You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org> on 2012/07/03 21:06:41 UTC
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>
> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant
> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen.
I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should happen with the help of the Incubator.
Nicolas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 5 juil. 2012 à 06:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On 2012-07-04, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>>>>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>>>>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>>>
>>>> This may be EasyAnt's goal, I'm not entirely sure it matches Ant's goal.
>>>>
>>>> At one point in time every project entering incubation had to be
>>>> sponsored by an existing TLP or the board and it didn't imply the
>>>> podling would graduate to the existing TLP at all. The "you need a
>>>> sponsoring TLP" notion seems to have gone now. By the time EasyAnt
>>>> entered incubation Ant became the sponsoring TLP so there was one, not
>>>> because Ant was comitted to accept it as a sub-project IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying Ant would reject it, but it is not a no-brainer either.
>>>> This part of the discussion should be held on dev@ant 8-)
>>>
>>> I guess I'm the one who just misunderstood the Ant sponsoring thing.
>>> Let's to it properly yes. Let's start asking to EasyAnt dev first.
>>
>> Since Apache Ivy and Apache IvyDE are sub-projects of Apache Ant there is some sense in EasyAnt having a place in the Apache Ant project. I see that dev@ant did VOTE for sponsorship on a thread that you started [1], but I did not see a lot of discussion about what made sense to the Apache Ant community.
>>
>> A few months earlier you pushed for the donation of Bushel into Ivy [2] which was done.
>>
>> I see that EasyAnt has an old Google Group ML and this thread describes the process from the EasyAnt community's perspective. [3]
>>
>> There is mention of Apache Ivy in the incubator four years prior, and we know it ended up within the Apache Ant project.
>
> Surely you're not suggesting that because Ant has *once* (A) sponsored
> a podling's incubation and (B) subsequently adopted that podling as a
> subproject that it is bound to do B for *every* A?
Ant is certainly not bound to do it. That is their choice. I do think it is a logical fit, but that's not the same.
I do think that when a TLP sponsors a podling that it should consider whether graduation to that PMC is or is not a goal of Incubation. I think that would help the IPMC better mentor the podling. I've read some of EasyAnt's private archives and better understand what happened.
I would certainly give EasyAnt time to negotiate possible outcomes - in no particular order.
(1) Return to being a project outside of the ASF.
(2) Transfer to the Ant PMC.
(3) Reboot the podling.
(4) Retire to the Attic.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Matt
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201101.mbox/%3C3A73C5DA-E4A2-4CB6-8423-0A985246FA8E%40hibnet.org%3E
>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201010.mbox/%3CB53D948C-5DA9-48D8-B81D-2F8C44DBA969@hibnet.org%3E
>> [3] https://groups.google.com/group/easyant/browse_thread/thread/a8a87867cb42a5a5
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 5 juil. 2012 à 06:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>>
>>> On 2012-07-04, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>>>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>>>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>>
>>> This may be EasyAnt's goal, I'm not entirely sure it matches Ant's goal.
>>>
>>> At one point in time every project entering incubation had to be
>>> sponsored by an existing TLP or the board and it didn't imply the
>>> podling would graduate to the existing TLP at all. The "you need a
>>> sponsoring TLP" notion seems to have gone now. By the time EasyAnt
>>> entered incubation Ant became the sponsoring TLP so there was one, not
>>> because Ant was comitted to accept it as a sub-project IIRC.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying Ant would reject it, but it is not a no-brainer either.
>>> This part of the discussion should be held on dev@ant 8-)
>>
>> I guess I'm the one who just misunderstood the Ant sponsoring thing.
>> Let's to it properly yes. Let's start asking to EasyAnt dev first.
>
> Since Apache Ivy and Apache IvyDE are sub-projects of Apache Ant there is some sense in EasyAnt having a place in the Apache Ant project. I see that dev@ant did VOTE for sponsorship on a thread that you started [1], but I did not see a lot of discussion about what made sense to the Apache Ant community.
>
> A few months earlier you pushed for the donation of Bushel into Ivy [2] which was done.
>
> I see that EasyAnt has an old Google Group ML and this thread describes the process from the EasyAnt community's perspective. [3]
>
> There is mention of Apache Ivy in the incubator four years prior, and we know it ended up within the Apache Ant project.
Surely you're not suggesting that because Ant has *once* (A) sponsored
a podling's incubation and (B) subsequently adopted that podling as a
subproject that it is bound to do B for *every* A?
Matt
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201101.mbox/%3C3A73C5DA-E4A2-4CB6-8423-0A985246FA8E%40hibnet.org%3E
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201010.mbox/%3CB53D948C-5DA9-48D8-B81D-2F8C44DBA969@hibnet.org%3E
> [3] https://groups.google.com/group/easyant/browse_thread/thread/a8a87867cb42a5a5
>
>
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
> Le 5 juil. 2012 à 06:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>
>> On 2012-07-04, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>
>> This may be EasyAnt's goal, I'm not entirely sure it matches Ant's goal.
