say yes, add them to the list. Some will say no,
> don't put them on the list. Some will simply not reply, ask tehm once
> more just in case they forgot to answer (vacations, etc), and act
> accordingly to their answer - or non answer . At the end of the day, you
> have your list.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-26 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>
> Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
> we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not what
> we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
> NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
> Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
> larger than 40.

The number doesn't matter.

Just ask the existing committers if they want to keep going under an
Apache flag. Some will say yes, add them to the list. Some will say no,
don't put them on the list. Some will simply not reply, ask tehm once
more just in case they forgot to answer (vacations, etc), and act
accordingly to their answer - or non answer . At the end of the day, you
have your list.


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-26 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Yup, done -- what will you be working on in Apache NetBeans? Based on the
books and documentation you've written, I imagine something along those
lines, while you're also a Java EE expert, so I could see you contributing
in different ways there too, as well as being a JCP expert group member. A
big win for the project, thank you.

Gj

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Michael Müller <
michael.muel...@mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:

> Hi GJ,
>
>
> due to technical problems I missed one day of the discussion. I'm going to
> catch up.
>
> If possible, please add to to the initial commiters.
>
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
> Brühl, Germany
> blog.mueller-bruehl.de 
> it-rezension.de 
> @muellermi
>
>
> Read my books
> "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> "Java Lambdas und (parallel) Streams" Deutsche Ausgabe:
> https://leanpub.com/lambdas-de
> "Java Lambdas and (parallel) Streams" English edition:
> https://leanpub.com/lambdas
>
> On 09/23/2016 03:30 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>> OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
>> complete as possible.
>>
>> What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
>> the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
>> proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
>> then after than make the changes?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Geertjan
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Responses in line.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacre...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Geertjan,

 I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
 clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.

 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
 geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> ...Anyone on the list
> will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
>
 be
>>>
 contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
>
 They will be commiters to be precise.

 Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor ==
>>> ASF
>>> committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
>>> how that evolves.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone not on the list will
> need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
>
 that
>>>
 could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
>
 in
>>>
 the initial contributors list...
>
 It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one

>>> vote
>>>
 for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.

 Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
>>> someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come
>>> up
>>> to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> automatically part of the PMC.
>
 There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
 http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

 That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
 podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
 foundation level.

 In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but

>>> really
>>>
 in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.

 It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We
>>> hope
>>> that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
>>> incubation.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their
>
 life...
>>>
 That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
 PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
 would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation

>>> for
>>>
 example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
 incubation is harmless.

 Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if

>>> they
>>>
 don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily
 or
 permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
 risks.

 That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
>>> doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
>>> has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of
>>> the
>>> organization...)
>>>
>>>
>>> In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
 members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-26 Thread Michael Müller

Hi GJ,


due to technical problems I missed one day of the discussion. I'm going 
to catch up.


If possible, please add to to the initial commiters.


Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,

Michael Müller
Brühl, Germany
blog.mueller-bruehl.de 
it-rezension.de 
@muellermi


Read my books
"Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
"Java Lambdas und (parallel) Streams" Deutsche Ausgabe: 
https://leanpub.com/lambdas-de
"Java Lambdas and (parallel) Streams" English edition: 
https://leanpub.com/lambdas


On 09/23/2016 03:30 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
complete as possible.

What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
then after than make the changes?

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:


Hi Bertrand,

Responses in line.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org>
wrote:


Hi Geertjan,

I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

...Anyone on the list
will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically

be

contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...

They will be commiters to be precise.


Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
how that evolves.



Anyone not on the list will
need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process

that

could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion

in

the initial contributors list...

It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one

vote

for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.


Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.



Everyone on the initial contributors list is
automatically part of the PMC.

There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
foundation level.

In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but

really

in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.


It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
incubation.



...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their

life...

That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation

for

example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
incubation is harmless.

Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if

they

don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
risks.


That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
organization...)



In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have

to

demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count

towards

that, in my book.


...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial

contributors

list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra

assessment...

I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays

the

vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
during incubation with just a bit of additional work.


I don't think this will add a lot of work.  I even gave him the idea of
just generating a script of past committers based on commit history.



If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come

up

with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community

feels

deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
community's channels), and have the NetBeans 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:
> ...It looks to me we are ready for voting on this proposal, as soon as the
> infra assessment and discussion around it has been settled as well

I agree with that, and now that the infra estimation is in (in another
thread on this list) we shouldn't have to wait too long for that.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> ...The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
> made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list...

I agree with that, I guess what Roman would like to see is a statement
that you guys have made reasonable efforts to build the list of
initial committers, by contacting people who were previously involved,
etc. - which I think you definitely have.

Roman, does that work for you?

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!



Not anymore -- our mentors have explicitly (and repeatedly) rejected this
approach. The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list. Though we
are -- and have been from even before the proposal was published --
contacting potential new individual contributors and adding them to the
initial contributors list, the purpose of the list is to show diversity of
individual contributors, nothing more and nothing less, and the purpose is
not to try to be as complete as possible. As stated earlier in this thread,
we're simply going to follow our mentors when there is a different in
emphasis and that's what we're going to be doing in this case.

Thanks,

Gj



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
> >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
> >> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
> >>
> >> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
> >> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
> >
> >
> > The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> > through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers
> list
> > extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> > there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not
> on
> > the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.)
>
> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
> very, very explicitly:
>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
> had
> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
> like
> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
> qualify them
> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
> automatically added
> to that list, but rather:
>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
> we already saw
>  somebody did on this very thread)
>
> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
> proof, we need
> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
> missed as part
> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
> once the project
> enters incubation.
>
> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
> proposal (you don't
> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
> comfortable about
> casting my vote.
>
> > However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> > the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as
> complete
> > a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> > list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.
> >
> > My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to
> take
> > the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> > discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible
> and
> > provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
> > least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for
> this.
> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:


> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.


Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not what
we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
larger than 40.

Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are:
>
> If you leave someone off the list:
> - it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo.
> - that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on
> the list.
> (so don't leave off the person who can quickly fix important security bugs)
>
> If you put someone on the list:
> - They may never contribute what they said they might contribute
> - More administrative work for the ASF secretary.
> - You clean up the deadwood at graduation.
>
> As Apache Flex entered the incubator, we had a 40 person initial committer
> list which was considered quite large at the time.  Only one person
> besides me is still active almost five years later.  About 12 never showed
> up because with the move to Apache their paid job role changed and they
> ran out of time to commit anything.  If I had to do it again, I would
> probably still have the same 40 people.  So what if there was deadwood.
> We cleaned some up at graduation, and then over 4 years after graduation,
> folks faded away and new folks came in.
>
> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 11:59 PM, "John McDonnell"  wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >
> >I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> >proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> >process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> >Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> >from reading this page:
> >https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> >sure why it is...
> >
> >I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> >I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> >people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> >contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> >ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> >Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> >list of committers initially?
> >
> >I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> >of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> >the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> >developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> >community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
> >Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> >> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> >>>
> >>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> >>> plattform
> 
>  and no IDE.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> >>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> >>>these
> >>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> >>>from
> >>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> >>it
> >> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> >>stuff
> >> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> >>
> >>
> >> bye Jochen
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >John
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Alex Harui
IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are:

If you leave someone off the list:
- it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo.
- that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on
the list.
(so don't leave off the person who can quickly fix important security bugs)

If you put someone on the list:
- They may never contribute what they said they might contribute
- More administrative work for the ASF secretary.
- You clean up the deadwood at graduation.

As Apache Flex entered the incubator, we had a 40 person initial committer
list which was considered quite large at the time.  Only one person
besides me is still active almost five years later.  About 12 never showed
up because with the move to Apache their paid job role changed and they
ran out of time to commit anything.  If I had to do it again, I would
probably still have the same 40 people.  So what if there was deadwood.
We cleaned some up at graduation, and then over 4 years after graduation,
folks faded away and new folks came in.

But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.

My 2 cents,
-Alex


On 9/24/16, 11:59 PM, "John McDonnell"  wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>
>I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
>proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
>process, it seems rather interesting...
>
>Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
>from reading this page:
>https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
>sure why it is...
>
>I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
>I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
>people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
>contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
>ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
>Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
>list of committers initially?
>
>I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
>of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
>the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
>developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
>community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
>
>Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
>
>Regards
>
>John
>
>
>On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>>>
>>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>>> plattform

 and no IDE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
>>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
>>>these
>>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
>>>from
>>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>>
>>
>>
>> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
>>it
>> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
>>stuff
>> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
>>
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>John
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>
>> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
>> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
>> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
>>
>> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
>> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
>
>
> The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers list
> extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not on
> the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.)

Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
very, very explicitly:
   1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have had
spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel like
their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
qualify them
to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
automatically added
to that list, but rather:
  1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
  1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
we already saw
 somebody did on this very thread)

2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
proof, we need
to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
missed as part
of outreach described above will be given special considerations
once the project
enters incubation.

That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
proposal (you don't
have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
comfortable about
casting my vote.

> However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as complete
> a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.
>
> My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to take
> the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible and
> provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
> least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for this.
> From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until this
> has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.

Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 25/09/16 à 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.

And this is the reason you have mentors and a champion. Follow their
advices, you'll be fine (because if someone say that mentors are wrong,
and if mentors are wrong, then mentors will correct their message to you).


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Wade Chandler
On Sep 24, 2016 9:51 AM, "Emilian Bold"  wrote:
> > Which brings us to another question:
> > If the commits just referenced a bugzilla ticket, do we also like to
> > migrate the bugzilla content over?
> > Or at least keep it browsable somewhere?
> >
>
> I would want to keep as much of the context/history as possible. Bugzilla
> issues have a lot of important discussions.

Yes, the reality is all the current and ongoing work is in BZ. Some have
patches attached to them at any point in time. Then anything we have found
in the IDE or platform and expected either Oracle or a community member to
fix at some point are there. So, I would say quite important information
there.

Thanks

Wade


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Craig Russell
Hi Geertjan,

You have already noticed that at Apache we don’t all speak with one voice. Even 
those who have literally been here for years may appear to disagree on the 
details, while I expect most agree on the broad strokes.

Kudos for taking all the advice and proposing a plan to move this proposal 
forward. 

I think your plan below makes sense and the proposal is in good shape once the 
admin details have been agreed.

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.
> 
> Here's what I propose:
> 
> 1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
> have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
> specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
> past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
> direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
> Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
> Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
> participate.
> 2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
> of those who are not our mentors.
> 3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
> contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
> that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
> contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
> 4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
> contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
> initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
> the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
> NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
> committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
> 5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
> Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
> like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
> in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
> problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
> if/when they change their mind later.
> 
> Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
> everyone is putting into this process.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
> 
>> toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
>>> On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
 had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
>> 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
 project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
>>> 
>>> Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
>>> contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
>> contributed?
>>> 
>>> If so, then:
>>> * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
>>> * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
>>> _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
>>> Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
>>> and submitted;
>>> * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
>>> submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
>> 
>> My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
>> see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
>> incubation process.
>> 
>> Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
>> community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
>> in an appropriate fashion.
>> 
>> Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
>> recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
>> for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
>> list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
>> the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
>> future top level project.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org



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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Ate Douma

On 2016-09-25 17:20, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote:



and not all committers are required to commit :-)



That is interesting. Can you explain more about that?


What I meant to say is that at the ASF we also value and honour merit based on
things other than just churning code.
So committers can be, and are, voted in because of other contributions like
help organizing events, helping other community members, contributing to
documentation, etc., in general supporting the project and community at large.

Technically, an ASF account and membership of a project requires the 'commit'
bit, hence be a committer.
But I do know committers who never committed anything significantly, even
have become ASF member without needing to. And that is perfectly fine.

So my point was and is: not everyone on the initial committer list for NetBeans,
nor in the future, should be required to have actually contributed code to be
recognized and trusted by the community, or to become a committer in the future.



Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial
contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all well known
and established people in the NetBeans community who it would make sense to
include right away, rather than having to vote them in later.

Sure, that is of course a good thing to do.

I just wanted to make sure nobody misunderstands the purpose of the list.
And that not being on that list says nothing about who will or will not be able
to join afterwards.

