Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I'm not sure whether this vote will be cancelled or not, so... [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... -1 because POI will make a move to spin off from Jakarta early next year. There is no point in force-merging at this time. If POI should decide not to leave Jakarta, we will reconsider. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise, this access restriction thing feels too much like a wart. Same here, as no-one has ack#ed my resignation I'm going to vote +0 for this. I think that if POI believe that they are in anyway different from the rest of jakarta, and are capable of making these judgements by themselves then they should seriously be thinking about becoming a TLP. I think POI should have another look at the questionnaire: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark d. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
[+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an WILL to protect and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues, I am willing to put +1 to this vote. -- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land). -- Tetsuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Mvgr Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1 Mvgr except the POI committers. Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] / March) at that time. Sorry. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an WILL to protect and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues, I am willing to put +1 to this vote. The biggest problem is that if we need protection, there is currently nothing in place (even though you need to swear something). There are no records, no signed documents and such thing needs to be organised at a PMC / Apache level. -- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land). +1 to that ;) -- Tetsuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Mvgr Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1 Mvgr except the POI committers. Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] / March) at that time. Sorry. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-generalm=114344584424864w=2 is the start of the thread / vote. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Quoting Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Avik, I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and after Andy's first responses I also thought hey, let's get them promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in Jakarta. I've since had time to reconsider and realize that this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting it to TLP or hiding it in commons will not change anything. If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board to reject it and tell us make POI work in Jakarta before you promote it to TLP. A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write a build process that generates release jars conforming to Apache standards? This is completely out of line (to say the least). It isn't as if the release contained encumbered code, or didn't include source. If I were to use your level of rhetoric, I'd say this sounds like a witch hunt. Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the POI developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous! Way back when the POI committers were among the first to conduct an audit of its dependencies. The results were on the old wiki As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major releases earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a reason [yes i know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to bash four years of existence on a project. Regards - Avik This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I dont care about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation. The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight' requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather than attack it. All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis. The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so lets not go down that path. So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor' before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ... he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all jakarta committers for only asking. Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very gratefully accepted. This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me. Finally Martin, you say If you have anything positive to contribute...; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , it doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it? I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong. Regards. - Avik Quoting Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Avik, Avik Sengupta wrote: Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :) I know what you mean :) Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the thread till this point. Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread seems seems quite painful. At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of destroying a community, what's the use? I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either. I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already been said (and despite of what is said below here) How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't speak up ? However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more' If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can think of a couple : A lot of development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to invest energy in. The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI doesn't seem to realize that or to misuse your words don't care about that. Everything that affects POI actually affects Jakarta. I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never had the feeling that POI was part of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what happens at POI. With the releases going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the ultimate trigger for this vote as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next steps (I summed them up already). So your remark about don't care anymore is not making me very happy, since I hoped you would start caring, although I hope I misinterpreted that remark and making assumptions that are wrong. The big problem is that no one from POI is actually
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Martin van den Bemt wrote: -1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ? Ouch rereading this I meant : The POI policy of course :) (in case it is misread) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Avik Sengupta wrote: I dont care about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation. As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things. The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight' requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather than attack it. See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh). All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis. Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in other mails that POI is pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of POI, I cannot judge it technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was technically bad). The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so lets not go down that path. There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking of taking a different approach, which I described in the board report too. So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor' before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ... he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote thread isn't finished yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that offer you could have asked for help (which was offered) and state we are on it or something (about the release itself not being checked). we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all jakarta committers for only asking. If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy to me (although I could have misread him). Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very gratefully accepted. I read the thread. This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me. Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first step to improve things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there was asked about the reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the mail about the release (about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball back to the project to get some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered. If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the thread, the negativity comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive attitude, so let's focus on that :) Finally Martin, you say If you have anything positive to contribute...; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I wanted to make clear with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is doing more than well (which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing that in the responses from, in this case, you. it doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it? It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am trying to solve here, that most requests/vote announcements don't get a response is because the vote and release is because we have lazy consensus. Some do get a response (eg not the needed 3 +1
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
If you are lost in bad sentences let me know :) Forgot to proof read :( Mvgr, Martin Martin van den Bemt wrote: Avik Sengupta wrote: I dont care about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation. As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things. The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight' requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather than attack it. See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh). All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis. Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in other mails that POI is pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of POI, I cannot judge it technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was technically bad). The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so lets not go down that path. There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking of taking a different approach, which I described in the board report too. So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor' before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ... he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote thread isn't finished yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that offer you could have asked for help (which was offered) and state we are on it or something (about the release itself not being checked). we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all jakarta committers for only asking. If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy to me (although I could have misread him). Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very gratefully accepted. I read the thread. This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me. Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first step to improve things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there was asked about the reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the mail about the release (about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball back to the project to get some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered. If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the thread, the negativity comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive attitude, so let's focus on that :) Finally Martin, you say If you have anything positive to contribute...; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I wanted to make clear with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is doing more than well (which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing that in the responses from, in this case, you. it doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it? It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am trying to solve here, that most
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered. Andy has already replied that this was done in the early days of POI's entry into Apache under discussion with POI's then mentor and the board. It was also done as a consequence of a specific issue that had arisen. Short of not believing him, what do you propose are the next steps to resolve this? Regards - Avik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hello Avik, Avik Sengupta wrote: This is completely out of line (to say the least). Yes it was. Henri already pointed out my error, and I apologize for mixing things up and thereby offending the POI community. The problem was not in the release files, it was with the procedure used for publishing it. The responsibility for that is with the PMC and not the developer community. My thoughts started spinning around this vote thread over the week-end, they spun too far from what was actually happening, and I failed to re-read the mails on the PMC list. Again: I apologize. I'll do my best to avoid misinterpretations in the future. Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the POI developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous! I did not presume that POI developers want to become a commons subproject. It was you who mentioned becoming a commons subproject, and you clearly stated that you did not want that to happen. I just pointed out that neither promoting up to TLP (to make a clean split between POI and Jakarta) nor promoting down to a commons subproject (to somehow cover up the existing community split) would address the problem at hand. I was not suggesting nor considering moving POI to a commons subproject at any time, and I am sorry if I phrased that ambiguously. As for helping the (POI) list, I'm afraid that I don't have time left for that. HttpComponents is taking up the time I have available. I am trying to help the Jakarta community - including POI - by participating in this discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I share my views and current understanding of the discussion's subject, however wrong they may be at times, and hope to get new information and to be corrected where I am wrong before I cast my vote. If I should vote at all, since there are only +1 and -1 to choose from. As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major releases earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a reason [yes i know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to bash four years of existence on a project. For the latter, I apologize once more. But I also ask you to take note that I phrased that part of my mail as a question. Provocative, yes, but still a question. Thank you (and Henri) for answering it. For the future, I'll try to avoid writing such mails late at night when I am tired and my thoughts have spun around for too long. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ? Why is it any different than Harmony? If someone has received knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? If the ICLA means that legally from an ASF POV it doesn't matter since the responsibility/liability would be with the contributor then the same logic could be applied to harmony. Seems to me that even if the ASF is covered at the end of the day avoiding a legal issue with a big entity such as MS is far more desirable than getting into a tangle in the first place. I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then it would have been far better to start a discussion with them regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going straight for conflict. Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to resolve whatever the real issues people think there are. Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:25 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [...] what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do? You *might* (at some point) read up what part of Apache the POI project is in and who is currently legally responsible for it. This is not your small, private show on sf.net as you seem to think. You are, as a part of the ASF, bound to our legal structure, our rules and our community. Get used to it. If you don't want to be a part of Jakarta, apply for TLP. Best regards Henning -Andy Martin van den Bemt wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006 and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 20:30 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [...] I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to We do know that you are not serious here. [...] With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes Domain Name:BUNI.ORG Created On:06-Oct-2006 13:29:38 UTC Last Updated On:14-Dec-2006 19:11:28 UTC Expiration Date:06-Oct-2007 13:29:38 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR) Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:4754392604712011 Registrant Name:Andrew Oliver Registrant Organization:Bunisoft, Inc. Registrant Street1:5426 Lake Vista Dr. Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Durham Registrant State/Province:NC Registrant Postal Code:27712 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.9193218856 So what is the point? Just rebranding POI under another name? Why do you care if you have so much better stuff to do? Best regards Henning -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hello Niall, Why is it any different than Harmony? Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team, and signatures are legally significant. http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html The POI Get Involved page only mentions this: Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or possibly sign an agreement. http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html may be? possibly? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously are not aware of any such thing? If there is an established procedure addressing these questions, it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the statement quoted above is just idle. If someone has received knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute. As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy. There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion: 1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers. 2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject. 3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review. There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy and to question them about possible NDA contamination. 4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI (directly without patch review!) that contribution would immediately be detected from the commit message that is automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone by the regular committers to the subproject. This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN, not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's about running a community based on mutual trust and review as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it. I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then it would have been far better to start a discussion with them regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going straight for conflict. +1 Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to resolve whatever the real issues people think there are. +1 cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Niall, Why is it any different than Harmony? Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team, and signatures are legally significant. http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html The POI Get Involved page only mentions this: Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or possibly sign an agreement. http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html may be? possibly? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously are not aware of any such thing? If there is an established procedure addressing these questions, it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the statement quoted above is just idle. I agree there should be an established policy endorsed by the PMC. My fear is that Andy Oliver either won't have the patience to do what it takes or fail to get anywhere because he pi**es off too many people in the process. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong or someone else from POI will sort it out. If someone has received knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute. As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy. There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion: 1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers. 2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject. Generally this is true, although I have seen a couple of occasions where committers have made code changes on Commons components they had no prior involvement with without pinging the mailing list first. 3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review. There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy and to question them about possible NDA contamination. 4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI (directly without patch review!) that contribution would immediately be detected from the commit message that is automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone by the regular committers to the subproject. This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN, not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's about running a community based on mutual trust and review as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it. Personally I'm +/-0 on removing svn barriers anyway. I don't believe any exisiting committer that starts to contribute to a project in the normal way isn't going to get given commit access pretty quickly. Anyway generally I don't disagree with the sentiments/opinions you've expressed - but I do think POI has grounds for a slightly different policy than most of our code bases since what they deal with is the IP of a large company that if infringed could cause us problems in the same way as with Harmony and Sun's source code. IMO then the contrubuting policy for POI needs to be resolved/formally established first and svn access should be decided afterwards once we have a policy endorsed by the PMC. Niall I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then it would have been far better to start a discussion with them regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going straight for conflict. +1 Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to resolve whatever the real issues people think there are. +1 cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Niall Pemberton wrote: On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ? Why is it any different than Harmony? If someone has received knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? If the ICLA means that legally from an ASF POV it doesn't matter since the responsibility/liability would be with the contributor then the same logic could be applied to harmony. Seems to me that even if the ASF is covered at the end of the day avoiding a legal issue with a big entity such as MS is far more desirable than getting into a tangle in the first place. I am not saying the legal stuff would be bad, just that currently nothing is in place to have that covered. With harmony this is a Harmony policy, which is handled by the PMC and there are records and the board is aware of this. So effectively we don't have anything in place, just a statement on the website, so if we needed any protection based on the NDA stuff, we don't have anything to show for. I cannot start with getting the legal stuff figured out when POI is acting as it's own entity, without even any oversight from the Jakarta PMC members representing POI. But I think I made that point clear in some of the replies i've given. I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then it would have been far better to start a discussion with them regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going straight for conflict. I could have started this in another way, although I doubt consensus would be reached if I did that another way. POI is living in it's own universe currently (we are even talking about them) and since this issue concerns the whole of Jakarta and things need to happen now,because of the lack of oversight given by the PMC members representing POI. Opening up POI is a first step in the right direction, next steps would be mentoring the POI project, get the legal issue straightened out (that is making an official Jakarta policy if that is needed and having official records). Alternatives like POI going TLP (as was mentioned by a couple of people) would also be an option, so that they deal with the board directly, but since the POI committers aren't ready for that (see the mentoring part), that would be a hard case to sell. Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to resolve whatever the real issues people think there are. svn access is the first step towards improvement. Svn access for me *is* a real issue, I think the vote made that clear. Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1 except the POI committers. Now we are 8 months further and it is time they join the majority in my opinion. If they want to have separate svn access at this time, I think they are stating that they do not want to be part of Jakarta. Mvgr, Martin Niall Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Niall Pemberton wrote: On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Niall, Why is it any different than Harmony? Harmony requires that an Authorized Contributor Questionnaire be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team, and signatures are legally significant. http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html The POI Get Involved page only mentions this: Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or possibly sign an agreement. http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html may be? possibly? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously are not aware of any such thing? If there is an established procedure addressing these questions, it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the statement quoted above is just idle. I agree there should be an established policy endorsed by the PMC. My fear is that Andy Oliver either won't have the patience to do what it takes or fail to get anywhere because he pi**es off too many people in the process. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong or someone else from POI will sort it out. I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI, without any guidance from the people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my first goal is helping out Nick so he can continue the good work he is doing over there. If someone has received knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute. As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy. There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion: 1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers. 2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject. Generally this is true, although I have seen a couple of occasions where committers have made code changes on Commons components they had no prior involvement with without pinging the mailing list first. And we educated those people. 3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review. There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy and to question them about possible NDA contamination. 4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI (directly without patch review!) that contribution would immediately be detected from the commit message that is automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone by the regular committers to the subproject. This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN, not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's about running a community based on mutual trust and review as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it. Personally I'm +/-0 on removing svn barriers anyway. I don't believe any exisiting committer that starts to contribute to a project in the normal way isn't going to get given commit access pretty quickly. Anyway generally I don't disagree with the sentiments/opinions you've expressed - but I do think POI has grounds for a slightly different policy than most of our code bases since what they deal with is the IP of a large company that if infringed could cause us problems in the same way as with Harmony and Sun's source code. IMO then the contrubuting policy for POI needs to be resolved/formally established first and svn access should be decided afterwards once we have a policy endorsed by the PMC. The first problem we have to deal with is that releases aren't done the way the ASF wants them to be done, which is currently the legal issue at hand. Part of the problem is that they (sorry bad word choices coming here) don't trust the rest of Jakarta of doing the right thing and the rest of Jakarta trusts them to do the right thing. They have proven they don't do the right thing atm (to be clear : not blaming Nick here!), which hurts Jakarta as a whole. Maybe repeating myself here :) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
