subject:"Re\: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education"

Greg Stein wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.

I'm a little confused.  I'm reading a really long rant here, but I expect
if you look at what nearly all mentors do in their respective podlings,
this is exactly what they provide (granted, with wildly varying degrees
of effort or attention).

Quite frankly, all svncorp releases could, with reasonable documentation
[read: mailing list archives, CLA's and code grant] be licensed as ASF
releases under the AL 2.0, irrespective of their internal artifact
copyright statements.

A proviso that 1.7.0 won't be approved without running it through RAT,
either pre or post graduation seems sufficient.  The process is better
documented than 95% of ASF project release processes, so there's no issue.

But ranting against your perception of Incubator's failure to EDUCATE and
TEACH podlings how the ASF environment works is really quite disappointing,
coming from you.



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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Martijn Dashorst
 martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com 
 wrote:
 To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
 necessary for graduation - not the IPMC as a whole.
 Nope... The whole IPMC has been tasked with oversight. The mentors are
 proxies for the whole IPMC.
 
 You can't have it both ways.  By approving the proposal, the IPMC
 delegates its oversight authority to the mentors.  The IPMC then
 confirms that the proper process was followed when it votes for
 graduation.  The mentors can ask for pre-approval for certain
 'waivers' like Greg is asking for - but it's unfair for a non-mentor
 to try to tell a podling what it can or can not do.  -- justin

Whoa.  Have you really been absent from Incubator for this long?

Granted, each mentor is only -one- voice, each IPMC member is only -one-
voice, with equal standing in the Incubator PMC and as ambassadors to the
PPMC efforts.

But a non-mentor has no less responsibility or authority to help work out
a problem than a mentor does.  Get down off the high horse before you hurt
yourself ;-)

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

Joe Schaefer wrote:
 
 From: Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com

 Let me put it another way: if the IPMC accepts a proposal with one
 mentor, then I'm fine with that one mentor acting on behalf of the
 IPMC without the need to constantly go back to the IPMC for approval.
 -- justin
 
 For non-release issues, I'm fine with that.  For releases I would still insist
 on 3 +1's from IPMC members; if a podling can acquire those without coming
 to gene...@incubator for final approval I could live with that (I'd need to
 update the IPMC release guidelines tho).

I'm not [fine with that].  If another person or two can't be bothered to verify
the very few decisions-with-binding-votes (adding/subtracting people and of
course, releasing code) against the PPMC's decision and rational, then there is
a bigger problem that won't be addressed by just sweeping these votes out the
front door.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

Greg Stein wrote:
 
 Yup. And I'll note that that limbo you describe has been an issue
 with the Board for a long while now. That is why the Board instructed
 the IPMC to request all podlings to list two items in their reports:
 
 1) when did you arrive?
 2) what is left?
 
 Specifically to focus the podling (and the IPMC) on the question of
 WHY are you still in the Incubator?
 
 Podlings should be shepherded *out* rather than held *in*.

Hmmm... here you go again.  Do you really believe there's a mentor here
who doesn't want to be 'done' with their task at hand, offering up a
functioning project for graduation?  Mentors -do- exactly this, which
is why your rants continue to read as disingenuous and insulting.

We are glad the board has such confidence that the Incubator is producing
effect meritocracies that collaborate effectively.  If your's is not the
minority opinion, there is a much larger 'Insanity' thread to begin, which
starts with [VOTE] and ends in Dissolve Incubator?

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

Martijn Dashorst wrote:
 
 Would a waiver be possible for Diversity (large project dominated by 1
 or 2 vendors)? For the minimum required binding votes (small
 communities of 2 committers)?

Such things have been requested, and granted in the past, based on the
demonstrated ability of the project to accept outside contributions and
work towards a more diverse committer base and PMC.  Should they later
fail, the board will [as it has done before] step in, dissolve the PMC
and reappoint a PMC based on actual contribution.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
 ...Let me put it another way: if the IPMC accepts a proposal with one
 mentor, then I'm fine with that one mentor acting on behalf of the
 IPMC without the need to constantly go back to the IPMC for approval

I see your point, and that's why I've been insisting several times
that incoming podlings get three mentors. Problem is, mentors are not
always present/active when a vote needs to happen.

-Bertrand

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...I am seeking a
 waiver of the make a release requirement. And you can simply wait
 for me to send that, rather than continuing to speculate about whether
 I'm going to rely on seniority or on experience

I like that - at first, the tone of this thread (and subject line ;-)
made me think that the subversion podling would be trying to get
through incubation based on its own perception of what's right, as
opposed to the Incubator's well-established policies.

Now, subversion is certainly not your typical podling...I totally
agree that it makes sense to handle its incubation in a slightly
different way that usual.

But as you indicate, deviations from the usual way of doing things
must be approved by this PMC. Let's discuss you concrete requests for
waivers and such once we have them.

-Bertrand

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
 Greg Stein wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.

 I'm a little confused.  I'm reading a really long rant here, but I expect
 if you look at what nearly all mentors do in their respective podlings,
 this is exactly what they provide (granted, with wildly varying degrees
 of effort or attention).

And that is exactly what I'd like to do. But when the Incubator
*imposes* requirements of release that does not meet the project's own
quality guidelines, for an audience of zero, then I call that
ridiculous make-work. That is my rant. That the Incubator-at-large
is imposing crap on the podling, rather than teaching the podling what
it means to be part of the ASF.

 Quite frankly, all svncorp releases could, with reasonable documentation
 [read: mailing list archives, CLA's and code grant] be licensed as ASF
 releases under the AL 2.0, irrespective of their internal artifact
 copyright statements.

I doubt it. Those old releases are signed tarballs. We can't reach
in and alter the LICENSE file without re-signing the whole tarball,
and I think that would be a very bad idea.

 A proviso that 1.7.0 won't be approved without running it through RAT,
 either pre or post graduation seems sufficient.  The process is better
 documented than 95% of ASF project release processes, so there's no issue.

RAT can be run right now, and the podling can work against its
results. No issue there. The *release* of something is my pain
point.

And yes, the PMC that will manage the svn project can/should have a
responsibility to use RAT. But if you make that rule, then you
better impose it upon every PMC here at the ASF. That's effectively
what you're saying :-)

 But ranting against your perception of Incubator's failure to EDUCATE and
 TEACH podlings how the ASF environment works is really quite disappointing,
 coming from you.