It looks to me we are ready for voting on this proposal, as soon as the infra
assessment and discussion around it has been settled as well.

Regards, Ate



Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:


On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:


On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:


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



Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so
much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and
other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he
had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single
case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off
case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be
made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that
(quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works,
but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is
no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list,
nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never
can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating
all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more
unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the
sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of
people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers
decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when*
they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than
voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to
say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future
committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get
the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the
initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".



And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned
mentors are there to help them to do this right!



They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking,
based
on their past contribution *and* their 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John Ament said:

So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.


For the record, no one was being excluded. The original approach taken,
following the advice of our mentors, was not to try to be exhaustive in any
way, but instead to try to show diversity. We did that and the mentors were
satisfied. Then various other Apache folks were of the opinion that our
approach was not sufficient and we have been trying to follow those
approaches as well, e.g., we are trying to include and approach as many as
possible who have committed in the past to see whether they want to
continue doing so. To continue to follow the approach taken by our mentors,
we're not trying to be exclusive and we're also not trying to hold up the
vote.

We're just trying to make as many people happy as possible. :-) Plus, the
more details we come up with in relation to our committers and their
intentions and so on, the better for everyone.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> John,
>
> Will try to respond in line.
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> > I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> > proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> > process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> > Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> > from reading this page:
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> > sure why it is...
> >
>
> Maybe review this line
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-
> initial-committers to
> get a better understanding about why this list is critical.
>
>
> >
> > I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> > I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> > people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> > contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> > ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> > Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> > list of committers initially?
> >
>
> Why do you use "hidden" here to describe the repo?  The github mirrors are
> just that - mirrors.  Committers have write access to the ASF repos at
> http://git.apache.org/ .  Those changes are then sync'd back to github.
>
>
> >
> > I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> > of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> > the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> > developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> > community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
>
> It is.  So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.  In both of these cases, there is an
> intent to continue to contribute (or resume contributing), which is part of
> the vendor-neutral mentality the ASF brings (and is ultimately what the
> Netbeans community is after).  Realistically, those who used to contribute
> will know the code base better than those who are just coming in, to be
> able to help guide new contributors on what to look out for.
>
>
> >
> > Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> > > On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> > >>
> > >> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> > >> plattform
> > >>>
> > >>> and no IDE.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> > >> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> > these
> > >> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> > from
> > >> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> it
> > > should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> > stuff
> > > there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> > >
> > >
> > > bye Jochen
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:


> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.


Absolutely agree.


> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.


Definitely yes.

Thanks,

Gj


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> > ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> > by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of
> committers...
>
> The way I would deal with the is politely explain how people can
> become committers once incubation starts, and don't go any further.
>
> I am strongly opposed to giving more value to the initial committers
> list than we have done so far, which is just an initial list that's
> going to be expanded and also often reduced during incubation,
> according to how people actually contribute to the project.
>
> A "draft list of committers and future PMC members" if you wish, nothing
> more.
>
> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.
>
> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers...

The way I would deal with the is politely explain how people can
become committers once incubation starts, and don't go any further.

I am strongly opposed to giving more value to the initial committers
list than we have done so far, which is just an initial list that's
going to be expanded and also often reduced during incubation,
according to how people actually contribute to the project.

A "draft list of committers and future PMC members" if you wish, nothing more.

I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.

And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
none of that is a problem.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread John D. Ament
John,

Will try to respond in line.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> process, it seems rather interesting...
>
> Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> from reading this page:
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> sure why it is...
>

Maybe review this line
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-initial-committers to
get a better understanding about why this list is critical.


>
> I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> list of committers initially?
>

Why do you use "hidden" here to describe the repo?  The github mirrors are
just that - mirrors.  Committers have write access to the ASF repos at
http://git.apache.org/ .  Those changes are then sync'd back to github.


>
> I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
>

It is.  So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
people who used to commit to Netbeans.  In both of these cases, there is an
intent to continue to contribute (or resume contributing), which is part of
the vendor-neutral mentality the ASF brings (and is ultimately what the
Netbeans community is after).  Realistically, those who used to contribute
will know the code base better than those who are just coming in, to be
able to help guide new contributors on what to look out for.


>
> Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
> On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> > On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> >>
> >> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> >> plattform
> >>>
> >>> and no IDE.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> >> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> these
> >> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> from
> >> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> >
> >
> >
> > ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository it
> > should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> stuff
> > there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> >
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread John D. Ament
Geertjan,

This is a sound plan.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:22 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

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

This is typically how our meritocracy works.  In addition, when you draft
your TLP resolution, you'll have a chance to list out the committers and
PMC members.  This will be reviewed by the community so everyone will have
a chance to speak up.


>
> Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
> everyone is putting into this process.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geertjan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
>
> > toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
> > > On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > >> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
> > 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
> > >> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
> > > contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
> > contributed?
> > >
> > > If so, then:
> > > * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
> > > * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
> > > _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
> > > Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
> > > and submitted;
> > > * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
> > > submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
> >
> > My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
> > see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
> > incubation process.
> >
> > Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
> > community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
> > in an appropriate fashion.
> >
> > Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
> > recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
> > for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
> > list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
> > the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
> > future top level project.
> >
> > - Shane
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote:


> and not all committers are required to commit :-)


That is interesting. Can you explain more about that?

Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial
contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all well known
and established people in the NetBeans community who it would make sense to
include right away, rather than having to vote them in later.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>
>>> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
>>> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> Hi GeertJan,
>>
>> I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so
>> much
>> contradictory advice :-)
>>
>> The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and
>> other
>> mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
>> of the project.
>>
>> The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he
>> had to
>> deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single
>> case.
>> Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off
>> case.
>>
>> The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be
>> made
>> very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
>> Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.
>>
>> But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that
>> (quote):
>>   "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".
>>
>> Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works,
>> but I
>> think it does not, or at least, it will not.
>>
>> For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is
>> no
>> way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list,
>> nor
>> who has been left out erroneously.
>>
>> Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never
>> can be
>> put together proper.
>> Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating
>> all past
>> contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more
>> unclear,
>> even more 'unfair'.
>>
>> And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the
>> sense
>> that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of
>> people
>> seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers
>> decide).
>>
>> Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
>> valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when*
>> they
>> come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.
>>
>> Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
>> before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than
>> voting
>> in active contributors when they actively show up.
>> Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to
>> say.
>>
>> Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
>> commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future
>> committers.
>> IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.
>>
>> The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get
>> the
>> project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
>> So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the
>> initial
>> committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".
>>
>
> And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned
> mentors are there to help them to do this right!
>
>
>> They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking,
>> based
>> on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
>> Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their
>> past
>> contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.
>>
>> And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
>> enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be
>> trusted by
>> the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.
>>
>> The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
>> for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or
>> not
>> 'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and
>> are
>> expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.
>>
>> So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
>> And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other
>> mentors
>> before modifying the proposal further.
>>
>
> Just to make sure: I'm not objecting against the proposal changes you made
> so far to further clarify initial 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Ate Douma

On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:

On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

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


Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that (quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works, but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list, nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when* they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".


And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned mentors 
are there to help them to do this right!




They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking, based
on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their past
contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.

And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be trusted by
the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.

The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or not
'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and are
expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.

So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other mentors
before modifying the proposal further.


Just to make sure: I'm not objecting against the proposal changes you made so 
far to further clarify initial committers affiliations.

But (bold) marking people out who have provided code contribution in the past
IMO isn't and shouldn't be seen as a single or even most important criteria.
As mentioned before all forms of participation and contributions are valued
within the ASF, and not all committers are required to commit :-)

Ate



Kind regards, Ate



Here's what I propose:

1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Ate Douma

On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

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


Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that (quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works, but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list, nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when* they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".

They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking, based
on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their past
contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.

And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be trusted by
the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.

The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or not
'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and are
expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.

So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other mentors
before modifying the proposal further.

Kind regards, Ate



Here's what I propose:

1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
participate.
2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
of those who are not our mentors.
3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
initial contributors list as some 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Jochen Theodorou

On 25.09.2016 08:59, John McDonnell wrote:
[...]

I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
Apache Netbeans would run? Because if so, do you want to give a wide
list of committers initially?


In the end this is a decision of the project. The ASF has some 
constraints though. So currently the git repo is at apache, the github 
one is a mirror. You can still make pull request, but they have to be 
merged to the ASF repo instead of github. To merge you have to have 
commit rights at the ASF of course. Why you would want a small list of 
committers because of that escapes me though. Of course there is a trust 
kevel involved, but Apache is all about being open (for me)



I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
community then you can quickly vote to change their status...


Well, to avoid bad blood anyone how contributed in the past reasonably 
and wants to be on the list should be considered. Once you started 
incubation things can be done like you describe - or different - really 
depends on the project


bye Jochen


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread John McDonnell
Hi All,


I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
process, it seems rather interesting...

Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
from reading this page:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
sure why it is...

I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
list of committers initially?

I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
community then you can quickly vote to change their status...

Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...

Regards

John


On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>>
>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform
>>>
>>> and no IDE.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>
>
>
> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository it
> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical stuff
> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
>
>
> bye Jochen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
John

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-25 Thread Jochen Theodorou

On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

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

For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare plattform

and no IDE.



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



ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository 
it should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical 
stuff there, but that is for during incubation to sort out


bye Jochen

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.

Here's what I propose:

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

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

Thanks,

Geertjan



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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

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

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

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

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

- Shane


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread toki
On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. 
> He then drifted away from the
> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.

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

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

jonathon



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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny 
wrote:

> Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi Wade,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
> >> Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> >> PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> >> people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> >> project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> >> active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> >> the reality of active contributors.
> >>
> >> So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> >> of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> >> will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> >> project such as NetBeans.
> > Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> > ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> > by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
>
> Shit happens. But because it happens does not mean we should appy very
> bureaucratic rules for all the other projects.
>
> It's enough to *warn* the new podling that they have to be careful. Up
> to them to decide which level of check they want to apply.


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

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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
>> Hi Wade,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>>  wrote:
>>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
>>> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
>>> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>> Thanks!
>>
>> As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
>> years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
>> being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>>
>> What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
>> this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
>> or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
>> result.
>>
>> Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
>> PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
>> people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
>> project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
>> active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
>> the reality of active contributors.
>>
>> So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
>> of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
>> will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
>> project such as NetBeans.
> Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.

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

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

> If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
> non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.
>
> This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
> don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a project
> as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
> kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
> just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
> type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
> issue there -- but you catch my drift).
>
>>> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
>> Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
>> Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
>> expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
>> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>> expresses that.
> Right. And all I want to get out folks on this thread at this point is two
> things:
>  #1 admission that past contributions will be valued a LOT when it
>   comes to somebody requesting to be added as a committer to the
>   project during incubation
>
>  #2 a bit of explanation of what was the process to arrive at initial list of
>   committers
>
>>> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
>>> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
>> Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
>> the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
>> for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
>> mentioned above.
> I disagree. Like I said -- being a VP of incubator having to deal with
> that type of escalation was not a fun place to be in.

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


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

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

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

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

Regardless, here is what is important :

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

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

I suggest you read this page.

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

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

Truedat.

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

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


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Emilian Bold
A NetBeans release is produced from the NetBeans Mercurial repository. All
the language modules: Java, Javascript, C/C++, etc. you see there after
install are Oracle / NetBeans code.

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


--emi

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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Michael Müller wrote:

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


Done!