hy im happy to join to ur party -- This message was sent on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] at openSubscriber.com http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/general@jakarta.apache.org/5604698.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Rainer Klute schrieb: Martin van den Bemt schrieb: [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... [0] I don't care. Having read all the contribution http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=endep=/gQPU.search=contributions on this thread, I revoke my vote quoted above and instead vote as follows: [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. Please read my vote not just as referring to a technical issue concerning commit access or not. My vote is a clear statement to * keep POI under the Jakarta hood, * stick to the ASF rules, and * do everything that is needed to straighten things out. I am a POI committer. Best regards Rainer Klute Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH Dipl.-Inform. Rainer Klute E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824 D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423 OpenPGP fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. I've sat and re-read all email I've ever received from Andy and I can't find anything to this effect - so it's no longer my understanding. Apologies for misleading everyone. Hen From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :) Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the thread till this point. Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread seems seems quite painful. At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of destroying a community, what's the use? I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either. However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more' I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project Regards - Avik Quoting Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi everyone, You probably think Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006 and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hi Avik, Avik Sengupta wrote: Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :) I know what you mean :) Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the thread till this point. Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread seems seems quite painful. At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of destroying a community, what's the use? I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either. I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already been said (and despite of what is said below here) How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't speak up ? However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more' If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can think of a couple : A lot of development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to invest energy in. The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI doesn't seem to realize that or to misuse your words don't care about that. Everything that affects POI actually affects Jakarta. I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never had the feeling that POI was part of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what happens at POI. With the releases going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the ultimate trigger for this vote as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next steps (I summed them up already). So your remark about don't care anymore is not making me very happy, since I hoped you would start caring, although I hope I misinterpreted that remark and making assumptions that are wrong. The big problem is that no one from POI is actually making any effort to clear any misinterpretations and assumptions. Hope you understand what I am trying to say. I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough sub sub projects. The total projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and projects without sub projects are counted). Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/17/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Avik Sengupta wrote: I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough sub sub projects. The total projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and projects without sub projects are counted). My previous pro for POI as a TLP is that it would give the POI community more independence and would allow Jakarta to move in the direction of having an identity rather than being the what's left. I know I come across strongly as thinking that identity is commons-like, but I'll welcome any workable solution. The other option I could think of is for Jakarta to be a Java federation (as per XML), but I don't get the feeling that the federation ideas have had much success. I'd love to hear other ideas. [Short aside: Federation idea is for Jakarta to be a place where Java projects come together - basically the old Jakarta with each subproject being a TLP and yet still part of the same community. I think it's 4 years too late to try that :( ] My current con for POI as a TLP is that I think we shouldn't be going the release was wrong, send them TLP; we should be ensuring that things are good (source headers, releases, voting, all that junk^Wjazz) first as that's the Jakarta PMC's responsibility. A previous con I had was that it seemed to be going inactive, but activity seems to be happily up. So.. I think we need to: 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the files etc. 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so. Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy. 3) Work on a TLP proposal. - On subproject subsuming. My basic premise is that a Jakarta subproject can only be healthy within Jakarta currently if it is also viable as a TLP (where healthy = fits into the current ASF structure). An umbrella without large internal overlap is too weak unless we create our own internal sub-PMC system and reporting structure and that's one of the things that lead to splitting Jakarta up in the first place (as far as I recall). I'd personally much rather see POI as an active TLP than being squashed into a flattened umbrella, but I definitely don't want to see it being stuck in the old subproject structure. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hello Avik, I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and after Andy's first responses I also thought hey, let's get them promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in Jakarta. I've since had time to reconsider and realize that this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting it to TLP or hiding it in commons will not change anything. If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board to reject it and tell us make POI work in Jakarta before you promote it to TLP. A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write a build process that generates release jars conforming to Apache standards? cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board to reject it and tell us make POI work in Jakarta before you promote it to TLP. That is was my feeling as well, but I understood from the board that they rather prefer that things are not hidden in subprojects, which is something that can easily happen with big projects like Jakarta (and I can imagine that no one actually had any real idea of the number of projects over here). Based on that I started with this report giving information about all projects, so they still have the opportunity to intervene. This also means that board reports should be more open and preferably identify issues and problems, as well as the positive things happening. We should make the job easier for the board to determine if Jakarta is healthy. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Avik, I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and after Andy's first responses I also thought hey, let's get them promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in Jakarta. I've since had time to reconsider and realize that this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting it to TLP or hiding it in commons will not change anything. If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board to reject it and tell us make POI work in Jakarta before you promote it to TLP. I can't speak for the others - but that's what I was saying in the email I was writing at the same time as you :) A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write a build process that generates release jars conforming to Apache standards? I bet a lot of Jakarta does not conform - it's only when a release happens that we think about bringing it up to date. This is not a problem of the POI community but a problem of the Jakarta community structure and for the PMC. It's the PMC's responsibility to make sure these releases are right and not the POI community. A plus point of POI as a TLP is that then it becomes the POI community's responsibility far more (as I imagine there would be far more of 1:1 ratio of committers to PMC there). Let's not go over the top here - the release itself isn't that bad and it's got the important things right (license, notice). Having gone and looked at them, I'm not overly worried about the two particular releases themselves, just that it's clear that information is not getting out to POI and that it urgently needs to somehow. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hi, On 12/17/06, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin van den Bemt wrote: I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI, without any guidance from the people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my first goal is helping out Nick so he can continue the good work he is doing over there. A mentor (or similar) has been mentioned a few times in this thread. If POI would like my help then I am happy to assist. For those of you who don't know me, I have been lurking in Jakarta since Tomcat moved to a TLP and am currently release manager for Tomcat 4. That's an excellent idea and offer, +1! Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hello Henri, I bet a lot of Jakarta does not conform - it's only when a release happens that we think about bringing it up to date. This is not a problem of the POI community but a problem of the Jakarta community structure and for the PMC. It's the PMC's responsibility to make sure these releases are right and not the POI community. OK. A plus point of POI as a TLP is that then it becomes the POI community's responsibility far more (as I imagine there would be far more of 1:1 ratio of committers to PMC there). You see a chance to move POI to TLP in the current situation? I've always see going TLP as a way to gain visibility, and would have expected the board to make sure that projects doing that step are working well. You've definitely more insight here. Let's not go over the top here - the release itself isn't that bad and it's got the important things right (license, notice). Having gone and looked at them, I'm not overly worried about the two particular releases themselves, just that it's clear that information is not getting out to POI and that it urgently needs to somehow. OK again. Thanks for putting that into perspective. cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Martin van den Bemt schrieb: [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... [0] I don't care. Best regards Rainer Klute Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH Dipl.-Inform. Rainer Klute E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824 D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423 OpenPGP fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Is it necessary to resort to sarcasm and personalise this? Henri Yandell's a good guy in my book and this only reflects badly on you. Niall On 12/16/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to be legally special and they don't. The Harmony case is very cool to see - I suggest we copy what they're doing (questionnaire that is then stored in the private pmc directory). -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Your vote definitely counts - which one did I ignore? My apologies if I've screwed the backstory up - I'd very much like to know which parts. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Henri Yandell wrote: Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to be legally special and they don't. Then either the ASF legal team wasn't involved in the discussion Andy mentioned, or the current staff doesn't remember it, or their assessment of the situation is different from Andy's. Who can shed some light on this? cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
-1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ? Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Every legal document has to be on file and known to the secretary and he has no knowledge of such documents, so from an ASF point of view, this is non existing. If there is something on file I would love to hear where. Mvgr, Martin Roland Weber wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to be legally special and they don't. Then either the ASF legal team wasn't involved in the discussion Andy mentioned, or the current staff doesn't remember it, or their assessment of the situation is different from Andy's. Who can shed some light on this? cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Will Glass-Husain wrote: Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently. I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the new structure, I see individual cases where committers have cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a big impact for many subprojects. It's the special position I have problems with. So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta, make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that we should discuss publically? See my reply to Andy for this. (if you cannot find it i'll try to find a link). There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue. That is what I planned after this vote, based on the result. This vote gives a nice view on the fact if they even want to be part of Jakarta. Andy doesn't looking at his reply of going TLP, Incubator (?) or moving out of Apache. The part that sparked this vote, is the releases that were made (not blaming Nick here, I think he is definitely an asset to Jakarta!) and it was made very clearly that POI needs mentoring from other Jakarta people, which cannot happen if they want to keep the gates closed. Opening the gates is a first step in the right direction. Hope that answers your question / concerns. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. This is a different vote. This one is specific about POI. The previous vote was about opening the whole of Jakarta and if certain projects had objections they could state that. And when I do things is up to me, you don't own my time, as much as I don't own your time. The main problem here is that (correcting you here) Jakarta PMC Members that represent POI are not around when they need to do their job of giving oversight. Stop blaming others (in this case me and Henri) and start looking in the right direction. My intentions here are good, hence the reason why the vote was so generic (just opening up svn karma), so POI can leave the Island and is willing to accept help from our other Jakarta folks. That opposed to state to the board that I cannot be responsible for POI anymore. Currently I just see you screaming and shouting, instead of giving useful feedback. And pointing to the legal issues that you think merits the svn karma limitation : Since you are not appointed by the board to handle POI's legal issues (if they even are there), you should send and inform the PMC of the history, reasoning and records that you have, so the proper person (in this case I was appointed for Jakarta) can take that info to the board and discuss the situation and get an official position on that. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Your because isn't much of a reason, since your vote was counted and as you can see in this vote: SVN permission stayed closed. The problem here is that the reasons that were given at that time, don't seem to apply (which is something I learned at Apachecon), hence the new vote. What you mean by Henri making up backstory for you, I don't know exactly, but he just states the way he knows / heard, so if he is wrong, please share the truth with us. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or similar. So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let people commit without having made such a public statement. Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Which legal team ? Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Mvgr, Martin Nick Burch wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or similar. So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let people commit without having made such a public statement. Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