Look at the context. Being asked to throw together some bits for a
release. Oh, just any bits will do. But wait, since they aren't
quite proper, you don't really have to announce it to users. ... come
on, that is not education. That isn't teaching anybody anything.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
 Greg Stein wrote:

 Yup. And I'll note that that limbo you describe has been an issue
 with the Board for a long while now. That is why the Board instructed
 the IPMC to request all podlings to list two items in their reports:

 1) when did you arrive?
 2) what is left?

 Specifically to focus the podling (and the IPMC) on the question of
 WHY are you still in the Incubator?

 Podlings should be shepherded *out* rather than held *in*.

 Hmmm... here you go again.  Do you really believe there's a mentor here
 who doesn't want to be 'done' with their task at hand, offering up a
 functioning project for graduation?  Mentors -do- exactly this, which
 is why your rants continue to read as disingenuous and insulting.

I'm not talking about mentors' desire to do this. I'm talking about
the structures that appear to be in place which work *against*
incubation and graduation.

And if you want to call a rant against meaningless constraints and
bureaucracy insulting, then I'm okay with that.

 We are glad the board has such confidence that the Incubator is producing
 effect meritocracies that collaborate effectively.  If your's is not the
 minority opinion, there is a much larger 'Insanity' thread to begin, which
 starts with [VOTE] and ends in Dissolve Incubator?

My point above was the Board, at least in the past(*), has *not* been
happy about the average duration. Go poll the Board today, if you'd
like.

AFAIK, the Board has never expressed a lack of confidence in the
Incubator, other than duration.

Cheers,
-g

(*) see Incubator Reports sent to Noel, IPMC, and board@ on Oct 12, 2006

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread Kevan Miller



On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
 wrote:

Greg Stein wrote:
The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING  
podlings

how to work here at Apache.


I'm a little confused.  I'm reading a really long rant here, but I  
expect
if you look at what nearly all mentors do in their respective  
podlings,
this is exactly what they provide (granted, with wildly varying  
degrees

of effort or attention).


And that is exactly what I'd like to do. But when the Incubator
*imposes* requirements of release that does not meet the project's own
quality guidelines, for an audience of zero, then I call that
ridiculous make-work. That is my rant. That the Incubator-at-large
is imposing crap on the podling, rather than teaching the podling what
it means to be part of the ASF.


IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a  
release. This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to  
that. I'm surprised you haven't worked with his proposal, to find what  
I think would be a good compromise.


I agree with you that a release shouldn't be make-work -- it should  
be the natural evolution of a community creating code. But I'm bit  
puzzled by your extreme urgency for a fast incubator exit. Incubator  
overhead would seem to be greatest for a release (which is not in your  
immediate plans, it seems). Until then, overhead for board reports and  
voting in new committers/pmc members would seem to be a minimal burden.


--kevan

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:23, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
...
 And that is exactly what I'd like to do. But when the Incubator
 *imposes* requirements of release that does not meet the project's own
 quality guidelines, for an audience of zero, then I call that
 ridiculous make-work. That is my rant. That the Incubator-at-large
 is imposing crap on the podling, rather than teaching the podling what
 it means to be part of the ASF.

 IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a release.
 This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that. I'm surprised
 you haven't worked with his proposal, to find what I think would be a good
 compromise.

Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT and
working through those issues. Might have been hard to see in this long
thread :-)

 I agree with you that a release shouldn't be make-work -- it should be the
 natural evolution of a community creating code. But I'm bit puzzled by your
 extreme urgency for a fast incubator exit. Incubator overhead would seem to
 be greatest for a release (which is not in your immediate plans, it seems).
 Until then, overhead for board reports and voting in new committers/pmc
 members would seem to be a minimal burden.

Why *stay*? Incubator is not a home... it's a school.

We're making a 1.6.7 release in the next 2-3 weeks, as I stated
before. The Incubator can see how that works (I also gave pointers to
1.6.6). But the main release, under the Apache brand, is not until
early next year sometime. I'd rather not wait until then.

The reporting doesn't bother me. You can't possibly imagine how many
reports to the Board I've read over the past 8+ years :-P

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread Jukka Zitting

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 We're making a 1.6.7 release in the next 2-3 weeks, as I stated
 before. The Incubator can see how that works (I also gave pointers to
 1.6.6).

+1 Since Subversion release procedures already meet most Apache
policies, reviewing any past release and asking the Subversion
community for a plan on how to fix any potential issues should be
enough to satisfy concerns about the release process.

In fact our formal exit criteria [1] only requires that release plans
are developed and executed in public by the community. There is no
fixed requirement that at least one incubating release really must
happen (there's just a question on whether such a requirement should
exist). Of course for most projects doing a release is the easiest way
to demonstrate that this and many other exit criteria have been
satisfied.

[1] 
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.

Greg Stein wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
 wrote:
 
 Quite frankly, all svncorp releases could, with reasonable documentation
 [read: mailing list archives, CLA's and code grant] be licensed as ASF
 releases under the AL 2.0, irrespective of their internal artifact
 copyright statements.
 
 I doubt it. Those old releases are signed tarballs. We can't reach
 in and alter the LICENSE file without re-signing the whole tarball,
 and I think that would be a very bad idea.

We don't.  I didn't say re-licensed; I said additionally licensed.  It's as
simple as putting the tarballs into a directory which says XYZ are further
licensed under the Apache License 2.0.  Nothing needs to be altered to give
users a license.

 A proviso that 1.7.0 won't be approved without running it through RAT,
 either pre or post graduation seems sufficient.  The process is better
 documented than 95% of ASF project release processes, so there's no issue.
 
 RAT can be run right now, and the podling can work against its
 results. No issue there. The *release* of something is my pain
 point.

+1; although we both know that extra artifacts 'appear' magically during
most assembly processes, and that has bit us before.

 And yes, the PMC that will manage the svn project can/should have a
 responsibility to use RAT. But if you make that rule, then you
 better impose it upon every PMC here at the ASF. That's effectively
 what you're saying :-)

No, I'm saying give SVN a pass on demonstrating the [already demonstrated]
ability to have an effective release process; *contingent* upon running RAT
on the first release artifact created after graduation.  That's what I am
saying.

 But ranting against your perception of Incubator's failure to EDUCATE and
 TEACH podlings how the ASF environment works is really quite disappointing,
 coming from you.
 