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

Thanks,

Gj

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

> GJ,
>
> regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.
> --
> Herzliche Grüße, Best regards
> Michael Müller
>
> Twitter: @muellermi
> Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf
> Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas
>
>
> Am 23. September 2016 07:50:53 MESZ, schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com>:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list
> >thanks
> >to meeting John Ament this afternoon.
> >
> >The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the
> >list
> >will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
> >be
> >contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list
> >will
> >need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
> >that
> >could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
> >in
> >the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors
> >list is
> >automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list
> >after
> >the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors
> >list
> >and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end
> >of
> >the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those
> >who
> >haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not
> >be
> >removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> >incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.
> >
> >I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
> >whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
> >misunderstood.
> >
> >If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> >contributors
> >list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> >assessment.
> >
> >The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto
> >the
> >initial contributors list:
> >
> >1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or
> >so
> >who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
> >initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as
> >at
> >least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
> >Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin
> >to
> >the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not
> >sure
> >how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I
> >estimate
> >potentially around 20.
> >
> >2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past
> >6
> >months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
> >contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
> >their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
> >functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
> >NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
> >available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the
> >plugin
> >authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided
> >by
> >developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
> >their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
> >useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
> >Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of
> >Apache
> >NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
> >example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who
> >have
> >worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
> >contributors from this category number at least about 20.
> >
> >3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the
> >past
> >and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
> >Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration,
> >as
> >well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
> >NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several
> >more.
> >In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.
> >
> >4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating
> >in
> >this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
> >NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases
> >where
> >there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the
> >above
> >categories.
> >
> >5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Emilian Bold
> hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :(
>

I don't believe it does, yet.


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

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


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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:


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


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

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

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

Thanks,

Gj

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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou

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


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


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


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

Gj

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

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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Jochen Theodorou

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

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


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


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


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

bye Jochen


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Shane Curcuru
Good questions all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Shane

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

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

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

>>
>>
>> But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
>> the PPMC makes a good job.
>> Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' NetBeans
>> lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC member
>> will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>>
>> And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
>> past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 72h
>> (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>>
>> BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
>> list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
>> But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
>> emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
 So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so
>> important and
>>> we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more commiters
>>> during incubation.
>>>
>>> On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.
>>>
>>> Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?
>>>
>>> I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. It's
>>> not
>>> only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are
>> also
>>> many that 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Mark Struberg
> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? 


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

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

LieGrue,
strub




> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 14:00, Wade Chandler 
>  wrote:
> > Phone top posting:
> 
> I agree plugins are a huge part of NetBeans success; you need them for
> Gradle support as an example. Sure, you can install them outside the
> portal, but it is a pain for most. What ever you all are able to do is
> greatly appreciated; whether now or soon, and whether that is an incubator
> stipulation or not.
> 
> But, along with this discussion plus some other questions I saw, and just
> to be clear if doing this sooner rather than later, there is a difference
> in the sources and the binaries; I realise I may be reiterating on a prior
> statement, but I think it is key.
> 
> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? What is the difference? The IDE
> and platform have to be able to compete as a project and community. Does
> Eclipse or JetBrains own all of the ones in their portals? What about
> Gradle?
> 
> I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
> feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
> stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache
> or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
> force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
> been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
> similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
> user base and use cases.
> 
> I agree porting plugins portal to use Maven central won't happen overnight,
> and the community won't do well without the portal; it would be a huge set
> back. Too, even if the artifacts are in central, the portal UI will still
> be necessary as the artifact UI just doesn't support the same use cases; in
> case there is any question.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Wade
> 
> 
> On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "Greg Stein"  wrote:
> 
>>  On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>  bdelacre...@apache.org
>>  > wrote:
>> 
>>  > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  >  wrote:
>>  > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this 
> stage. :-)
>>  >
>>  > Correct ;-)
>>  >
>>  > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's 
> infrastructure cost
>>  > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public 
> results
>>  > soon and can then move forward.
>>  >
>> 
>>  One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
>>  plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
>>  and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope 
> to figure
>>  it out before Oracle shuts it down".
>> 
>>  I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
>>  incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
>>  would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some 
> basic
>>  technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
>>  related cost).
>> 
>>  As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of 
> idea of
>>  how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
>>  with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
>> 
>>  (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
>>  Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
>>  plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)
>> 
>>  Cheers,
>>  -g
>> 
> 

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Mark Struberg
hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :(

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

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

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


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



LieGrue,
strub


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



> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 11:19, Emilian Bold  
> wrote:
> > I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to
> be perfect.
> 
> We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer.
> 
> A lot more people contributed patches via bugzilla than actually committed
> them in the Mercurial repository themselves.
> 
> The reason being it was not a very common thing to get committer access.
> 
> Furthermore, while I am a contributor and do have commit access and the
> Oracle CLA on file most of my contributions don't show up under my name.
> They show up under the name of the Sun / Oracle employee that got assigned
> to the Bugzilla issue where I posted my patch.
> 
> Considering how large NetBeans is I assume we will not have a short
> incubation so there will be plenty of time to add committers.
> 
> Pe sâmbătă, 24 septembrie 2016, Mark Struberg  
> a
> scris:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the
>>  years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the
>>  initial committers list?
>> 
>> 
>>  But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
>>  the PPMC makes a good job.
>>  Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' 
> NetBeans
>>  lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC 
> member
>>  will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>> 
>>  And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
>>  past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 
> 72h
>>  (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>> 
>>  BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
>>  list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
>>  But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>> 
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  > On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
>>  emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>  > > So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so
>>  important and
>>  > we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more 
> commiters
>>  > during incubation.
>>  >
>>  > On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.
>>  >
>>  > Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?
>>  >
>>  > I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. 
> It's
>>  > not
>>  > only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are
>>  also
>>  > many that contribute good patches via Bugzilla, etc.
>>  >
>>  > Also, each individual would have to be contacted and agree to be on 
> the
>>  > list which also implicitly means they will sign the Apache CLA.
>>  >
>>  > I do not believe the initial commiters list could fracture the 
> community
>>  as
>>  > long as we provide a clear path to become a commiter.
>>  >
>>  > I maintained a NetBeans fork for a customer but it was a lot of work 
> to
>>  > backport fixes, etc. Nobody is going to go through all that trouble 
> just
>>  > out of spite because they were not on the initial commiter's list.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --emi
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> >  >
>>  > wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>  On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>  >>  > wrote:
>>  >>  > Hi Wade,
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>>  >>  > > wrote:
>>  >>  >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the 
> initial
>>  > list, I
>>  >>  >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added 
> once we
>>  > get
>>  >>  into
>>  >>  >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Thanks!
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the 
> last ten
>>  >>  > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of 
> value in
>>  >>  > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > What very often happens during incubation is some people who 
> were on
>>  >>  > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Wade Chandler
Phone top posting:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Wade

On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "Greg Stein"  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
> >
> > Correct ;-)
> >
> > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> > soon and can then move forward.
> >
>
> One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
> plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
> and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
> it out before Oracle shuts it down".
>
> I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
> incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
> would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
> technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
> related cost).
>
> As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
> how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
> with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
>
> (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
> Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
> plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Emilian Bold
I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to
be perfect.

We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer.

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

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

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

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

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

>
>
> Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the
> years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the
> initial committers list?
>
>
> But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_
> the PPMC makes a good job.
> Because if such a person comes knocking then some of the 'old' NetBeans
> lords will hopefully recognise the person and any other PPMC member
> will at least check the commit history for his/hers contributions.
>
> And if someone shows up who already contributed lots of good things in the
> past and would like to become active again, then it's just a matter of 72h
> (VOTE time) to get him on board.
>
> BUT: we must clearly communicate that we start with a limited committer
> list simply because WE fail to compose a correct one from the very start.
> But people should know that we will fix this list over time.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold <
> emilian.b...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so
> important and
> > we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more commiters
> > during incubation.
> >
> > On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.
> >
> > Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?
> >
> > I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. It's
> > not
> > only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are
> also
> > many that contribute good patches via Bugzilla, etc.
> >
> > Also, each individual would have to be contacted and agree to be on the
> > list which also implicitly means they will sign the Apache CLA.
> >
> > I do not believe the initial commiters list could fracture the community
> as
> > long as we provide a clear path to become a commiter.
> >
> > I maintained a NetBeans fork for a customer but it was a lot of work to
> > backport fixes, etc. Nobody is going to go through all that trouble just
> > out of spite because they were not on the initial commiter's list.
> >
> >
> >
> > --emi
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >>  > wrote:
> >>  > Hi Wade,
> >>  >
> >>  > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
> >>  > > wrote:
> >>  >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial
> > list, I
> >>  >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we
> > get
> >>  into
> >>  >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
> >>  >
> >>  > Thanks!
> >>  >
> >>  > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> >>  > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> >>  > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
> >>  >
> >>  > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> >>  > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> >>  > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> >>  > result.
> >>  >
> >>  > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> >>  > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> >>  > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if
> > the
> >>  > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> >>  > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> >>  > the reality of active contributors.
> >>  >
> >>  > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial
> > list
> >>  > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft
> > that
> >>  > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> >>  > project such as NetBeans.
> >>
> >>  Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> >>  ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> >>  by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-24 Thread Mark Struberg


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


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

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

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


LieGrue,
strub




> On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 7:46, Emilian Bold  
> wrote:
> > So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so important and
> we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more commiters
> during incubation.
> 
> On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.
> 
> Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?
> 
> I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. It's 
> not
> only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are also
> many that contribute good patches via Bugzilla, etc.
> 
> Also, each individual would have to be contacted and agree to be on the
> list which also implicitly means they will sign the Apache CLA.
> 
> I do not believe the initial commiters list could fracture the community as
> long as we provide a clear path to become a commiter.
> 
> I maintained a NetBeans fork for a customer but it was a lot of work to
> backport fixes, etc. Nobody is going to go through all that trouble just
> out of spite because they were not on the initial commiter's list.
> 
> 
> 
> --emi
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> 
>>  On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>   wrote:
>>  > Hi Wade,
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>>  >  wrote:
>>  >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial 
> list, I
>>  >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we 
> get
>>  into
>>  >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>>  >
>>  > Thanks!
>>  >
>>  > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
>>  > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
>>  > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>>  >
>>  > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
>>  > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
>>  > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
>>  > result.
>>  >
>>  > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
>>  > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
>>  > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if 
> the
>>  > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
>>  > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
>>  > the reality of active contributors.
>>  >
>>  > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial 
> list
>>  > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft 
> that
>>  > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
>>  > project such as NetBeans.
>> 
>>  Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
>>  ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
>>  by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
>>  If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
>>  non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.
>> 
>>  This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
>>  don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a 
> project
>>  as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
>>  kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
>>  just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
>>  type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
>>  issue there -- but you catch my drift).
>> 
>>  >> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage 
> anyways...
>>  >
>>  > Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
>>  > Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
>>  > expected to listen to their community. The "community" 
> section at
>>  > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-
>>  maturity-model.html
>>  > expresses 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Emilian Bold
So on one hand the initial commiters list is not something so important and
we should realy just be careful about the PPMC then vote more commiters
during incubation.

On the other hand the initial commiters list is super important.

Is there some actual incubation documentation clearing this up?

I think it's a big administrative task to compile a perfect list. It's not
only about who has commit rights on the current repository, there are also
many that contribute good patches via Bugzilla, etc.

Also, each individual would have to be contacted and agree to be on the
list which also implicitly means they will sign the Apache CLA.

I do not believe the initial commiters list could fracture the community as
long as we provide a clear path to become a commiter.

I maintained a NetBeans fork for a customer but it was a lot of work to
backport fixes, etc. Nobody is going to go through all that trouble just
out of spite because they were not on the initial commiter's list.



--emi

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Wade,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
> >  wrote:
> >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
> >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get
> into
> >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
> >
> > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> > result.
> >
> > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> > the reality of active contributors.
> >
> > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> > project such as NetBeans.
>
> Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
> If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
> non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.
>
> This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
> don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a project
> as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
> kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
> just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
> type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
> issue there -- but you catch my drift).
>
> >> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
> >
> > Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> > Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> > expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-
> maturity-model.html
> > expresses that.
>
> Right. And all I want to get out folks on this thread at this point is two
> things:
>  #1 admission that past contributions will be valued a LOT when it
>   comes to somebody requesting to be added as a committer to the
>   project during incubation
>
>  #2 a bit of explanation of what was the process to arrive at initial list
> of
>   committers
>
> >> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
> >> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
> >
> > Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> > the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> > for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> > mentioned above.
>
> I disagree. Like I said -- being a VP of incubator having to deal with
> that type of escalation was not a fun place to be in.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Niclas Hedhman
Greg,
many people on this list are probably unaware that your role changed a
couple of days ago...