>>
>> At one point in time every project entering incubation had to be
>> sponsored by an existing TLP or the board and it didn't imply the
>> podling would graduate to the existing TLP at all. The "you need a
>> sponsoring TLP" notion seems to have gone now. By the time EasyAnt
>> entered incubation Ant became the sponsoring TLP so there was one, not
>> because Ant was comitted to accept it as a sub-project IIRC.
>>
>> I'm not saying Ant would reject it, but it is not a no-brainer either.
>> This part of the discussion should be held on dev@ant 8-)
>
> I guess I'm the one who just misunderstood the Ant sponsoring thing.
> Let's to it properly yes. Let's start asking to EasyAnt dev first.
Since Apache Ivy and Apache IvyDE are sub-projects of Apache Ant there is some sense in EasyAnt having a place in the Apache Ant project. I see that dev@ant did VOTE for sponsorship on a thread that you started [1], but I did not see a lot of discussion about what made sense to the Apache Ant community.
A few months earlier you pushed for the donation of Bushel into Ivy [2] which was done.
I see that EasyAnt has an old Google Group ML and this thread describes the process from the EasyAnt community's perspective. [3]
There is mention of Apache Ivy in the incubator four years prior, and we know it ended up within the Apache Ant project.
Regards,
Dave
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201101.mbox/%3C3A73C5DA-E4A2-4CB6-8423-0A985246FA8E%40hibnet.org%3E
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201010.mbox/%3CB53D948C-5DA9-48D8-B81D-2F8C44DBA969@hibnet.org%3E
[3] https://groups.google.com/group/easyant/browse_thread/thread/a8a87867cb42a5a5
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>.
Le 5 juil. 2012 à 06:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> On 2012-07-04, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>
> This may be EasyAnt's goal, I'm not entirely sure it matches Ant's goal.
>
> At one point in time every project entering incubation had to be
> sponsored by an existing TLP or the board and it didn't imply the
> podling would graduate to the existing TLP at all. The "you need a
> sponsoring TLP" notion seems to have gone now. By the time EasyAnt
> entered incubation Ant became the sponsoring TLP so there was one, not
> because Ant was comitted to accept it as a sub-project IIRC.
>
> I'm not saying Ant would reject it, but it is not a no-brainer either.
> This part of the discussion should be held on dev@ant 8-)
I guess I'm the one who just misunderstood the Ant sponsoring thing.
Let's to it properly yes. Let's start asking to EasyAnt dev first.
Nicolas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2012-07-04, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
This may be EasyAnt's goal, I'm not entirely sure it matches Ant's goal.
At one point in time every project entering incubation had to be
sponsored by an existing TLP or the board and it didn't imply the
podling would graduate to the existing TLP at all. The "you need a
sponsoring TLP" notion seems to have gone now. By the time EasyAnt
entered incubation Ant became the sponsoring TLP so there was one, not
because Ant was comitted to accept it as a sub-project IIRC.
I'm not saying Ant would reject it, but it is not a no-brainer either.
This part of the discussion should be held on dev@ant 8-)
>>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the
>>> Ant PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to
>>> happen.
>> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training
>> the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a
>> proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance.
Training people and growing a community (maybe by attracting existing
Ant contributors). If it had been clear Ant was willing to accept Ant
as a subproject back then, we likely would have taken the IP-clearing
route instead (which has happened for other stuff in the past).
> How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness
> to sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that
> the main purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the
> project's IP, not that there is anything wrong with that.
This fell out as a side-effect. When EasyAnt entered incubation nobody
expected this. IP stuff seemed to be without any problems as all
contributors agreed with the move to the ASF - it wasn't before we
started collecting ICLAs that we saw the problem (the contributor in
question simply never answered any attempt to reach out to him for
several months).
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>.
Le 4 juil. 2012 à 03:44, Dave Fisher a écrit :
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>>
>>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant
>>> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen.
>>
>> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should happen with the help of the Incubator.
>
> How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness to sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that the main purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the project's IP, not that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true that the IP is correct is there any reason for the Incubator not to transfer the EasyAnt project to the Ant PMC? Does that make sense?
I guess that would work.
I always wondered how to make the EasyAnt committers be able to be part of a PMC. I was thinking that they could become "trustworthy" while being in the incubator. But then it would be effectively awkward to promote them into the Ant PMC without it to be involved. So this is indeed a job for the Ant PMC.
> Note I used the term "transfer" to recognize a different situation or standard from "graduation to a TLP".
>
> Somehow the IPMC would need to certify the IP in the podling and then the target PMC would have to accept the podling.
>
> VOTEs:
>
> (1) PPMC - if it can.
We kind of already did that with the mentors. See project status about IP clearance [1].
> (2) Target PMC - to confirm that it wants the podling's IP.
The Ant PMC already voted that by sponsoring it I guess. But I am not sure we were all aware of the consequence: having a subproject with only one active PMC member (me), doing a release will need some involvement until some of the EasyAnt committers become part of the PMC.
I'll ping the PMC to confirm you're still ok with that.
> (3) IPMC - to confirm IP and transfer.