 Look at the context. Being asked to throw together some bits for a
 release. Oh, just any bits will do. But wait, since they aren't
 quite proper, you don't really have to announce it to users. ... come
 on, that is not education. That isn't teaching anybody anything.

We don't disagree.  So stick around long enough to make a real release that
the Incubator PMC can validate, or come to a reasonable exception that the
Incubator can accept.  But don't go flying off into rants about process that
the board has *charged* the Incubator with defining and enforcing :)





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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

- Original Message 

 From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 10:08:40 AM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 Greg wrote:
  Look at the context. Being asked to throw together some bits for a
  release. Oh, just any bits will do. But wait, since they aren't
  quite proper, you don't really have to announce it to users. ... come
  on, that is not education. That isn't teaching anybody anything.

 We don't disagree.  So stick around long enough to make a real release that
 the Incubator PMC can validate, or come to a reasonable exception that the
 Incubator can accept.  But don't go flying off into rants about process that
 the board has *charged* the Incubator with defining and enforcing :)

Wait a second Bill.  In the not-too-distant past there was no requirement
for a podling to cut a release.  Infrastructure people pushed for there to
be one, and pushed to have the incubator releases on the mirrors, because it
turns out prior graduating projects needed to be trained by infra on how to do 
this properly.

The purpose of doing a release within the incubator has now morphed into 
something a bit different, and not entirely for the better.  I have been
paying attention to subversion release processes for years, and frankly we
should be adopting *their* methods here at Apache.  We don't have anything
to teach them other than mirror mechanics, and that can be learned post-
graduation.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:02, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
We're making a 1.6.7 release in the next 2-3 weeks, as I stated
before. The Incubator can see how that works (I also gave pointers to
1.6.6).

+1 Since Subversion release procedures already meet most Apache
policies, reviewing any past release and asking the Subversion
community for a plan on how to fix any potential issues should be
enough to satisfy concerns about the release process.

I've formally asked for a Waiver of the release requirement. See another thread.

In fact our formal exit criteria [1] only requires that release plans
are developed and executed in public by the community. There is no
fixed requirement that at least one incubating release really must
happen (there's just a question on whether such a requirement should
exist). Of course for most projects doing a release is the easiest way
to demonstrate that this and many other exit criteria have been
satisfied.

[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements

Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

I have no idea why the term Board even comes up in your response.
What's that got to do with my problems with the IPMC attempting to
impose make-work on the svn podling?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:03, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
 Greg Stein wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 
 wrote:
 Greg Stein wrote:

 Podlings should be shepherded *out* rather than held *in*.
 Hmmm... here you go again.  Do you really believe there's a mentor here
 who doesn't want to be 'done' with their task at hand, offering up a
 functioning project for graduation?  Mentors -do- exactly this, which
 is why your rants continue to read as disingenuous and insulting.

 I'm not talking about mentors' desire to do this. I'm talking about
 the structures that appear to be in place which work *against*
 incubation and graduation.

 And if you want to call a rant against meaningless constraints and
 bureaucracy insulting, then I'm okay with that.

 The fact is that mentors fix the process when it's broke.  If there is
 useless/worthless/redundant process going on here, then terrific!  Tell
 us, as a voice of the Board, what the Board is telling us we can drop.

 Or said another way, patches welcome.

 I'm all for less work and less hassles.  We would be happy to rubber stamp
 our way all the way through graduation, if we believed that it build the
 projects which would remain viable and preserve ASF culture into this
 coming decade.

 We are glad the board has such confidence that the Incubator is producing
 effect meritocracies that collaborate effectively.  If your's is not the
 minority opinion, there is a much larger 'Insanity' thread to begin, which
 starts with [VOTE] and ends in Dissolve Incubator?

 My point above was the Board, at least in the past(*), has *not* been
 happy about the average duration. Go poll the Board today, if you'd
 like.

 Happiness and constructive feedback are orthogonal here.  The board (or one
 or more board members) have rang in on specific issues, and helped make some
 problems go away, and created others.  Feel free to constructively participate
 in refining that process.

 AFAIK, the Board has never expressed a lack of confidence in the
 Incubator, other than duration.

 That's good to hear, now bring us more suggestions that don't stack on
 additional bureaucracy or bullet items to the process :)  But don't sit and
 holler that what has evolved is worthless.  Launch a constructive dialog
 about fine tuning it; evolution is an ongoing process.



 -
 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: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.

Joe Schaefer wrote:
 - Original Message 

 From: William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 10:08:40 AM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 Greg wrote:
 Look at the context. Being asked to throw together some bits for a
 release. Oh, just any bits will do. But wait, since they aren't
 quite proper, you don't really have to announce it to users. ... come
 on, that is not education. That isn't teaching anybody anything.
 We don't disagree.  So stick around long enough to make a real release that
 the Incubator PMC can validate, or come to a reasonable exception that the
 Incubator can accept.  But don't go flying off into rants about process that
 the board has *charged* the Incubator with defining and enforcing :)

 Wait a second Bill.  In the not-too-distant past there was no requirement
 for a podling to cut a release.  Infrastructure people pushed for there to
 be one, and pushed to have the incubator releases on the mirrors, because it
 turns out prior graduating projects needed to be trained by infra on how to 
 do this properly.

They also needed to be alert for licensing snafus, that was why I support[ed]
the 'requirement'.

 The purpose of doing a release within the incubator has now morphed into
 something a bit different, and not entirely for the better.  I have been
 paying attention to subversion release processes for years, and frankly we
 should be adopting *their* methods here at Apache.  We don't have anything
 to teach them other than mirror mechanics, and that can be learned post-
 graduation.

Agreed in this case, w.r.t. SVN.  But in the general case, this is still best
taught while at the incubator.

I'm responding to Greg's rant, not to a well-stated, well-reasoned appeal for
an exception.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.

Greg Stein wrote:
 I have no idea why the term Board even comes up in your response.
 What's that got to do with my problems with the IPMC attempting to
 impose make-work on the svn podling?