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

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
> >
> > Correct ;-)
> >
> > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> > soon and can then move forward.
> >
>
> One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
> plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
> and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
> it out before Oracle shuts it down".
>
> I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
> incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
> would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
> technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
> related cost).
>
> As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
> how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
> with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
>
> (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
> Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
> plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>



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


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Greg Stein
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
>
> Correct ;-)
>
> FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> soon and can then move forward.
>

One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
it out before Oracle shuts it down".

I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
related cost).

As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.

(Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)

Cheers,
-g


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Jochen Theodorou

Hi,

I actually have a question regarding the plugins. Maybe I missed it in 
the discussion so far, but what will happen with all of those? I mean 
some are part of the binary download by default. Will they all move to 
apache license and then be hosted at apache if possible too, or will 
this become a plugin-per-plugin decission? What for example with all the 
plugins you are owner of?


bye Jochen


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:30 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> I spoke with Geertjan this afternoon.  We both happened to be at the same
> popular java conference in San Francisco.  I did give him some advice on
> the current initial contributors list.  Basically two notes:
>
> - Add new members based on merit, not because prior to joining they are
> interested.  The way he explained it to me, many of the initial committers
> are interested in giving back to Netbeans.  They aren't able to due to the
> licensing model from Oracle but are willing to under Apache.  This doesn't
> mean they will or will not contribute, but there is an intent.  It may be
> better to add them to the project as they begin contributing.

This sounds a little bit contradictory to me. On one hand you're saying -- the
newcomers will be judged on merit. On the other hand you're saying that
initial committers list is not quite judged on merit alone but on the fact of
how much they "are interested in giving back to Netbeans".

Like I said, it would be useful to understand what the criteria for selection
was simply because IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking.

So all I'm asking is that criteria is clearly spelled out and everybody
agrees that this is it.

> - Ensure that everyone who has contributed to Netbeans in the past is aware
> and eligible to be a contributor.  There may be past employees who want to
> still give back.  Or even present employees who are now working on other
> projects.  They shouldn't necessarily be excluded from the list because
> they don't currently work on Netbeans right now.
>
> I do see some issues for the project if they miss people from the list.
> Voting in committers can be seen as a pain, especially if it is a
> potentially large list (I'm fairly certain that the initial committers list
> here is the largest of any project so far at Apache).
>
> I also want to make sure that the infra assessment is done before voting
> starts, just to make sure we're all in alignment on what is being expected.

That is my other concern as well.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler  
> wrote:
>> ...I recently contributed some things for Groovy support, and intend to work 
>> quite a bit on those features...
>
> Anyone who works "quite a bit" on something that adds value to the
> project and interacts in a constructive way on the project's lists
> should be elected a committer rather sooner than later, in my book.
>
> How soon is the project's choice,

This gives me pause. It sounds like as a mentor, you taking this hands-off
approach saying: this is a poddling as any podling. PPMC will determine
what's right.

I guess I will have to disagree. For a project like NetBeans you will have
a LOT of people who have stake in the code base and who are NOT on
the initial list of committers. I think as a mentor you should be prepared
to actively manage that and help PPMC form an opinion of what is
the right thing to do given the Apache Way.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi Wade,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>  wrote:
>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
>> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
>> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>
> Thanks!
>
> As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>
> What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> result.
>
> Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> the reality of active contributors.
>
> So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> project such as NetBeans.

Well, but they do. In fact, when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers.
If the code one wrote is going into ASF -- and especially if it is a
non-trivial amount of code, one can certainly expect some considerations.

This is the same principle as ASF postulates when we say that we
don't fork the communities. We truly don't. That's why for a project
as large as NetBeans I think it is important for us to inquire what
kind of due diligence was done to get the list of initial committers
just right. Otherwise it is going to be OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice
type of situation all over again (not that commiters was the key
issue there -- but you catch my drift).

>> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
>
> Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> expresses that.

Right. And all I want to get out folks on this thread at this point is two
things:
 #1 admission that past contributions will be valued a LOT when it
  comes to somebody requesting to be added as a committer to the
  project during incubation

 #2 a bit of explanation of what was the process to arrive at initial list of
  committers

>> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
>> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
>
> Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> mentioned above.

I disagree. Like I said -- being a VP of incubator having to deal with
that type of escalation was not a fun place to be in.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
>> criteria
>> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>
>
> Let's stop wasting time -- just provide his name so it can be added to the
> list, thanks.

Let me connect you two so that this conversation could happen without
me playing a middle man.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 23/09/16 à 15:30, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
> complete as possible.
>
> What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
> the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
> proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
> then after than make the changes?

IMHO, whatever works. The IPMC is not qualified to vote who shoud be a
committer, and who shouldn't. So if your initial list is not perfect,
well, not a big deal. You can fix it later on, voting in committers once
accepted in the incubator.

It's easy to vote in committers, so don't try to add everyone in the
initial list just because you want to cover all the angles. IMO, the
existing list should already be considered as good enough !

You should rather focus on who should be part of the PPMC, becuase it's
very likely to become the PMC once promoted. That's teh critical part !

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
complete as possible.

What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
then after than make the changes?

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Responses in line.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Geertjan,
> >
> > I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
> > clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ...Anyone on the list
> > > will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
> be
> > > contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
> >
> > They will be commiters to be precise.
> >
>
> Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
> committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
> how that evolves.
>
>
> >
> > > Anyone not on the list will
> > > need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
> that
> > > could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
> in
> > > the initial contributors list...
> >
> > It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one
> vote
> > for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
> >
>
> Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
> someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
> to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.
>
>
> >
> > > Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> > > automatically part of the PMC.
> >
> > There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> >
> > That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
> > podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
> > foundation level.
> >
> > In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but
> really
> > in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
> >
>
> It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
> that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
> incubation.
>
>
> >
> > > ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> > > incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their
> life...
> >
> > That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
> > PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
> > would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation
> for
> > example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
> > incubation is harmless.
> >
> > Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if
> they
> > don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
> > permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
> > risks.
> >
>
> That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
> doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
> has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
> organization...)
>
>
> >
> > In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
> > members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have
> to
> > demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
> > to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count
> towards
> > that, in my book.
> >
> > > ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> > contributors
> > > list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> > assessment...
> >
> > I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays
> the
> > vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
> > during incubation with just a bit of additional work.
> >
>
> I don't think this will add a lot of work.  I even gave him the idea of
> just generating a script of past committers based on commit history.
>
>
> >
> > If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come
> up
> > with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community
> feels
> > deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
> > community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new
> list.
> >
>
> Agreed 100%.  If someone hasn't added anything in a while, has no interest
> in developing more, and the community doesn't see much benefit, they
> shouldn't be on the list.  However, if that person does start contributing,
> please pay 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread John D. Ament
Hi Bertrand,

Responses in line.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> Hi Geertjan,
>
> I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
> clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...Anyone on the list
> > will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
> > contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
>
> They will be commiters to be precise.
>

Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
how that evolves.


>
> > Anyone not on the list will
> > need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
> > could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
> > the initial contributors list...
>
> It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one vote
> for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
>

Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.


>
> > Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> > automatically part of the PMC.
>
> There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
>
> That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
> podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
> foundation level.
>
> In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but really
> in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
>

It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
incubation.


>
> > ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> > incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life...
>
> That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
> PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
> would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation for
> example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
> incubation is harmless.
>
> Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if they
> don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
> permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
> risks.
>

That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
organization...)


>
> In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
> members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have to
> demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
> to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count towards
> that, in my book.
>
> > ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> contributors
> > list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> assessment...
>
> I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays the
> vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
> during incubation with just a bit of additional work.
>

I don't think this will add a lot of work.  I even gave him the idea of
just generating a script of past committers based on commit history.


>
> If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come up
> with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community feels
> deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
> community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new list.
>

Agreed 100%.  If someone hasn't added anything in a while, has no interest
in developing more, and the community doesn't see much benefit, they
shouldn't be on the list.  However, if that person does start contributing,
please pay close attention to see if they're interested in coming back.


>
> -Bertrand
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Michael Müller
GJ,

regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.
-- 
Herzliche Grüße, Best regards
Michael Müller

Twitter: @muellermi
Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de
Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf
Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas


Am 23. September 2016 07:50:53 MESZ, schrieb Geertjan Wielenga 
:
>Hi all,
>
>Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list
>thanks
>to meeting John Ament this afternoon.
>
>The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the
>list
>will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
>be
>contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list
>will
>need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
>that
>could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
>in
>the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors
>list is
>automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list
>after
>the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors
>list
>and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end
>of
>the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those
>who
>haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not
>be
>removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
>incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.
>
>I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
>whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
>misunderstood.
>
>If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
>contributors
>list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
>assessment.
>
>The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto
>the
>initial contributors list:
>
>1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or
>so
>who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
>initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as
>at
>least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
>Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin
>to
>the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not
>sure
>how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I
>estimate
>potentially around 20.
>
>2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past
>6
>months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
>contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
>their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
>functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
>NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
>available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the
>plugin
>authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided
>by
>developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
>their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
>useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
>Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of
>Apache
>NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
>example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who
>have
>worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
>contributors from this category number at least about 20.
>
>3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the
>past
>and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
>Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration,
>as
>well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
>NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several
>more.
>In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.
>
>4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating
>in
>this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
>NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases
>where
>there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the
>above
>categories.
>
>5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the person Roman was
>referring to earlier, and anyone who volunteers after we send a few
>e-mails
>to the various NetBeans mailing lists.
>
>6. A final point about "intent" and "interest" in John Ament's mail
>above.
>There are two types of these -- those that are definitely going to be
>contributing because their software depends on NetBeans, e.g.,
>Microchip's
>MPLAB X is an IDE on top of NetBeans IDE, and the related developers
>have a
>very strong interest in committing themselves to Apache NetBeans. I
>propose
>we do keep this category of people in the initial 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-23 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi Geertjan,

I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...Anyone on the list
> will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
> contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...

They will be commiters to be precise.

> Anyone not on the list will
> need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
> could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
> the initial contributors list...

It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one vote
for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.

> Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> automatically part of the PMC.

There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html

That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
foundation level.

In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but really
in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.

> ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life...

That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation for
example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
incubation is harmless.

Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if they
don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
risks.

In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have to
demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count towards
that, in my book.

> ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
contributors
> list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
assessment...

I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays the
vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
during incubation with just a bit of additional work.

If you still want do expand the list during incubation, best is to come up
with a list of additional names that the existing NetBeans community feels
deserve to be on that list (maybe based on votes on the existing NetBeans
community's channels), and have the NetBeans mentors accept that new list.

-Bertrand


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Hi all,

Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list thanks
to meeting John Ament this afternoon.

The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the list
will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list will
need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors list is
automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list after
the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors list
and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end of
the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those who
haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not be
removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.

I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
misunderstood.

If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial contributors
list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra assessment.

The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto the
initial contributors list:

1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or so
who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as at
least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin to
the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not sure
how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I estimate
potentially around 20.

2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past 6
months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the plugin
authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided by
developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of Apache
NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who have
worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
contributors from this category number at least about 20.

3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the past
and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration, as
well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several more.
In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.

4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating in
this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases where
there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the above
categories.

5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the person Roman was
referring to earlier, and anyone who volunteers after we send a few e-mails
to the various NetBeans mailing lists.

6. A final point about "intent" and "interest" in John Ament's mail above.
There are two types of these -- those that are definitely going to be
contributing because their software depends on NetBeans, e.g., Microchip's
MPLAB X is an IDE on top of NetBeans IDE, and the related developers have a
very strong interest in committing themselves to Apache NetBeans. I propose
we do keep this category of people in the initial contributors list, which
is why I put them there initially -- they are different to someone who may
have a vague idea about one day maybe contributing. This may seem a strange
category and the argument could be made that they should only be added once
they actually contribute during incubation. For this category, however,
since their interest is so strong and visceral because their business
literally depends on NetBeans, we keep them in the initial contributors
list and, in the unlikely event 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread John D. Ament
I spoke with Geertjan this afternoon.  We both happened to be at the same
popular java conference in San Francisco.  I did give him some advice on
the current initial contributors list.  Basically two notes:

- Add new members based on merit, not because prior to joining they are
interested.  The way he explained it to me, many of the initial committers
are interested in giving back to Netbeans.  They aren't able to due to the
licensing model from Oracle but are willing to under Apache.  This doesn't
mean they will or will not contribute, but there is an intent.  It may be
better to add them to the project as they begin contributing.