ehh +1 :) Mvgr, Martin Martin van den Bemt wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006 and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hm, does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a felt threat from Andy? I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise, this access restriction thing feels too much like a wart. Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-) Best regards Henning On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:07 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006 and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy Save the cheerleader. Save the world. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
If anyone comments or votes who is from the POI community, could you please identify yourself? We need to be sure there is representation in this vote. I'm abstaining till I see more debate. I see the implication of Martin's point -- POI is pretty insular in Jakarta. But where would POI go if not for Jakarta? WILL On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. OK, I'm happy to be corrected :) Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the requirement (which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I don't see why we couldn't drop the restriction. I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1 Nick (I am from POI) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a felt threat from Andy? As long as we're not soliciting trade secrets - tis good. I suspect this is a case of Andy's lawyer back in the day either having a different opinion or it being a different scenario/context. I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise, this access restriction thing feels too much like a wart. Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-) Nick's been doing lots of work over there :) I'm +1 for opening, unless it's decided that POI does need to add extra process to protect from trade secrets. Currently the view is that it doesn't - however chatting with Harmony to find out how things worked for them would be of value. On TLP - the main worry is that POI lacks overlap with the rest of the ASF - more like an Incubator project than a normal TLP [maybe that's too harsh]. My thinking is that we (Jakarta PMC) need to bring them up to speed and then decide whether things are fitting or not. Apart from the legal issue and the insularity - I'm +1 for POI becoming a healthy happy part of Jakarta. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1. You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats. what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do? It should be pretty obvious what Martin's interest is - making sure Jakarta is running correctly. Your request that a committer state that they have/are not bound by a microsoft NDA is ignorable as you're just speaking for yourself personally and not for the ASF or Jakarta. It's meaningless and a sign that things are not correct in POI. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006 and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. -1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Niall [1] http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html [2] http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I feel a bit attacked for no reason really (regarding the barbs thrown in my direction). It has been some time since I have not been rather civil on this list and I would expect the return courtesy. I've always tried to make a good faith effort with regards to POI. I have never supported (and voted against) the other jakarta flattening thing and at the time it was disingenuously provided (I never reversed my -1 vote you just ignored it). Originally if memory serves (like 5 yrs ago) the legal issue came from our mentor into Jakarta (Stefano Mazzocchi) and following that based on some early issues with legal stuff that was a real thread and some real concerns and scenarios (some of which has to do with an individual that did become a very spirited contributor elsewhere). That stuff should not be vetted publicly and probably not on the PMC list. We very nearly did have a REAL problem in the past that would have put the project and the ASF in jeopardy and steps were taken to require a personal assurance. I still have no personal desire to have the same people who brought me commons automatically in POI. I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. However I don't wish to be chair. I would support nick as chair though and lend him what assistance I can. With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes every few months because you're a sore looser while throwing barbs at me is seriously limited. I do however welcome constructive good-intentioned dialog -Andy Nick Burch wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. OK, I'm happy to be corrected :) Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the requirement (which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I don't see why we couldn't drop the restriction. I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1 Nick (I am from POI) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently. I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the new structure, I see individual cases where committers have cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a big impact for many subprojects. So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta, make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that we should discuss publically? There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue. WILL On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [...] I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. That's a very unspecific name. formats can mean anything, from formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER. How about compound documents - compdocs or compdogs? That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff (Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
The alias is immaterial to me -Andy Roland Weber wrote: Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [...] I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. That's a very unspecific name. formats can mean anything, from formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER. How about compound documents - compdocs or compdogs? That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff (Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Will Glass-Husain wrote: Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently. Okay. It just didn't LOOk that way. I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the new structure, I see individual cases where committers have cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a big impact for many subprojects. +1 So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta, make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that we should discuss publically? +1 There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue. +1 I'd like to see a TLP. Or baring that an exit. WILL On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