Because when you post to a broad-list such as general@, you are
communicating to all incubating podlings and many graduated (or sadly,
retired) podlings as well.  This is one very broad list where it's not
possible to be a hat-flipper; your opinions necessarily carry the weight
of a Director of the Foundation (until you hide out on a dev list ;-)

Nobody was demanding make-work, you were demanding fast-track graduation.
And then you flipped off the handle after someone suggested that the
project demonstrate all the IP notices in an 'example package' had been
correctly adjusted, relative to its new home.  That was all.  Nobody was
expecting svn to do anything that hasn't been asked of all other recent
podlings, and I hope they won't still.

Please don't rant.  Tweak if the process is wrong [for every podling
to become aware of] or ask for justified exceptions, as you just did.

Bill

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-10 Thread Jukka Zitting

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

 See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.

 Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
 teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
 also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

Fair enough.

As an alternative, how about submitting
http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
waivers for Subversion.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

- Original Message 

 From: Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:25:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 Hi,

 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
  Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

  See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

 I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
 demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.

  Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
  teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
  also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

 Fair enough.

 As an alternative, how about submitting
 http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
 IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
 waivers for Subversion.

I think Greg and company intend to cut another subversion release in
the next 2-3 weeks.  If we can get some part of that carried out on
apache mailing lists, I think it would alleviate a lot of the initial
concerns.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education

2009-11-10 Thread Davanum Srinivas


Jukka,
Not so sure... because that dist may contain code that we may not allow.

Greg,
Is there any code in there that is not Apache compatible? i see some in the 
contrib section...
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/contrib/client-side/svn-clean

thanks,
dims

On 11/10/2009 04:25 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com  wrote:

Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist


I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.


Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.


Fair enough.

As an alternative, how about submitting
http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
waivers for Subversion.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

-
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: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 16:39, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
 - Original Message 

 From: Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:25:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 Hi,

 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
  Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

  See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

 I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
 demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.

  Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
  teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
  also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

 Fair enough.

 As an alternative, how about submitting
 http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
 IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
 waivers for Subversion.

 I think Greg and company intend to cut another subversion release in
 the next 2-3 weeks.  If we can get some part of that carried out on
 apache mailing lists, I think it would alleviate a lot of the initial
 concerns.

Neither 1.6.6 nor the upcoming 1.6.7 are Apache-branded releases. The
input that I received was that that was insufficient -- a branded
release was necessary.

I also pointed the IPMC at the three (primary) emails around the
release of 1.6.6. Again, the input was not good enough.

So then I suggest a separate legal review, and request a wavier on
making a release. Then the input is ask us again later.

*shrug*

-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education

Dims: Exactly.

The svn devs have been talking off/on what to do about contrib/ for
nearly a year. Various options: simply toss it and wait for people to
cry and do something to fix it; somehow get it all relicensed (one of
the contributors already said no); etc etc.

Current consensus seems to be that we'll simply not package the
contrib/ section into our 1.7 release.

Cheers,
-g

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 16:53, Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jukka,
 Not so sure... because that dist may contain code that we may not allow.

 Greg,
 Is there any code in there that is not Apache compatible? i see some in the
 contrib section...
 http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/contrib/client-side/svn-clean

 thanks,
 dims

 On 11/10/2009 04:25 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

 Hi,

 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com  wrote:

 Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

 See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

 I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
 demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.

 Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
 teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
 also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

 Fair enough.

 As an alternative, how about submitting
 http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
 IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
 waivers for Subversion.

 BR,

 Jukka Zitting

 -
 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



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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education

2009-11-10 Thread Hyrum K. Wright

contrib/ has been removed from the packaging scripts, and won't ship with 1.7.

In other news, the box that builds the nightly tarballs is back online, albeit 
with a new disk, so it'll take me a day or two to get it back up.  When it 
does, I'll point people there, and you can see what a typical tarball would 
look like (with the caveat that a nightly is untested, not a true release, and 
could cause a black hole that swallows the Earth).

-Hyrum

On Nov 10, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

 Dims: Exactly.
 
 The svn devs have been talking off/on what to do about contrib/ for
 nearly a year. Various options: simply toss it and wait for people to
 cry and do something to fix it; somehow get it all relicensed (one of
 the contributors already said no); etc etc.
 
 Current consensus seems to be that we'll simply not package the
 contrib/ section into our 1.7 release.
 
 Cheers,
 -g
 
 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 16:53, Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jukka,
 Not so sure... because that dist may contain code that we may not allow.
 
 Greg,
 Is there any code in there that is not Apache compatible? i see some in the
 contrib section...
 http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/contrib/client-side/svn-clean
 
 thanks,
 dims
 
 On 11/10/2009 04:25 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com  wrote:
 
 Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.
 
 See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist
 
 I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
 demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.
 
 Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
 teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
 also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.
 
 Fair enough.
 
 As an alternative, how about submitting
 http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
 IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
 waivers for Subversion.
 
 BR,
 
 Jukka Zitting
 
 -
 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
 
 
 
 -
 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: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

- Original Message 

 From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:58:28 PM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 16:39, Joe Schaefer wrote:
  - Original Message 

  From: Jukka Zitting 
  To: general@incubator.apache.org
  Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 1:25:40 PM
  Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: 
  [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

  Hi,

  On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
   Unfortunately, some documentation needs to be brought in sync.

   See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#checklist

  I'm nitpicking, but even there we only ask the podlings to
  demonstrate ability to create Apache releases.

   Per Joe, I think it makes sense to run podlings through a release to
   teach them the ropes, rather than lump that onto Infrastructure. But I
   also believe we should provide waivers when appropriate.

  Fair enough.

  As an alternative, how about submitting
  http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.6.tar.bz2 for
  IPMC review? That should require no extra work from and no special
  waivers for Subversion.

  I think Greg and company intend to cut another subversion release in
  the next 2-3 weeks.  If we can get some part of that carried out on
  apache mailing lists, I think it would alleviate a lot of the initial
  concerns.

 Neither 1.6.6 nor the upcoming 1.6.7 are Apache-branded releases. The
 input that I received was that that was insufficient -- a branded
 release was necessary.

I haven't seen that discussion, but unless you actually poll gene...@incubator
for an opinion, running the idea by a few of the more vocal participants
or key people here won't get you an accurate gauge of anything.  I have
found most people at Apache to be moderate in their views and willing to 
compromise when given a good reason to.  That's part of our success as
an organization.