- Ensure that everyone who has contributed to Netbeans in the past is aware
and eligible to be a contributor.  There may be past employees who want to
still give back.  Or even present employees who are now working on other
projects.  They shouldn't necessarily be excluded from the list because
they don't currently work on Netbeans right now.

I do see some issues for the project if they miss people from the list.
Voting in committers can be seen as a pain, especially if it is a
potentially large list (I'm fairly certain that the initial committers list
here is the largest of any project so far at Apache).

I also want to make sure that the infra assessment is done before voting
starts, just to make sure we're all in alignment on what is being expected.

John

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:28 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes 
wrote:

> I'm very convinced :-)  I think the Netbeans proposal is ready for a
> [VOTE]!
>
>
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 13:57, Wade Chandler 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 22, 2016, at 08:27, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> >>
> >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 9/22/16 1:43 AM:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >>>
>  Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
> criteria
>  to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
> >>>
> >>> Projects decision.
> >>
> >> Exactly so.  This would be a podling just like every other podling, and
> >> the IPMC would expect the PPMC to start operating like an Apache
> >> project.  That is, when new people come to the podling and contribute
> >> work, and help the work of the podling, that after a time the PPMC will
> >> discuss them, then vote them in as new committers.
> >>
> >> Past merit (i.e. past contributions) is a great help to a new
> >> contributor to a project, both because it's easier to get started, and
> >> because the community already has a feel for how they act and can help.
> >> But it in no way IMO directly leads to current merit.  Old contributors
> >> normally would be voted in as committers only once they actually start
> >> doing new work on the project.
> >
> > Perhaps we need to clarify what you mean by “old contributor” … Do you
> mean those currently contributing to the imported project, those who have
> contributed at some time in the past, but not in X days/months, or anyone
> not on the initial committer list? If the latter, then why would this be
> true for a current OSS project coming to ASF? If this is exactly the case,
> then more emphasis is put on the initial committer list IMO, and that seems
> an unnecessary distraction, and an artificial limit, but if it must be that
> way it must, and if not, then great, but please clarify.
> >
> > I ask this because I recently contributed some things for Groovy
> support, and intend to work quite a bit on those features. I have
> contributed quite a bit to the form (UI editor), J2EE, and Java SE modules
> in the past. I don’t want to suddenly be hindered just because the project
> moves to the ASF where I have to “start over”; I have invested quite a
> number of years into NetBeans and it’s community.
> >
> >> On Sep 22, 2016, at 07:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
> >> you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
> >> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
> >>
> >
> > Understood, but the impression still has to be on the community all the
> rules of merit apply regardless of perception. I have faith Gj and many I
> know on that initial list will make sure anyone who has made solid code
> contributions to NB, who also want to contribute in the ASF, will be fast
> tracked per prior NB community decisions. We are operating off this
> assumption now; community and Oracle included per my understanding.
> >
> >> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
> >> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
> >> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
> >> without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
> >> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
> >> low the bar should 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
I'm very convinced :-)  I think the Netbeans proposal is ready for a [VOTE]!



On 22 September 2016 at 13:57, Wade Chandler  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 08:27, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
>>
>> Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 9/22/16 1:43 AM:
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a 
 criteria
 to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>>>
>>> Projects decision.
>>
>> Exactly so.  This would be a podling just like every other podling, and
>> the IPMC would expect the PPMC to start operating like an Apache
>> project.  That is, when new people come to the podling and contribute
>> work, and help the work of the podling, that after a time the PPMC will
>> discuss them, then vote them in as new committers.
>>
>> Past merit (i.e. past contributions) is a great help to a new
>> contributor to a project, both because it's easier to get started, and
>> because the community already has a feel for how they act and can help.
>> But it in no way IMO directly leads to current merit.  Old contributors
>> normally would be voted in as committers only once they actually start
>> doing new work on the project.
>
> Perhaps we need to clarify what you mean by “old contributor” … Do you mean 
> those currently contributing to the imported project, those who have 
> contributed at some time in the past, but not in X days/months, or anyone not 
> on the initial committer list? If the latter, then why would this be true for 
> a current OSS project coming to ASF? If this is exactly the case, then more 
> emphasis is put on the initial committer list IMO, and that seems an 
> unnecessary distraction, and an artificial limit, but if it must be that way 
> it must, and if not, then great, but please clarify.
>
> I ask this because I recently contributed some things for Groovy support, and 
> intend to work quite a bit on those features. I have contributed quite a bit 
> to the form (UI editor), J2EE, and Java SE modules in the past. I don’t want 
> to suddenly be hindered just because the project moves to the ASF where I 
> have to “start over”; I have invested quite a number of years into NetBeans 
> and it’s community.
>
>> On Sep 22, 2016, at 07:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes  wrote:
>>
>> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
>> you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
>> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
>>
>
> Understood, but the impression still has to be on the community all the rules 
> of merit apply regardless of perception. I have faith Gj and many I know on 
> that initial list will make sure anyone who has made solid code contributions 
> to NB, who also want to contribute in the ASF, will be fast tracked per prior 
> NB community decisions. We are operating off this assumption now; community 
> and Oracle included per my understanding.
>
>> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
>> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
>> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
>> without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
>> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
>> low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should be
>> the same for anyone.
>>
> I 100% agree with this. I think it is definitely that the rules have to apply 
> to everyone equally including employees of a company including the donor. I 
> don’t imagine someone who falls outside categories of merit in the current NB 
> process now should suddenly be committers at ASF. Committers should be 
> committers. Those who were well on their way to earn committer status should 
> be considered, and it should be rare they are not promoted. Those not 
> committing code or submitting patches now, should start from the premise they 
> have to earn committer rights, and the project should enforce that as a 
> minimum; merit isn’t about free trophies or we’d all have doctorates or be in 
> the NFL or NBA :-D
>
>>
>> I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who were
>> perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up' after
>> being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning of a
>> podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is also
>> a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to build
>> common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.
>>
>
> Sure; IMHO a sane committer of old should be a sane committer of new; if they 
> want to be involved. My understanding in the current NB processes that is 
> true now. Certainly in an OSS world people come and work as they can, and 
> sometimes they can do more than other times. Sometimes they necessarily have 
> to become dormant; 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler  wrote:
> ...I recently contributed some things for Groovy support, and intend to work 
> quite a bit on those features...

Anyone who works "quite a bit" on something that adds value to the
project and interacts in a constructive way on the project's lists
should be elected a committer rather sooner than later, in my book.

How soon is the project's choice, there are no strong Apache rules
about this and there are different styles, but as a NetBeans mentor I
will push for short waiting times as I've had good results that way in
the past.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Wade Chandler

> On Sep 22, 2016, at 08:27, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> 
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 9/22/16 1:43 AM:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a 
>>> criteria
>>> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>> 
>> Projects decision.
> 
> Exactly so.  This would be a podling just like every other podling, and
> the IPMC would expect the PPMC to start operating like an Apache
> project.  That is, when new people come to the podling and contribute
> work, and help the work of the podling, that after a time the PPMC will
> discuss them, then vote them in as new committers.
> 
> Past merit (i.e. past contributions) is a great help to a new
> contributor to a project, both because it's easier to get started, and
> because the community already has a feel for how they act and can help.
> But it in no way IMO directly leads to current merit.  Old contributors
> normally would be voted in as committers only once they actually start
> doing new work on the project.

Perhaps we need to clarify what you mean by “old contributor” … Do you mean 
those currently contributing to the imported project, those who have 
contributed at some time in the past, but not in X days/months, or anyone not 
on the initial committer list? If the latter, then why would this be true for a 
current OSS project coming to ASF? If this is exactly the case, then more 
emphasis is put on the initial committer list IMO, and that seems an 
unnecessary distraction, and an artificial limit, but if it must be that way it 
must, and if not, then great, but please clarify.

I ask this because I recently contributed some things for Groovy support, and 
intend to work quite a bit on those features. I have contributed quite a bit to 
the form (UI editor), J2EE, and Java SE modules in the past. I don’t want to 
suddenly be hindered just because the project moves to the ASF where I have to 
“start over”; I have invested quite a number of years into NetBeans and it’s 
community.

> On Sep 22, 2016, at 07:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes  wrote:
> 
> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
> you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
> 

Understood, but the impression still has to be on the community all the rules 
of merit apply regardless of perception. I have faith Gj and many I know on 
that initial list will make sure anyone who has made solid code contributions 
to NB, who also want to contribute in the ASF, will be fast tracked per prior 
NB community decisions. We are operating off this assumption now; community and 
Oracle included per my understanding.

> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
> without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
> low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should be
> the same for anyone.
> 
I 100% agree with this. I think it is definitely that the rules have to apply 
to everyone equally including employees of a company including the donor. I 
don’t imagine someone who falls outside categories of merit in the current NB 
process now should suddenly be committers at ASF. Committers should be 
committers. Those who were well on their way to earn committer status should be 
considered, and it should be rare they are not promoted. Those not committing 
code or submitting patches now, should start from the premise they have to earn 
committer rights, and the project should enforce that as a minimum; merit isn’t 
about free trophies or we’d all have doctorates or be in the NFL or NBA :-D

> 
> I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who were
> perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up' after
> being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning of a
> podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is also
> a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to build
> common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.
> 

Sure; IMHO a sane committer of old should be a sane committer of new; if they 
want to be involved. My understanding in the current NB processes that is true 
now. Certainly in an OSS world people come and work as they can, and sometimes 
they can do more than other times. Sometimes they necessarily have to become 
dormant; children, jobs, friends, life… In the NB community we understand this 
and respect it; a work life balance.

> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
> invite anyone who wants to 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Shane Curcuru
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 9/22/16 1:43 AM:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  
> wrote:
> 
>> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a 
>> criteria
>> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
> 
> Projects decision.

Exactly so.  This would be a podling just like every other podling, and
the IPMC would expect the PPMC to start operating like an Apache
project.  That is, when new people come to the podling and contribute
work, and help the work of the podling, that after a time the PPMC will
discuss them, then vote them in as new committers.

Past merit (i.e. past contributions) is a great help to a new
contributor to a project, both because it's easier to get started, and
because the community already has a feel for how they act and can help.
But it in no way IMO directly leads to current merit.  Old contributors
normally would be voted in as committers only once they actually start
doing new work on the project.

- Shane


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
>...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)

Correct ;-)

FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
soon and can then move forward.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
> invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that the
> whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence project
> decisions.


Yes, once we are in incubation we will do that. We are not in incubation
yet and I feel we are wasting time with this discussion, I haven't seen
anyone actually caring about whether they're on the initial committers list
or not. We as a community don't care about whatever status that brings, to
be honest. I'd prefer to stop talking about the initial committers list, to
be honest at this point, there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at
this stage. :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
wrote:

> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
> you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
>
> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
> without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
> low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should be
> the same for anyone.
>
>
> I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who were
> perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up' after
> being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning of a
> podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is also
> a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to build
> common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.
>
> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
> invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that the
> whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence project
> decisions.
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Wade,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
> >  wrote:
> >> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
> >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get
> into
> >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
> >
> > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> > result.
> >
> > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> > the reality of active contributors.
> >
> > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> > project such as NetBeans.
> >
> >> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
> >
> > Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> > Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> > expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-
> maturity-model.html
> > expresses that.
> >
> >> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
> >> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
> >
> > Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> > the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> > for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> > mentioned above.
> >
> > Thanks for your understanding and for your contributions so far!
> >
> > -Bertrand, with my NetBeans mentor hat on
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
>
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
usual with Friends & Family on the list.

One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should be
the same for anyone.


I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who were
perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up' after
being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning of a
podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is also
a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to build
common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.

I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that the
whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence project
decisions.