> (4) Board - do the bylaws require a fourth vote?
Let me know what would be needed at the IMPC level so the transfer can happen.
Nicolas
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/easyant.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:09 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>>>
>>>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant
>>>> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen.
>>>
>>> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should happen with the help of the Incubator.
>>
>> How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness to sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that the main purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the project's IP, not that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true that the IP is correct is there any reason for the Incubator not to transfer the EasyAnt project to the Ant PMC? Does that make sense?
>
> Dave,
>
> If this were true, I think that incubation was unnecessary and
> overkill. The Foundation has an IP clearance process available to
> existing TLP's that the IPMC helps with. If the ant project just
> wanted to cover the legal bases in absorbing a large outside code
> base, it could have used that.
>
> I should write that I'm a little perplexed here. Now that the
> Foundation frowns on 'umbrella projects', I'm a little uncertain as to
> the purpose of podlings sponsored by and/or intended for delivery to
> existing TLPs. If the podling is going to end up as a TLP, then the
> relationship to an existing TLP is moot. If it's going to just end up
> part of an existing TLP, then we don't need the whole incubation
> community-building process. The target TLP could run the code through
> IP clearance, check it into a sandbox, and grant commit access to the
> sandbox to the participants and then integrate the code and people as
> it sees fit.
>
> Other IPMC members, what am I missing here?
The process for IP Clearance for a PMC is here[1]
We are where we are.
Here are a few related questions:
(1) How should the Incubator support podling's sponsored by another PMC?
(2) Should the sponsoring PMC go through the IP clearance process[1] before the sponsored podling begins Incubation?
(3) How should the Incubation process work if the end of Incubation for a podling is transfer to an existing target PMC? The target PMC may not be the sponsoring PMC. The IPMC may be the sponsor.
Regards,
Dave
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>> Note I used the term "transfer" to recognize a different situation or standard from "graduation to a TLP".
>>
>> Somehow the IPMC would need to certify the IP in the podling and then the target PMC would have to accept the podling.
>>
>> VOTEs:
>>
>> (1) PPMC - if it can.
>> (2) Target PMC - to confirm that it wants the podling's IP.
>> (3) IPMC - to confirm IP and transfer.
>> (4) Board - do the bylaws require a fourth vote?
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>>
>>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant
>>> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen.
>>
>> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should happen with the help of the Incubator.
>
> How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness to sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that the main purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the project's IP, not that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true that the IP is correct is there any reason for the Incubator not to transfer the EasyAnt project to the Ant PMC? Does that make sense?
Dave,
If this were true, I think that incubation was unnecessary and
overkill. The Foundation has an IP clearance process available to
existing TLP's that the IPMC helps with. If the ant project just
wanted to cover the legal bases in absorbing a large outside code
base, it could have used that.
I should write that I'm a little perplexed here. Now that the
Foundation frowns on 'umbrella projects', I'm a little uncertain as to
the purpose of podlings sponsored by and/or intended for delivery to
existing TLPs. If the podling is going to end up as a TLP, then the
relationship to an existing TLP is moot. If it's going to just end up
part of an existing TLP, then we don't need the whole incubation
community-building process. The target TLP could run the code through
IP clearance, check it into a sandbox, and grant commit access to the
sandbox to the participants and then integrate the code and people as
it sees fit.
Other IPMC members, what am I missing here?
>
> Note I used the term "transfer" to recognize a different situation or standard from "graduation to a TLP".
>
> Somehow the IPMC would need to certify the IP in the podling and then the target PMC would have to accept the podling.
>
> VOTEs:
>
> (1) PPMC - if it can.
> (2) Target PMC - to confirm that it wants the podling's IP.
> (3) IPMC - to confirm IP and transfer.
> (4) Board - do the bylaws require a fourth vote?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Shepherd for EasyAnt
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>> <ni...@hibnet.org> wrote:
>>> The primary target for Easyant will be being a subproject of Ant.
>>
>> Is there something that the Incubator can do for EasyAnt that the Ant
>> PMC can't? If not, I don't see a need to wait for this to happen.
>
> I guess that the incubation process for EasyAnt was about training the people "attached" to the project so they learn how to build a proper ASF community, release, and check IP clearance. Since the Ant PMC doesn't contain enough active members so handle such project income, this should happen with the help of the Incubator.
How has the refactoring due to an expected contributor's unwillingness to sign an ICLA effected the project? This issue makes me think that the main purpose of going through the incubator was to inoculate the project's IP, not that there is anything wrong with that. If it is true that the IP is correct is there any reason for the Incubator not to transfer the EasyAnt project to the Ant PMC? Does that make sense?
Note I used the term "transfer" to recognize a different situation or standard from "graduation to a TLP".
Somehow the IPMC would need to certify the IP in the podling and then the target PMC would have to accept the podling.
VOTEs:
(1) PPMC - if it can.
(2) Target PMC - to confirm that it wants the podling's IP.
(3) IPMC - to confirm IP and transfer.
(4) Board - do the bylaws require a fourth vote?
Just a thought.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org