What I'm looking to see personally is the execution of votes and signature
exchange happening on an apache list.  That way the IPMC members can ensure
discussion is appropriate on both the private and public mailing lists
and the process is sound.  I don't give a rat's ass how it is branded, and
assuming the code grant from the Subversion corporation is comprehensive
expect to vote +1 for graduation without an apache-branded release happening
prior to graduation.  People will be more than willing to do a license
review on a non-apache branded release.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 17:35, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
 Neither 1.6.6 nor the upcoming 1.6.7 are Apache-branded releases. The
 input that I received was that that was insufficient -- a branded
 release was necessary.

 I haven't seen that discussion, but unless you actually poll gene...@incubator
 for an opinion, running the idea by a few of the more vocal participants

It was right here on gene...@incubator. Part of the [PROPOSAL][VOTE]
Subversion thread.

...
 What I'm looking to see personally is the execution of votes and signature
 exchange happening on an apache list.  That way the IPMC members can ensure
 discussion is appropriate on both the private and public mailing lists
 and the process is sound.  I don't give a rat's ass how it is branded, and
 assuming the code grant from the Subversion corporation is comprehensive
 expect to vote +1 for graduation without an apache-branded release happening
 prior to graduation.  People will be more than willing to do a license
 review on a non-apache branded release.

Thanks,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

- Original Message 

 From: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2:54:28 PM
 Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:  
 [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 17:35, Joe Schaefer wrote:
 ...
  Neither 1.6.6 nor the upcoming 1.6.7 are Apache-branded releases. The
  input that I received was that that was insufficient -- a branded
  release was necessary.

  I haven't seen that discussion, but unless you actually poll 
  gene...@incubator
  for an opinion, running the idea by a few of the more vocal participants

 It was right here on gene...@incubator. Part of the [PROPOSAL][VOTE]
 Subversion thread.

Oops sorry. I tend to ignore the off-topic crap here ;-)

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education

2009-11-10 Thread Jukka Zitting

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Davanum Srinivas dava...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jukka,
 Not so sure... because that dist may contain code that we may not allow.

Personally I'd be happy with a plan from the Subversion team that
shows how they're going to address any issues that may be raised in
the review.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Leo Simons

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.

So what are you teaching with e-mails like this, Greg?

When you disagree with someone, SHOUT a bit and write a long rant?

Or perhaps that using an argument based on authority is a good strategy?

Not very good lessons either. Please kindly step off the soap box...

Thanks,

Leo

PS: For the record I do agree that its not really necessary for
subversion to do an incubation release. I like to think that kind of
stuff is a judgement call for the mentors.

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.
...
 The Incubator PMC is here to TEACH podlings. Stop and think before
 attempting to apply rules and procedures.

+1.

The Incubation process is about certifying whether the new community
can stand on its own and follow Apache practices and procedures.

Greg has pointed at the public records and discussions surrounding
Subversion doing releases - as a mentor, I feel that these processes
are in-line (if not exceeding) the Apache practices and procedures and
no more needs to be proven here regarding releases.  If someone can
point out where that process falls noticeably short of Apache
standards, please let us know and we'll take it into consideration.

To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
necessary for graduation - not the IPMC as a whole.  The IPMC as a
whole has only two roles: approving a proposal and recommending
graduation - in between those two stages, it's up to the mentors to
drive the show on behalf of the IPMC.  Non-mentors don't get to hold a
podling hostage and all votes by the IPMC are majority-based (no vetos
apply).

To be fair, there are some minor points and variations that we're
already aware of.  But, that's why Greg, Sander, Dan, and I (and
others who aren't formally named) are around to teach the more subtle
mechanics of the ASF to those within Subversion: where to submit CLAs,
how to post releases in our mirroring system, what to do with (L)GPL
scripts, etc.  Given our personal long track records within both
Apache and Subversion (nearing or surpassing a decade; geez, we've
been at this a long time!), I believe it's reasonable to ask for the
trust that goes with ensuring that we'll be sure to keep Subversion in
line with Apache practices and procedures - and we will continue to do
so long after the Incubator has recommended Subversion for graduation.
 =)  -- justin

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:14, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.

 So what are you teaching with e-mails like this, Greg?

 When you disagree with someone, SHOUT a bit and write a long rant?

I dropped d...@subversion.tigris.org from the distribution. I was
addressing just the Incubator. It was NOT intended to be a teaching
experience, but a wake-up that I believe some of the Incubator's
purpose has been lost along the way.

 Or perhaps that using an argument based on authority is a good strategy?

I am going to be sending an official Waiver of release for vote to
this list. That email will contain a rationale for my request.

I also intend to request a jump straight to subversion.apache.org for
some of the items (e.g mailing lists). Again, there will be a
rationale.

So yes: I *do* intend to use solid arguments, rationale, and plain
language for the purposes of Incubation. My rant was not about
Subversion's incubation but about how this group has become
misdirected by the path to the Almighty Checklist.

 Not very good lessons either. Please kindly step off the soap box...

I will continue to raise points where I think the Incubator has become
misguided from its true purpose of helping (not hindering!) projects
into the ASF. Will my tone be proper? Maybe. Maybe not. But I stand by
my email.

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Martijn Dashorst

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
 To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
 necessary for graduation - not the IPMC as a whole.

Nope... The whole IPMC has been tasked with oversight. The mentors are
proxies for the whole IPMC.

 The IPMC as a
 whole has only two roles: approving a proposal and recommending
 graduation - in between those two stages, it's up to the mentors to
 drive the show on behalf of the IPMC.  Non-mentors don't get to hold a
 podling hostage and all votes by the IPMC are majority-based (no vetos
 apply).

I'll vote -1 if I'm not convinced SVN is adhering to the set policies.
With the rant of Greg I'm less convinced that the project is
conducting itself as a proper Apache community (but rather as an Old
Boys Network), and I am more convinced that the incubation process for
SVN is just a lesson in rubber stamping than an actual and sincere
attempt at doing the right thing.

Martijn

-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Martijn Dashorst

Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in adherence
to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings have
to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
bits in place before they can graduate.

AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?
What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
subjected to is no longer valid?

Have an incubator release? (nah, we are better at releasing because we
have long standing members)
Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal
organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden)
Hosting non-Apache released artifacts at Apache hardware?

These things are/were off-limits to podlings that were established and
functioning outside Apache just fine. Wicket's incubation was rather
painful due to not being able to transfer subscribers and hosting old
releases and websites at Apache.