On 22 September 2016 at 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi Wade,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
>  wrote:
>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
>> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
>> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
>
> Thanks!
>
> As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
>
> What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> result.
>
> Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> the reality of active contributors.
>
> So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> project such as NetBeans.
>
>> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
>
> Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> expresses that.
>
>> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
>> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
>
> Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> mentioned above.
>
> Thanks for your understanding and for your contributions so far!
>
> -Bertrand, with my NetBeans mentor hat on
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi Wade,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler
 wrote:
> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
> the actual incubation phase makes sense...

Thanks!

As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.

What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
result.

Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
the reality of active contributors.

So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
project such as NetBeans.

> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...

Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
expresses that.

> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...

Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
mentioned above.

Thanks for your understanding and for your contributions so far!

-Bertrand, with my NetBeans mentor hat on

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-22 Thread Wade Chandler
On Sep 21, 2016 4:15 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> > ...Please note that during the incubation people need to either show
that they
> > are eager to engage with the community...
>
> Indeed, but for a well established project like NetBeans I suppose the
> initial committers will recognize some people as soon as they show up,
> as contributors to NetBeans before Apache, and suggest electing them
> quicker than if they were unknown. With such a large project it's
> probably impossible to create a fully fair initial list of committers,
> and fixing that shortly after entering incubation is fine.
>
>

I can say as a long time contributor who is not on the initial list, I
understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get into
the actual incubation phase makes sense. It seems moot until then as you
can see I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways. I
think that is the direction people need if they do not already know or
understand it as getting into building a thorough list before hand will
certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage.

Thanks

Wade


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a criteria
> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?

Projects decision.



-- 
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
> criteria
> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?


Let's stop wasting time -- just provide his name so it can be added to the
list, thanks.

Geertjan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> >  wrote:
> >> ...Please note that during the incubation people need to either show
> that they
> >> are eager to engage with the community...
> >
> > Indeed, but for a well established project like NetBeans I suppose the
> > initial committers will recognize some people as soon as they show up,
> > as contributors to NetBeans before Apache, and suggest electing them
> > quicker than if they were unknown. With such a large project it's
> > probably impossible to create a fully fair initial list of committers,
> > and fixing that shortly after entering incubation is fine.
>
> That's what I was asking about. In particular, the person who was inquiring
> me off-line about this proposal had a non-trivial amount of commits to
> then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
>
> Given the size of the pool of potential candidates like that, I'm not
> saying
> we should block the VOTE until we get the initial committer list just
> right.
>
> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
> criteria
> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
>> ...Please note that during the incubation people need to either show that 
>> they
>> are eager to engage with the community...
>
> Indeed, but for a well established project like NetBeans I suppose the
> initial committers will recognize some people as soon as they show up,
> as contributors to NetBeans before Apache, and suggest electing them
> quicker than if they were unknown. With such a large project it's
> probably impossible to create a fully fair initial list of committers,
> and fixing that shortly after entering incubation is fine.

That's what I was asking about. In particular, the person who was inquiring
me off-line about this proposal had a non-trivial amount of commits to
then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.

Given the size of the pool of potential candidates like that, I'm not saying
we should block the VOTE until we get the initial committer list just right.

Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a criteria
to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg
 wrote:
> ...Please note that during the incubation people need to either show that they
> are eager to engage with the community...

Indeed, but for a well established project like NetBeans I suppose the
initial committers will recognize some people as soon as they show up,
as contributors to NetBeans before Apache, and suggest electing them
quicker than if they were unknown. With such a large project it's
probably impossible to create a fully fair initial list of committers,
and fixing that shortly after entering incubation is fine.

The committers and PMC rosters are usually rediscussed before
graduation anyway, so people who signed up but don't become active
during incubation can be omitted, it goes both ways.

> ...Not sure if it would make sense to already split this into PPMC and
> committers for the initial contributors?...

Before voting on incubation you mean? I wouldn't do that - refining
the PMC roster before graduation is fine, but now is too early IMO,
let's see who actually becomes active before making such decisions.

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Mark Struberg
Please note that during the incubation people need to either show that they are 
eager to engage with the community. It's not that the Podling PMC (PPMC) 
randomly invites people just because their name get dropped, but the PPMC holds 
a VOTE based on their merit [1].

Usually all the initial committers of a poddling also become PPMC members.

Not sure if it would make sense to already split this into PPMC and committers 
for the initial contributors?
Did you have any such merit based hierarchy in NetBeans? Or was it depending on 
Oracle who has a saying?



LieGrue,
strub


[1] https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html





> On Wednesday, 21 September 2016, 7:41, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> 
>>  I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
>>  used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
>>  of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
>>  wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?
> 
> 
> Very many more will be added once we enter incubation.
> 
> I put the initial list of committers together. The initial list reflect an
> initial list of committers coming from Oracle [though several more will be
> added later] as well as an initial list of committers from companies
> committed to NetBeans primarily because their software, e.g., at Airbus and
> European Space Agency, depends on it.
> 
> A growing list of developers have indicated they'd like to be added too.
> We'll start doing that as indicated in the propopsal -- as soon as the
> proposal has been voted on, accepted, and entered into incubation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> 
>>  Hi!
>> 
>>  I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
>>  used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
>>  of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
>>  wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?
>> 
>>  Thanks,
>>  Roman.
>> 
>>  On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>   wrote:
>>  > Hello everyone,
>>  >
>>  > Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache NetBeans, 
> a
>>  > development environment, tooling platform, and application framework.
>>  >
>>  > The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal 
> is
>>  > in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:
>>  >
>>  > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
>>  >
>>  > We look forward to your feedback and input.
>>  >
>>  > Kind regards,
>>  >
>>  > Geertjan
>>  >
>>  > 
>>  >
>>  > = NetBeans Proposal =
>>  >
>>  > == Abstract ==
>>  >
>>  > NetBeans is an open source development environment, tooling platform,
>>  > and application framework, used by 1.5 million individuals each month.
>>  >
>>  > == Proposal ==
>>  >
>>  > Apache NetBeans will continue to focus on the areas it has focused on
>>  > while sponsored by Sun Microsystems and Oracle. It will continue to
>>  > primarily focus on providing tools for the Java ecosystem, while also
>>  > being focused on tools for other ecosystems, languages and
>>  > technologies, such as JavaScript, PHP, and C/C++. It will continue to
>>  > actively support its community by means of mailing lists, tutorials,
>>  > and documentation.
>>  >
>>  > == Background ==
>>  >
>>  > NetBeans started in 1995/96 in Prague, in the Czech Republic, as a
>>  > student project. Sun Microsystems acquired and open sourced it in 2000
>>  > and, with the acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle in 2010,
>>  > became part of Oracle. Throughout its history in Sun Microsystems and
>>  > Oracle, NetBeans has been free and open source and has been leveraged
>>  > by its sponsor as a mechanism for driving the Java ecosystem forward.
>>  >
>>  > == Rationale ==
>>  >
>>  > Although NetBeans is already open source, moving it to a neutral place
>>  > like Apache, with its strong governance model, is expected to help get
>>  > more contributions from various organizations. For example, large
>>  > companies are using NetBeans as an application framework to build
>>  > internal or commercial applications and are much more likely to
>>  > contribute to it once it moves to neutral Apache ground. At the same
>>  > time, though Oracle will relinquish its control over NetBeans,
>>  > individual contributors from Oracle are expected to continue
>>  > contributing to NetBeans after it has been contributed to Apache,
>>  > together with individual contributors from other organizations, as
>>  > well as self-employed individual contributors.
>>  >
>>  > == Initial Goals ==
>>  >
>>  > The initial goals of the NetBeans contribution under the Apache
>>  > umbrella are to establish a new home for an already fully functioning
>>  > project and to open up the governance model so as to 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-21 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 21/09/16 à 07:37, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
>> used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
>> of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
>> wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?
>
> Very many more will be added once we enter incubation.
>
> I put the initial list of committers together. The initial list reflect an
> initial list of committers coming from Oracle [though several more will be
> added later] as well as an initial list of committers from companies
> committed to NetBeans primarily because their software, e.g., at Airbus and
> European Space Agency, depends on it.
>
> A growing list of developers have indicated they'd like to be added too.
> We'll start doing that as indicated in the propopsal -- as soon as the
> proposal has been voted on, accepted, and entered into incubation.

That's pretty much what is expected : this is one of the incubation exit
criterium anyway !


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Geertjan Wielenga
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
> used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
> of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
> wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?


Very many more will be added once we enter incubation.

I put the initial list of committers together. The initial list reflect an
initial list of committers coming from Oracle [though several more will be
added later] as well as an initial list of committers from companies
committed to NetBeans primarily because their software, e.g., at Airbus and
European Space Agency, depends on it.

A growing list of developers have indicated they'd like to be added too.
We'll start doing that as indicated in the propopsal -- as soon as the
proposal has been voted on, accepted, and entered into incubation.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
> used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
> of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
> wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache NetBeans, a
> > development environment, tooling platform, and application framework.
> >
> > The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is
> > in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:
> >
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
> >
> > We look forward to your feedback and input.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Geertjan
> >
> > 
> >
> > = NetBeans Proposal =
> >
> > == Abstract ==
> >
> > NetBeans is an open source development environment, tooling platform,
> > and application framework, used by 1.5 million individuals each month.
> >
> > == Proposal ==
> >
> > Apache NetBeans will continue to focus on the areas it has focused on
> > while sponsored by Sun Microsystems and Oracle. It will continue to
> > primarily focus on providing tools for the Java ecosystem, while also
> > being focused on tools for other ecosystems, languages and
> > technologies, such as JavaScript, PHP, and C/C++. It will continue to
> > actively support its community by means of mailing lists, tutorials,
> > and documentation.
> >
> > == Background ==
> >
> > NetBeans started in 1995/96 in Prague, in the Czech Republic, as a
> > student project. Sun Microsystems acquired and open sourced it in 2000
> > and, with the acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle in 2010,
> > became part of Oracle. Throughout its history in Sun Microsystems and
> > Oracle, NetBeans has been free and open source and has been leveraged
> > by its sponsor as a mechanism for driving the Java ecosystem forward.
> >
> > == Rationale ==
> >
> > Although NetBeans is already open source, moving it to a neutral place
> > like Apache, with its strong governance model, is expected to help get
> > more contributions from various organizations. For example, large
> > companies are using NetBeans as an application framework to build
> > internal or commercial applications and are much more likely to
> > contribute to it once it moves to neutral Apache ground. At the same
> > time, though Oracle will relinquish its control over NetBeans,
> > individual contributors from Oracle are expected to continue
> > contributing to NetBeans after it has been contributed to Apache,
> > together with individual contributors from other organizations, as
> > well as self-employed individual contributors.
> >
> > == Initial Goals ==
> >
> > The initial goals of the NetBeans contribution under the Apache
> > umbrella are to establish a new home for an already fully functioning
> > project and to open up the governance model so as to simplify and
> > streamline contributions from the community.
> >
> > == Current Status ==
> >
> > Meritocracy: NetBeans has been run by Oracle, with the majority of
> > code contributions coming from Oracle. The specific reason for moving
> > to Apache is to expand the diversity of contributors and to increase
> > the level of meritocracy in NetBeans. Apache NetBeans will be actively
> > seeking new contributors and will welcome them warmly and provide a
> > friendly and productive environment for purposes of providing a
> > development environment, tooling environment, and application
> > framework.
> >
> > Community: NetBeans has approximately 1.5 million active users around
> > the world, in extremely diverse structures and organizations. NetBeans
> > is used by teachers and instructors at schools and universities to
> > teach Java and other languages. It is used by students as an
> > educational tool. It is used by large organizations who base 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
Hi!

I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?

Thanks,
Roman.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache NetBeans, a
> development environment, tooling platform, and application framework.
>
> The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is
> in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
>
> We look forward to your feedback and input.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Geertjan
>
> 
>
> = NetBeans Proposal =
>
> == Abstract ==
>
> NetBeans is an open source development environment, tooling platform,
> and application framework, used by 1.5 million individuals each month.
>
> == Proposal ==
>
> Apache NetBeans will continue to focus on the areas it has focused on
> while sponsored by Sun Microsystems and Oracle. It will continue to
> primarily focus on providing tools for the Java ecosystem, while also
> being focused on tools for other ecosystems, languages and
> technologies, such as JavaScript, PHP, and C/C++. It will continue to
> actively support its community by means of mailing lists, tutorials,
> and documentation.
>
> == Background ==
>
> NetBeans started in 1995/96 in Prague, in the Czech Republic, as a
> student project. Sun Microsystems acquired and open sourced it in 2000
> and, with the acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle in 2010,
> became part of Oracle. Throughout its history in Sun Microsystems and
> Oracle, NetBeans has been free and open source and has been leveraged
> by its sponsor as a mechanism for driving the Java ecosystem forward.
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> Although NetBeans is already open source, moving it to a neutral place
> like Apache, with its strong governance model, is expected to help get
> more contributions from various organizations. For example, large
> companies are using NetBeans as an application framework to build
> internal or commercial applications and are much more likely to
> contribute to it once it moves to neutral Apache ground. At the same
> time, though Oracle will relinquish its control over NetBeans,
> individual contributors from Oracle are expected to continue
> contributing to NetBeans after it has been contributed to Apache,
> together with individual contributors from other organizations, as
> well as self-employed individual contributors.
>
> == Initial Goals ==
>
> The initial goals of the NetBeans contribution under the Apache
> umbrella are to establish a new home for an already fully functioning
> project and to open up the governance model so as to simplify and
> streamline contributions from the community.
>
> == Current Status ==
>
> Meritocracy: NetBeans has been run by Oracle, with the majority of
> code contributions coming from Oracle. The specific reason for moving
> to Apache is to expand the diversity of contributors and to increase
> the level of meritocracy in NetBeans. Apache NetBeans will be actively
> seeking new contributors and will welcome them warmly and provide a
> friendly and productive environment for purposes of providing a
> development environment, tooling environment, and application
> framework.
>
> Community: NetBeans has approximately 1.5 million active users around
> the world, in extremely diverse structures and organizations. NetBeans
> is used by teachers and instructors at schools and universities to
> teach Java and other languages. It is used by students as an
> educational tool. It is used by large organizations who base their
> software on the application framework beneath NetBeans. It is used by
> web developers for creating web sites and by developers using a range
> of tools, languages, and technologies to be productive and efficient
> software developers.
>
> Core Developers: The core developers will come from a range of
> organizations, including Oracle, which will continue its investment in
> NetBeans.
>
> Alignment: The application framework is the basis of a range of
> mission critical scientific software at large organizations in
> defense, aerospace, logistics, and research, such as at Boeing,
> Airbus, NASA, and NATO.
>
> == Known Risks ==
>
> Orphaned Products: The community proposing NetBeans for incubation is
> strong and vibrant. The size and diversity of the community is a
> guarantee against the project being orphaned.
>
> Inexperience with Open Source: NetBeans has been free and open source
> since the early days of its sponsorship by Sun Microsystems. Though
> some in the NetBeans community may have worked on Apache projects, the
> majority who haven't are well versed in the principles of open source.
>
> Homogenous Developers: Individual contributors from Oracle and 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Jan Lahoda
Hello,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> git clone of the Linus' repo takes 3 minutes.
>
> The hg clone of netbeans took 5 HOURS!
>
> Also checking out all the files or swapping branches in the git repo takes
> about 45 seconds in GIT, but much longer in hg.
>
> The repo size is 3.6GB. But it contains many binaries which we could
> probably strip off.
> I really don't like to have a Hibernate jar file in an official ASF repo ;)
>

To my knowledge, NetBeans build is normally downloading external
(production) binaries from a binary repository:
http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/

Which binaries should be downloaded is currently specified using
binaries-list, like:
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/6627a4fc3e3f/o.apache.tools.ant.module/external/binaries-list

But, before, these were specified using a different format:
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/a280d4534580/hibernatelib/external/hibernate-3.2.5-lib.zip
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/0f086eac0b5b/o.apache.tools.ant.module/external/ant-libs-1.7.0.zip

This is still a textual format and is not the actual binary - that was
downloaded automatically on demand. (I believe this approach was found to
be not reliable enough and was replaced with binaries-list, which AFAIK
works well.) So not all historical ".zip" or ".jar" files in the repository
are binaries.

That said, it is entirely possible there are some doubtful binaries in the
repository, and there are (binary) icons, launchers, test data, etc.

I would, however, be surprised if removing those would make the repository
half the current size or less.

Jan


> Still figuring where to upload the git repo to :(
>
>
> LieGrue,
>
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, 11:52, cowwoc 
> wrote:
> > > Mark Struberg-2 wrote
> >>  Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
> >>
> >>  To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans
> >>  repo size.
> >
> > I actually concerned by this. A client I work for has a large Git repo. I
> > doubt its size is anywhere close to the Linux repo, but its performance
> is
> > abysmal. Navigating the git log or invoking "git checkout" takes
> > minutes. It
> > is almost completely unusable.
> >
> > I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these
> > larger
> > projects:
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/
> scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/
> >
> > All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
> > reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?
> >
> > Gili
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/
> DISCUSS-Apache-NetBeans-Incubator-Proposal-tp51171p51346.html
> > Sent from the Apache Incubator - General mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 19/09/16 à 20:50, cowwoc a écrit :
> Mark Struberg-2 wrote
>> Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
>>
>> To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans
>> repo size. 
> I actually concerned by this. A client I work for has a large Git repo. I
> doubt its size is anywhere close to the Linux repo, but its performance is
> abysmal. Navigating the git log or invoking "git checkout" takes minutes. It
> is almost completely unusable.
>
> I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these larger
> projects:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/
>
> All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
> reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?

Can we avoid hacking this discussion ? Create a new thread on a more
suited mailing list if you want to discuss the pros and cons of using
your favorite SCM.

Thanks !


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:50 PM, cowwoc  wrote:
> ...Out of curiosity, is there a reason that Apache projects can't use 
> Mercurial?...

As the ASF doesn't have infinite resources, we have to stop somewhere.

Currently svn and Git are supported, and Git is what's being asked for
in https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal

-Bertrand

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Emilian Bold
>
> git clone of the Linus' repo takes 3 minutes.
>
> The hg clone of netbeans took 5 HOURS!
>

This is surely dependent on the network and the server the git/hg client
talks to.


> The repo size is 3.6GB. But it contains many binaries which we could
> probably strip off.
> I really don't like to have a Hibernate jar file in an official ASF repo ;)
>

There may be some ancient leftover binaries, but since I can remember
external JARs have been saved outside the mercurial repository here:
http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ and are automatically downloaded when
necessary at build time (and cached in ~/.hgexternalcache).

I see hibernate files on http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ going as far as
2008 so they should not be in the mercurial repo.

> I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these
> > larger
> > projects:
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/
> scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/
> >
> > All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
> > reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?
>

+1

Mercurial is a mainstream open-source DVCS the same age as git. It also
supports history rewriting.

All the existing NetBeans contributors are used to mercurial and while git
is in theory similar to mercurial I often find myself googling for the most
basic git things (hg rollback in git being something I can never remember).

--emi


Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Mark Struberg
git clone of the Linus' repo takes 3 minutes.

The hg clone of netbeans took 5 HOURS!

Also checking out all the files or swapping branches in the git repo takes 
about 45 seconds in GIT, but much longer in hg.

The repo size is 3.6GB. But it contains many binaries which we could probably 
strip off.
I really don't like to have a Hibernate jar file in an official ASF repo ;)

Still figuring where to upload the git repo to :(


LieGrue, 

strub





> On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, 11:52, cowwoc  wrote:
> > Mark Struberg-2 wrote
>>  Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
>> 
>>  To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans
>>  repo size. 
> 
> I actually concerned by this. A client I work for has a large Git repo. I
> doubt its size is anywhere close to the Linux repo, but its performance is
> abysmal. Navigating the git log or invoking "git checkout" takes 
> minutes. It
> is almost completely unusable.
> 
> I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these 
> larger
> projects:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/
> 
> All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
> reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?
> 
> Gili
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Apache-NetBeans-Incubator-Proposal-tp51171p51346.html
> Sent from the Apache Incubator - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread cowwoc
Mark Struberg-2 wrote
> Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
> 
> To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans
> repo size. 

I actually concerned by this. A client I work for has a large Git repo. I
doubt its size is anywhere close to the Linux repo, but its performance is
abysmal. Navigating the git log or invoking "git checkout" takes minutes. It
is almost completely unusable.

I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these larger
projects:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/

All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?

Gili



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Apache-NetBeans-Incubator-Proposal-tp51171p51346.html
Sent from the Apache Incubator - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Alex Harui


On 9/19/16, 11:12 PM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:

>Status update from the import:
>
>du -hs .git
>3.6G
>
>
>Could not import to github due to:
>
>Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
>Komprimiere Objekte: 100% (659268/659268), Fertig.
>remote: fatal: pack exceeds maximum allowed size
>fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
>error: pack-objects died of signal 13
>
>
>Trying to look for checked in binaries and temp compile results and
>git-filter it as next step.

You win the award for patience.  I did a quick search for the "fatal" and
found [1] where it suggests:

git config --global http.postBuffer 


HTH,
-Alex

[1] 
https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/3578/cannot-push-fatal-the-remote-
end-hung-up



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-20 Thread Mark Struberg
Status update from the import: 

du -hs .git
3.6G


Could not import to github due to:

Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
Komprimiere Objekte: 100% (659268/659268), Fertig.
remote: fatal: pack exceeds maximum allowed size
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
error: pack-objects died of signal 13


Trying to look for checked in binaries and temp compile results and git-filter 
it as next step.



LieGrue,
strub




> On Monday, 19 September 2016, 22:28, Dennis E. Hamilton 
> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> > 
> 
>>  -Original Message-
>>  From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
>>  Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 13:05
>>  To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>  Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
>> 
>>  There is a big difference between Apache OpenOffice and NetBeans.
>>  NetBeans, even with the NetBeans Platform, is a developer-facing
>>  project.  I presume that the cycle of learning and improvement out
>>  through the adopters and community for NetBeans is operating
>>  successfully and will thrive at Apache.  The 
> "eating-your-own-dogfood"
>>  principle seems to be well in hand [;<).
>> 
>>  There does need to be attention to infrastructure requirements.
>> 
>>  The initial committer list for Apache OpenOffice to enter incubation was
>>  entirely and publicly self-selected.  That means it includes, to this
>>  day, individuals who do not commit to the code but contribute, when
>>  still active, in other ways.  There are acute divisions between those
>>  who cannot and will not build the code, those who manage to build and
>>  run the code, and those who can do anything significant with the code
>>  and test their results.  That division is a tremendous challenge in the
>>  sustainability of Apache OpenOffice.
> [orcmid] 
> 
> I should be clear that the acute division is with respect to capacity and 
> capabilities and also will.  I did not mean divison as some sort of dispute.
> 
> 
>> 
>>  Although the size of OpenOffice is daunting, that in itself is not a
>>  challenge to the ASF infrastructure.  The files in the Apache OpenOffice
>>  4.1.2 source release consist of
>> 
>> 1.43 GB (1,541,226,333 bytes) of text in
>>   60,955 files, in
>>6,429 folders.
>> 
>>   - Dennis
>> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

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



RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 13:05
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
> 
> There is a big difference between Apache OpenOffice and NetBeans.
> NetBeans, even with the NetBeans Platform, is a developer-facing
> project.  I presume that the cycle of learning and improvement out
> through the adopters and community for NetBeans is operating
> successfully and will thrive at Apache.  The "eating-your-own-dogfood"
> principle seems to be well in hand [;<).
> 
> There does need to be attention to infrastructure requirements.
> 
> The initial committer list for Apache OpenOffice to enter incubation was
> entirely and publicly self-selected.  That means it includes, to this
> day, individuals who do not commit to the code but contribute, when
> still active, in other ways.  There are acute divisions between those
> who cannot and will not build the code, those who manage to build and
> run the code, and those who can do anything significant with the code
> and test their results.  That division is a tremendous challenge in the
> sustainability of Apache OpenOffice.
[orcmid] 

I should be clear that the acute division is with respect to capacity and 
capabilities and also will.  I did not mean divison as some sort of dispute.