I'm fine with short circuiting all the red tape associated with the
incubator, but be warned: this will open up doors for other podlings
as well. When the next established open source project comes along
they expect (rightfully so) the same treatment as Subversion.

Martijn

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Apache Incubator is about EDUCATION. It is about TEACHING podlings
 how to work here at Apache.

 It is not about making podlings thoughtlessly follow checklists.

 It is about TEACHING them what are the important aspects of
 development at Apache. About SHOWING them each of the items to be
 aware of.

 It is not about blind adherence to rules and procedure without regard
 to the podling's experience.

 It is about LEARNING who the podling is, what they do, what they have
 done, and what they are capable of, and producing a TEACHING
 experience for that podling so that they can be an effective and
 proper project here at the ASF.

 ---

 I was thinking, hey. no problem. we can go a bit out of our way and
 produce a release tuned for the Incubator needs and made a
 suggestion. That didn't satisfy some people, so further requirements
 were thrown in. hmm, I thought, well... that shouldn't be too much
 more of a burden.

 And then I received Craig's email below, and it brought me back to
 sanity. I had been forced off the path, and now realize just how crazy
 it is.

 On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 20:19, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@sun.com wrote:
...
 As I thought I said earlier, *any* release that has proper Apache packaging,
 licensing, and notices is fine with me. We've had this discussion in the
 incubator before, for similar reasons, and I think there is consensus that a
 formal review of a podling release is a reasonable gate for graduation. No
 one needs to believe that the release is stable, tested, reliable, etc.; it
 just needs to be reviewed.

 Please let me translate:

 ANY release is fine, even if that release DOES NOT satisfy the
 project's ESTABLISHED LEVELS OF QUALITY. Shoot. All we want is
 *something*. Oh, and since it has completely inferior quality, it
 doesn't even have to be distributed! See how easy that is! Oh, never
 mind, that if we don't put it into the regular distribution channels,
 and don't make the regular announcements, then YOU'RE NOT DOING A REAL
 APACHE RELEASE.

 Nope. No way.

 The Subversion developers have years of experience releasing code here
 at Apache. Personally, I've been involved in releases of httpd and apr
 for the past ELEVEN years. Then we can talk about the additional
 years/decades of experience brought by Sander, Justin and DLR. Oh, and
 did I mention that Garrett was the VP of APR? That he was on the hook
 for making releases here at Apache?

 If a relatively new committer on the APR project wanted to make a
 release, then they would get handheld by the old-timers. They would
 make mistakes, but those would be caught before final release. That
 newbie does not come here and subject themselves to the oversight of
 the Incubator PMC. They are subject to the APR PMC itself. It makes no
 sense to apply hand-holding to a project that already has old-timers.
 Forget the hand-holding, and TEACH the arriving project about the
 overall guidelines. Point them at the ASF's release guidelines, maybe
 note where there are differences from the existing guidelines, and
 then let the PMC apply the correct oversight.

 If there are no old-timers, or if the project wants to make a release
 *while* in the Incubator? Then sure... apply the release guidelines.
 But applying the thumbscrews now is no indicator of future compliance.
 At the ASF, we make the PMCs responsible. *LET* them be responsible.


 The suggestion of a sub-par release, that should be hidden from the
 public is just ridiculous on the face of it. It teaches

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:27, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
 done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in adherence
 to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings have
 to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
 bits in place before they can graduate.

We certainly have no intent to bring Bad Code into the ASF! In fact,
we already know of a couple key points that we're bringing to
legal-discuss. i.e. we're already ahead of the game by doing a review.
We've already got all the IP collected. We've applied standard
headers. We're using ALv2.

 AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
 established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?

We have no release planned for the timeframe that I believe we will be
within the Incubator. To force one does not make sense, as I've
stated.

 What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
 network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
 subjected to is no longer valid?

That is just an unfair and unfounded accusation.

 Have an incubator release? (nah, we are better at releasing because we
 have long standing members)

Frankly: yeah. You can read my rationale when I ask for a vote. Feel
free to vote against if you feel our waiver is unwarranted, but I do
feel that we're quite well-experienced.

I prefer Leo's hey, have you checked the RAT output for svn? than
you must make a release kind of arguments. He's providing a helpful
pointer to a tool, rather than directing us into senseless work.

 Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal
 organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden)

Where did you ever see that we would do that?

Since you're already making false accusations, how about I just
clarify for you: this has *already been discussed*. Our plan is to set
up new lists and invite old list members to subscribe to the new one.

 Hosting non-Apache released artifacts at Apache hardware?

If you're referring to the older releases of Subversion? You bet. They
are all with a compatible license. Have you ever noticed all those
.jar files we host here at Apache? Those aren't released by us. Or how
about the PCRE software embedded into httpd? Or that copy of Expat
down in apr-util?

We have already conferred with Infrastructure, and they saw no problem
with hosting old releases on archive.apache.org.

And all that said, since you're in an argumentative mood here... sure.
I think that is a fair topic for consideration, and possibly for
guidance from legal-discuss. But given license compat, I'm laying odds
that Legal will have zero problem with it.

 These things are/were off-limits to podlings that were established and
 functioning outside Apache just fine. Wicket's incubation was rather
 painful due to not being able to transfer subscribers and hosting old
 releases and websites at Apache.

 I'm fine with short circuiting all the red tape associated with the
 incubator, but be warned: this will open up doors for other podlings
 as well. When the next established open source project comes along
 they expect (rightfully so) the same treatment as Subversion.

Absolutely agreed. That is *precisely* why Subversion is going through
Incubation rather than directly approaching the Board for TLP status.
(which was discussed by the Board and by SVN)  Myself and others felt
it would set a bad precedent, so here we are.

Any deviation from the standard process, I intend to be asking for a
specific waiver (much like I did before we even got here!). If
somebody else wants to take shortcuts in the future, then they better
have solid requests for waiving an item. But I believe that is quite
acceptable: if there is a explainable rationale/reason for that waiver
for any podling, then why shouldn't it be made?

I do not intend to progress quickly by virtue of the old boys
network you accuse me and the other svn people of, but simply that we
already conform to ASF principles already. There isn't much adjustment
needed. I'm looking at the checklist as right. need to talk to infra
about that. okay. need to talk to legal-discuss. file a ticket over
there. etc. How many projects arrive already knowing the people and
mailing lists to contact?

Cheers,
-g

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com 
 wrote:
 To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
 necessary for graduation - not the IPMC as a whole.