> 
> Although the size of OpenOffice is daunting, that in itself is not a
> challenge to the ASF infrastructure.  The files in the Apache OpenOffice
> 4.1.2 source release consist of
> 
>1.43 GB (1,541,226,333 bytes) of text in
>  60,955 files, in
>   6,429 folders.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
[ ... ]


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



RE: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
There is a big difference between Apache OpenOffice and NetBeans.  NetBeans, 
even with the NetBeans Platform, is a developer-facing project.  I presume that 
the cycle of learning and improvement out through the adopters and community 
for NetBeans is operating successfully and will thrive at Apache.  The 
"eating-your-own-dogfood" principle seems to be well in hand [;<).

There does need to be attention to infrastructure requirements.  

The initial committer list for Apache OpenOffice to enter incubation was 
entirely and publicly self-selected.  That means it includes, to this day, 
individuals who do not commit to the code but contribute, when still active, in 
other ways.  There are acute divisions between those who cannot and will not 
build the code, those who manage to build and run the code, and those who can 
do anything significant with the code and test their results.  That division is 
a tremendous challenge in the sustainability of Apache OpenOffice.

Although the size of OpenOffice is daunting, that in itself is not a challenge 
to the ASF infrastructure.  The files in the Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 source 
release consist of

   1.43 GB (1,541,226,333 bytes) of text in
 60,955 files, in
  6,429 folders.

 - Dennis   

> -Original Message-
> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 04:10
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
> 
> Hi Geertjan
> 
> I'm registred at NetBeams now, to get a closer look at the project. I
> was a bit shocked about the similarities with the formar
> OpenOffice.org project. The structure of the Project, the workflow
> etc. are so close to the OpenOffice.org project, much closer as I
> expected. My biggest fear for the incubation is not the technical
> aspect. For infrastructure we will find solutions, and for many
> problems exist already blueprints from the OpenOffice Project. My
> biggest fear ist the community. As I saw on the NetBeans ML, the
> decision to join the ASF was made by Oracle. Well a load of the
> community members welcome this step, but there are also fears. This
> fears has to be addressed, this is very very important.
> 
> One Mail also complained about the Initial Committer list. Are all
> active committers who did commit in the last 6 month (or so) on the
> initial committer list. forgotten people can create bad blood and
> disappointment. The committers are the most value part of a project.
> 
> This are at the moment my biggest concerns.
> 
> Regards Raphael
> 
[ ... ]


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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
(sorry sent the previous msg too early)

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:
>>>...We don't like to loose any IP provenance... Etc, etc.

>> Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA?...

I agree that from the ASF side we don't care about the detailed
provenance of the NetBeans code, if Oracle states that they have the
right to donate it and sign the grant [1]. AFAIK Geertjan and team
have sorted that out already.

It's nice of course to be able to keep history when importing code
into our Git repositories, but the success of that has nothing to do
with our decision to accept the podling or not, which is the topic of
this thread. Worst case, a podling that starts with a tarball of the
current code and no history would be viable.

So thanks Mark for trying that (and being patient with that import ;-)
but let's not sidetrack the discussion too much with those things.

Once again the only thing that we're waiting on before voting on
accepting NetBeans is the infrastructure analysis that Daniel Gruno is
currently performing. Once we have his report here we can move forward
or discuss any remaining issues.

-Bertrand

[1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:
>>...We don't like to loose any IPprovenance... Etc, etc.
>
> Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA?  It was for Adobe Flex.  Only a
> couple of committers came in with the 10 year old code base.  Everyone
> else had moved on, but because all were employees of Adobe, it didn't
> matter.  The log just says that someone from Adobe made a commit, not who.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Mark Struberg
btw, current import status: 230.000 / 303.000


Might probably be finished till tomorrow morning (CEST).

LieGrue,
strub




> On Monday, 19 September 2016, 19:39, Emmanuel Lécharny  
> wrote:
> > Le 19/09/16 à 16:33, Mark Struberg a écrit :
>>  Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
>> 
>>  To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans 
> repo size. 
>>  But we cannot guarantee yet that the import from hg to GIT doesn't 
> loose important information or works at all.
> 
> Ok, makes sense then.
> 
> It could not harm anyway. It's just that I don't think it's really
> critical at this point.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny
Le 19/09/16 à 16:33, Mark Struberg a écrit :
> Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
>
> To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans repo 
> size. 
> But we cannot guarantee yet that the import from hg to GIT doesn't loose 
> important information or works at all.

Ok, makes sense then.

It could not harm anyway. It's just that I don't think it's really
critical at this point.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Alex Harui


On 9/19/16, 8:55 AM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
 wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Mark Struberg
> wrote:
>>But we don't yet know what is part of the hg repo and what is part of
>>the Oracle contribution.
>>
>> What would happen if someone e.g. did commit some GPL licensed jar to
>>the repo a few years ago?
>> It's easy to catch such things if they are still in the latest version.
>> But what if they got added and later removed? Do we need to filter them
>>out?
>
>No we don't. What ASF stands behind is a release (which is a source
>tarball and optional
>binary convenience artifacts) that we distribute via our own
>infrastructure. While we try
>to keep our repos clean, we are not forced to have them at the same
>level of IP hygene
>that we need for our official releases.
>
>Case in point: Apache Geode (incubating). We entered incubation (and
>ingested the source)
>with a known LGPL dependency embedded in our tree. Getting rid of if
>via refactoring was
>a pre-requisite for our first release, but you can still find history
>in our Git repo of it being
>there before the first release was done.

I agree that the repos don't have to be as clean.  IMO, Oracle has an
incentive to submit a tar ball or import data that is ASF-ready.  This
doesn't mean they have to clean up a GPL add-and-remove, but Oracle might
want to consider scrubbing the donation for that and other things.  At
Adobe, our QA team often used test images that weren't ok to donate such
as pictures of famous people.  The test media never got released so it
didn't matter until donation time.  I think we attempted to scrub out some
traces of how security issues were handled as well.  They could choose to
scrub-and-replace author names for commits as well.

Adobe Flex came in via Subversion before going to Git, so I don't know how
Git import works, but blame works just fine, it just blames "Adobe Import"
instead of some Adobe employee and I think does include the commit
message.  Yes, sometimes knowing who did it helps you understand why, but
most of the time it doesn't matter.

-Alex



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Wade Chandler
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:04, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:
> 
> 
>> We also need to check whether the author and contributor flags are
>> properly moved over by the import. We don't like to loose any IP
>> provenance... Etc, etc.
> 
> Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA?  It was for Adobe Flex.  Only a
> couple of committers came in with the 10 year old code base.  Everyone
> else had moved on, but because all were employees of Adobe, it didn't
> matter.  The log just says that someone from Adobe made a commit, not who.
> 

NB has a contributor agreement too, and so to contribute we all had to sign one 
assigning IP to Oracle (same for Sun when they were around).

https://netbeans.org/community/contribute/patches.html 


“If this is your first code submission to netbeans.org, you must fill in a 
Contributor Agreement - see the CA Policy 
 page for more info.”

https://netbeans.org/community/contribute/hg.html 


“You must have filled in a Contributor Agreement - see the CA Policy 
 page for more info. No 
code can be committed until a CA is completed.”

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-faq-405384.pdf 


Thanks,

Wade


===

Wade Chandler
e: cons...@wadechandler.com



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Mark Struberg
 wrote:
> I tend to agree with Alex' interpretation.

Makes two of us.

> But we don't yet know what is part of the hg repo and what is part of the 
> Oracle contribution.
>
> What would happen if someone e.g. did commit some GPL licensed jar to the 
> repo a few years ago?
> It's easy to catch such things if they are still in the latest version.
> But what if they got added and later removed? Do we need to filter them out?

No we don't. What ASF stands behind is a release (which is a source
tarball and optional
binary convenience artifacts) that we distribute via our own
infrastructure. While we try
to keep our repos clean, we are not forced to have them at the same
level of IP hygene
that we need for our official releases.

Case in point: Apache Geode (incubating). We entered incubation (and
ingested the source)
with a known LGPL dependency embedded in our tree. Getting rid of if
via refactoring was
a pre-requisite for our first release, but you can still find history
in our Git repo of it being
there before the first release was done.

Thanks,
Roman.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Mark Struberg
I tend to agree with Alex' interpretation.

But we don't yet know what is part of the hg repo and what is part of the 
Oracle contribution.

What would happen if someone e.g. did commit some GPL licensed jar to the repo 
a few years ago?
It's easy to catch such things if they are still in the latest version.
But what if they got added and later removed? Do we need to filter them out?

The other reason I would love to keep the history is for research reasons.
Being able to git-blame a file and see the commit comments for a specific line 
often really helps to understand the code. Not always, but often it does.




LieGrue,
strub


PS: I'm in favour of filtering out ANY binaries from source repos. Just blows 
up the disk and download space. But that will be a community discussion within 
the newly formed ASF NetBeans project. Just trying to get an overview.

Will give feedback once I'm back at home and the repo is finished with 
importing.



> On Monday, 19 September 2016, 17:31, Alex Harui  wrote:
> > 
> 
> On 9/19/16, 8:13 AM, "Wade Chandler"  of
> cons...@wadechandler.com> wrote:
> 
>>>  On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:04, Alex Harui >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" 
> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
  We also need to check whether the author and contributor flags are
  properly moved over by the import. We don't like to loose any 
> IP
  provenance... Etc, etc.
>>> 
>>>  Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA?  It was for Adobe Flex.  Only 
> a
>>>  couple of committers came in with the 10 year old code base.  Everyone
>>>  else had moved on, but because all were employees of Adobe, it 
> didn't
>>>  matter.  The log just says that someone from Adobe made a commit, not
>>> who.
>>> 
>> 
>> Sorry…sent first from wrong email alias...
>> 
>> NB has a contributor agreement too, and so to contribute we all had to
>> sign one assigning IP to Oracle (same for Sun when they were around).
> 
> I assume Oracle legal has confirmed that the CA allows for donation
> without signature?  That was the case for Adobe's CA, but wasn't the 
> case
> for some code Adobe picked up via an acquisition and we had to execute
> more paperwork.  Assuming the CA allows donation, I would think the
> signing of the SGA resets provenance.  Oracle is saying they own every
> line and authorize its donation.  At that point, exactly which human
> actually wrote the code becomes moot from a provenance standpoint, AIUI.
> "Mr. Oracle" contributed every line.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> 
> -Alex
> 
> B‹CB•È[œÝXœØÜšX™KK[XZ[ˆÙ[™\˜[][œÝXœØÜšX™P[˜ÝX˜]Ü‹˜\XÚK›Ü™ÃB‘›ÜˆY][Û˜[ÛÛ[X[™ËK[XZ[ˆÙ[™\˜[Z[[˜ÝX˜]Ü‹˜\XÚK›Ü™ÃB
> 

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

2016-09-19 Thread Alex Harui


On 9/19/16, 8:13 AM, "Wade Chandler"  wrote:

>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:04, Alex Harui >> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" >> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> We also need to check whether the author and contributor flags are
>>> properly moved over by the import. We don't like to loose any IP
>>> provenance... Etc, etc.
>> 
>> Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA?  It was for Adobe Flex.  Only a
>> couple of committers came in with the 10 year old code base.  Everyone
>> else had moved on, but because all were employees of Adobe, it didn't
>> matter.  The log just says that someone from Adobe made a commit, not
>>who.
>> 
>
>Sorry…sent first from wrong email alias...
>
>NB has a contributor agreement too, and so to contribute we all had to
>sign one assigning IP to Oracle (same for Sun when they were around).

I assume Oracle legal has confirmed that the CA allows for donation
without signature?  That was the case for Adobe's CA, but wasn't the case
for some code Adobe picked up via an acquisition and we had to execute
more paperwork.  Assuming the CA allows donation, I would think the
signing of the SGA resets provenance.  Oracle is saying they own every
line and authorize its donation.  At that point, exactly which human
actually wrote the code becomes moot from a provenance standpoint, AIUI.
"Mr. Oracle" contributed every line.

Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex



  1   2   3   >