 Nope... The whole IPMC has been tasked with oversight. The mentors are
 proxies for the whole IPMC.

You can't have it both ways.  By approving the proposal, the IPMC
delegates its oversight authority to the mentors.  The IPMC then
confirms that the proper process was followed when it votes for
graduation.  The mentors can ask for pre-approval for certain
'waivers' like Greg is asking for - but it's unfair for a non-mentor
to try to tell a podling what it can or can not do.  -- justin

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Branko Čibej

Martijn Dashorst wrote:
 Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
 done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in adherence
 to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings have
 to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
 bits in place before they can graduate.

 AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
 established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?
 What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
 network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
 subjected to is no longer valid?
   

I don't disagree to checking the legal bits and pieces. But what I read
up to now, in the other thread, was more to the tune of checking release
quality and procedures. I got stuck on the quality part; I for one
will not sign off a Subversion release if I know it's broken, and
apparently the legal bits can be verified in other ways.

Clearly it's up to the Incubator PMC and/or Mentors to decide what does
or does not make sense here. If make a proper release is indeed the
verdict, then Subversion will remain incubating for several months at
least. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does leave a strange
taste in the mouth, especially given how much effort we've already put
in running our project according to ASF standards.

Oh and by the way, ranting about old-boys networks was pretty much the
last thing I expected to read on this list. Is the meritocracy blues all
nonsense then? Just askin' ...

-- Brane, not an ASF member


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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Leo Simons

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
 To be clear, it's on the mentors to decide what is applicable and
 necessary for graduation - not the IPMC as a whole.  The IPMC as a
 whole has only two roles: approving a proposal and recommending
 graduation

Also, to be clear, as an IPMC member I spend quite a bit of time with
projects where I am not a mentor, casting (binding) votes on things
like their releases. I will continue to do that, inline with procedure
and policy and common sense. I'm pretty sure you're not really meaning
to question that :)

 I believe it's reasonable to ask for the
 trust that goes with ensuring that we'll be sure to keep Subversion in
 line with Apache practices and procedures - and we will continue to do
 so long after the Incubator has recommended Subversion for graduation.
  =)

You have it!


cheers,


Leo

PS: Just make sure to keep close tabs on the bearded Slovenian ;-)
PPS: for clarity, that was yet another attempt at a bad joke in a post script

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Andrus Adamchik


Hi Greg,

I am not on either side of the debate here, but Martijn is correct in  
pointing that the formal standard was applied to *all* podlings to  
date. There's more than a few projects in the ASF that were originally  
developed in the open, with strong communities. And in those cases  
that I am aware of, no amount of reasoning from those projects would  
convince the IPMC to give them a break and just let them in. You'd  
have to sit in limbo forever until you are done with the checklist.


So I am fine if SVN incubation would result in reasonable changes in  
those incubator policies. Unless whoever was behind those policies in  
the first place will step in and object?


Andrus


On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:


On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:27, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in  
adherence
to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings  
have

to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
bits in place before they can graduate.


We certainly have no intent to bring Bad Code into the ASF! In fact,
we already know of a couple key points that we're bringing to
legal-discuss. i.e. we're already ahead of the game by doing a review.
We've already got all the IP collected. We've applied standard
headers. We're using ALv2.


AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?


We have no release planned for the timeframe that I believe we will be
within the Incubator. To force one does not make sense, as I've
stated.


What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
subjected to is no longer valid?


That is just an unfair and unfounded accusation.

Have an incubator release? (nah, we are better at releasing because  
we

have long standing members)


Frankly: yeah. You can read my rationale when I ask for a vote. Feel
free to vote against if you feel our waiver is unwarranted, but I do
feel that we're quite well-experienced.

I prefer Leo's hey, have you checked the RAT output for svn? than
you must make a release kind of arguments. He's providing a helpful
pointer to a tool, rather than directing us into senseless work.


Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal
organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden)


Where did you ever see that we would do that?

Since you're already making false accusations, how about I just
clarify for you: this has *already been discussed*. Our plan is to set
up new lists and invite old list members to subscribe to the new one.


Hosting non-Apache released artifacts at Apache hardware?


If you're referring to the older releases of Subversion? You bet. They
are all with a compatible license. Have you ever noticed all those
.jar files we host here at Apache? Those aren't released by us. Or how
about the PCRE software embedded into httpd? Or that copy of Expat
down in apr-util?

We have already conferred with Infrastructure, and they saw no problem
with hosting old releases on archive.apache.org.

And all that said, since you're in an argumentative mood here... sure.
I think that is a fair topic for consideration, and possibly for
guidance from legal-discuss. But given license compat, I'm laying odds
that Legal will have zero problem with it.

These things are/were off-limits to podlings that were established  
and

functioning outside Apache just fine. Wicket's incubation was rather
painful due to not being able to transfer subscribers and hosting old
releases and websites at Apache.

I'm fine with short circuiting all the red tape associated with the
incubator, but be warned: this will open up doors for other podlings
as well. When the next established open source project comes along
they expect (rightfully so) the same treatment as Subversion.


Absolutely agreed. That is *precisely* why Subversion is going through
Incubation rather than directly approaching the Board for TLP status.
(which was discussed by the Board and by SVN)  Myself and others felt
it would set a bad precedent, so here we are.

Any deviation from the standard process, I intend to be asking for a
specific waiver (much like I did before we even got here!). If
somebody else wants to take shortcuts in the future, then they better
have solid requests for waiving an item. But I believe that is quite
acceptable: if there is a explainable rationale/reason for that waiver
for any podling, then why shouldn't it be made?

I do not intend to progress quickly by virtue of the old boys
network you accuse me and the other svn people of, but simply that we
already conform to ASF principles already. There isn't much adjustment
needed. I'm looking at the checklist as right. need to talk to infra
about that. okay. need to talk to

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:11, Andrus Adamchik and...@objectstyle.org wrote:
 Hi Greg,

 I am not on either side of the debate here, but Martijn is correct in
 pointing that the formal standard was applied to *all* podlings to date.

I understand, and will simply ask was that the right thing to do?
I'm not looking for an answer. That's the past, so I'm unconcerned.
I'm merely (selfishly, TBH) concerned about Subversion, and making any
IPMC adjustments for future podlings who may end up in similar
circumstances.

 There's more than a few projects in the ASF that were originally developed
 in the open, with strong communities. And in those cases that I am aware of,
 no amount of reasoning from those projects would convince the IPMC to give
 them a break and just let them in. You'd have to sit in limbo forever until
 you are done with the checklist.

Yup. And I'll note that that limbo you describe has been an issue
with the Board for a long while now. That is why the Board instructed
the IPMC to request all podlings to list two items in their reports:

1) when did you arrive?
2) what is left?

Specifically to focus the podling (and the IPMC) on the question of
WHY are you still in the Incubator?

Podlings should be shepherded *out* rather than held *in*.

 So I am fine if SVN incubation would result in reasonable changes in those
 incubator policies. Unless whoever was behind those policies in the first
 place will step in and object?

Where I see something that does not make sense [for Subversion,
obviously; I don't know what may/not make sense for other podlings],
then yes: I intend to clarify that problem. I hope that my intent to
request a waiver of standard procedure will point out where that
procedure breaks down for certain podlings. The IPMC can then discuss
it as a whole and update process as appropriate.

But I say as appropriate. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to
document every possible exception. But simply to note *they can
exist*.

I mean, really... how many other projects that are 9.5 years old(*) do
we expect to see arriving here? And of those, how many *started* with
the ideas and precepts of the Apache Software Foundation? I suspect it
will be zero, so wasting a lot of time documenting (rather than
recognizing) exceptions might not be very useful.

Cheers,
-g

(*) Subversion coding was started in June 2000, one year after the ASF
itself was founded; svn started as a concept around the end of 1999

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
 Also, to be clear, as an IPMC member I spend quite a bit of time with
 projects where I am not a mentor, casting (binding) votes on things
 like their releases. I will continue to do that, inline with procedure
 and policy and common sense. I'm pretty sure you're not really meaning
 to question that :)

This is where I think the Incubator has gone awry: the claim that you
are an IPMC member implies that you have merit on a project (in the
form of a binding vote) is false.

Merit should be earned and should be local - and, in that, I think
there are some re-adjustments in order as to how the Incubator
operates.

I'm mildly uncomfortable with mentors who aren't actually involved in
the project telling a community what to do - but I accept that as a
necessity of the Incubation process.  However, I'm much more
uncomfortable when folks who have *zero* affiliation (except for being
on some distant PMC) telling a podling what to do because *they*
personally believe it is right even when others disagree.

 PS: Just make sure to keep close tabs on the bearded Slovenian ;-)

Riiight.  =)  -- justin

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Martijn Dashorst

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
 This is where I think the Incubator has gone awry: the claim that you
 are an IPMC member implies that you have merit on a project (in the
 form of a binding vote) is false.

Not sure if I am looking at the same incubator as you are. I am fully
aware that I don't have any technical merit with a project and refrain
from voting on technical issues. As part of the IPMC I *do* have a
binding vote, per Apache policy, on any issue (technical, legal and
communitywise).

If a podling thinks they are ready to graduate, but the mentors are
not, should they still graduate?

If a podling thinks they are ready to graduate, and the mentors are,
but they still aren't diverse? Should they still graduate?

If a podling votes +1 for a release but doesn't have NOTICE,
DISCLAIMER and LICENSE in the right places, should we still vote +1 to
release the artifacts?

Is being on the IPMC the same as being vote cattle?

 Merit should be earned and should be local - and, in that, I think
 there are some re-adjustments in order as to how the Incubator
 operates.

 I'm mildly uncomfortable with mentors who aren't actually involved in
 the project telling a community what to do - but I accept that as a
 necessity of the Incubation process.  However, I'm much more
 uncomfortable when folks who have *zero* affiliation (except for being
 on some distant PMC) telling a podling what to do because *they*
 personally believe it is right even when others disagree.

There will always be opinions and disagreements. AFAIK only commits
are subject to VETOs, and I can't remember when an IPMC member vetoed
a commit on a podling (being mentor or not).

The only real problematic votes are release votes and graduation
votes. The latter are usually voted -1 because of diversity issues or
the lack of adding new committers to the project. The former are
usually voted -1 because of wrong contents for NOTICE files, or
missing headers and/or LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE files.

If you have anything specific then please point it out.

Martijn

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
 ...I'm mildly uncomfortable with mentors who aren't actually involved in
 the project telling a community what to do - but I accept that as a
 necessity of the Incubation process.  However, I'm much more
 uncomfortable when folks who have *zero* affiliation (except for being
 on some distant PMC) telling a podling what to do because *they*
 personally believe it is right even when others disagree

OTOH, podlings that don't have 3 active mentors can't get 3 binding
votes internally, so IPMC members have to jump in sometimes. Thanks to
those of us who do!

-Bertrand

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

2009-11-09 Thread Andrus Adamchik



On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Greg Stein wrote:


I mean, really... how many other projects that are 9.5 years old(*) do
we expect to see arriving here? And of those, how many *started* with
the ideas and precepts of the Apache Software Foundation? I suspect it
will be zero, so wasting a lot of time documenting (rather than
recognizing) exceptions might not be very useful.


There were a few mature projects. Not as large as SVN, but still  
pretty old (say 5 years of track record) and with established  
community and market position. Essentially in the same category (maybe  
sans the ubiquity of SVN).



But I say as appropriate. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to
document every possible exception. But simply to note *they can
exist*.


Agreed. Just that nobody else was able to get a waiver to date, and  
this was likely because people coming in were intimidated into  
thinking they have no other way, but follow the procedure. So  
unfortunately there is (and likely will be) a difference in treatment.  
I guess that's a social issue, not a procedural one (i.e. insider vs.  
outsider perception).


Andrus

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
 OTOH, podlings that don't have 3 active mentors can't get 3 binding
 votes internally, so IPMC members have to jump in sometimes. Thanks to
 those of us who do!

I view the proposal accepting the projects with the listed mentors as
delegating the oversight to the mentors.  So, I don't know if it
should be required that you must get three IPMC members to vote on
every little thing a podling does.  I think it tends to let projects
think that people who don't contribute anything deserve merit and have
rights to tell them what to do.  I'm not sure that sets an appropriate
precedent.

Let me put it another way: if the IPMC accepts a proposal with one
mentor, then I'm fine with that one mentor acting on behalf of the
IPMC without the need to constantly go back to the IPMC for approval.
-- justin

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

Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)