You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> on 2015/02/24 03:15:29 UTC
pTLP process amendments
Roman,
See comments below to
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional". I
also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the
"provisional" concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by
linking to page http://xxxx' where xxxx is another page on ComDev
explaining pTLP from the user's perspective.
After the two bullet points, the following text "At the same time those
folks are beholden to the project not an external entity (like IPMC). By
creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then a pTLP can groom new
PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the PMC. The
Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do whatever it
wants in that regard." sounds to me a bit harsh, and I would like to
suggest the following instead;
"The initial PMC should therefor, at least in theory, have a stronger base
for grooming new committers and PMC members, than the regular podling
graduate."
I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest
to change that to;
3.
7. "The first business for the initial PMC is to complete the pTLP
checklist of tasks, primarily in coordinating with infrastructure, end
ensure compliance with branding and legal policies. See http://xxxxx/"
8. "The pTLP day-to-day operation is identical to a regular TLP. It is
recommended that the PMC members are extra careful, to avoid confrontation
and seek consensus to the greatest extent possible, and to explicitly
explain all activities in greater detail to community members, as part of
the learning process."
Below is the beginning of tasks that should be listed, and I think a
separate page for this, order not totally thought through. These tasks
could exist as a set of one Jira tasks with a subtask for each, which can
be cloned for each new project.
Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project
* Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at
http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names
* Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP.
* Request Jira from INFRA
* Request Mailing lists from INFRA
* Add project to Reporting Schedule
* Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA
* Submission of ICLAs from existing committers.
* Submission of CCLAs from affected companies
* IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
* Filing of Software Grant, if applicable.
* Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable.
* Update Apache Navigation to include project
* Request User Accounts from INFRA
* Request CMS from INFRA
* Migrate existing documentation to Apache.
* Ensure "Provisional" markings are adhered to, and link to http://....
* Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list
* Migrate existing codebase to Apache
* Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
* Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file.
* Ensure compliance with Branding policy
* Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration.
There might more that I can't think of this morning.
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
> >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
> >> before that, collaboratively and in public.
> >
> > That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
> > list....
>
> Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
> preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
> podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
>
Fine. My primary point was: IPMC has *nothing* to do with the discussion.
That happens on a mailing list, and sure: general@i.a.o is just fine.
Maybe one day, it will be new-projects@apache.org.
But I want to reinforce what Ross noted: pTLP should not be conflated with
Incubator bits. It has no place, and that's why I'm being vocal right now.
You said, "the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation
resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC", and I believe that
is totally wrong.
Cheers,
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
>>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
>>> before that, collaboratively and in public.
>>
>> That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
>> list....
>
> Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
> preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
> podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
I'm putting all of this bits of feedback in a very formal policy document
modeled after the formal Incubator policy definition.
I am frustrated as hell, because a huge update I've just made seems
to have been wiped out by the Confluence outage.
I'll try again once it is back.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a
>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
>> before that, collaboratively and in public.
>
> That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
> list....
Not "a" mailing list, "this" mailing list. There's no reason for the
preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where
podlings are prepared, which is on this list.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
> >> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
> >> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling...
> >>
> > Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
>
> It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in
> the same way as podling proposals are.
>
> The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be
> created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review.
>
> Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks,
> recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. -
> this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some
> pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a
> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
> before that, collaboratively and in public.
That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing
list.
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
>> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
>> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling...
>>
> Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in
the same way as podling proposals are.
The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be
created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review.
Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks,
recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. -
this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some
pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a
formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens
before that, collaboratively and in public.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> <Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not....
>
> I think it is actually in between ;-)
>
> While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of
> the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.
>
Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself.
If a community says, "we'd like to be a pTLP", then why/how does the
Incubator PMC need to be involved in that?
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
<Ro...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not....
I think it is actually in between ;-)
While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of
the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP
creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they
are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: pTLP process amendments
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
+1
either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent different things.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Niclas Hedhman<ma...@hedhman.org>
Sent: 3/1/2015 6:38 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments
Marvin,
I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution
of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are
with the normal graduation resolution.
So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling
"disappears" and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence
just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates.
// Niclas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
> >> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
> >> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers
> ?
> >> >
> >> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically
> the
> >> > podlings that you might be referring to.
> >>
> >> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
> >
> > Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice.
> If
> > the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could
> do
> > about it :-P
>
> Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
> only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things
> would go
> something like this:
>
> 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
> 2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
> 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
>
> > Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> > of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm
> just
> > pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
>
> I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that
> most or
> all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC
> members
> for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at
> consensus
> in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
> that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
>
> Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment,
> even
> if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run
> under
> the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the
> way.
> The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
> the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
> friction.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
Marvin,
I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution
of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are
with the normal graduation resolution.
So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling
"disappears" and the pTLP is expected to clean up its Incubator presence
just like a podling is expected to do once it graduates.
// Niclas
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
> >> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
> >> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers
> ?
> >> >
> >> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically
> the
> >> > podlings that you might be referring to.
> >>
> >> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
> >
> > Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice.
> If
> > the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could
> do
> > about it :-P
>
> Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
> only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things
> would go
> something like this:
>
> 1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
> 2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
> 3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
>
> > Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> > of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm
> just
> > pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
>
> I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that
> most or
> all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC
> members
> for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at
> consensus
> in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
> that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
>
> Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment,
> even
> if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run
> under
> the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the
> way.
> The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
> the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
> friction.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
>> >> worth while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator
>> >> recently and has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
>> >
>> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
>> > podlings that you might be referring to.
>>
>> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
>
> Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If
> the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do
> about it :-P
Clearly the pTLP resolution is outside the Incubator's jurisdiction -- the
only question is how the podling gets closed down. Presumably things would go
something like this:
1. Podling community votes to endorse pTLP resolution.
2. Board passes pTLP resolution.
3. IPMC passes a pro forma vote to dissolve/retire/whatever the podling.
> Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
> of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just
> pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
I wouldn't expect the process to be contentious at all. Odds are that most or
all of the Mentors for such a podling will have signed up as seed PMC members
for the pTLP, and the podling community will already have arrived at consensus
in favor of the pTLP process. Under such circumstances, it's inconceivable
that the wider IPMC would stand in the way.
Many of us are grateful to those of you who are running this experiment, even
if we remain skeptical of the model. I'm happy that it's not being run under
the auspices of the Incubator and I'm generally trying to stay out of the way.
The only reason I commented was to reassure that this particular spot where
the pTLP experiment interfaces with the Incubator won't be a source of
friction.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be
> worth
> >> while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently
> and
> >> has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
> >
> > That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
> > podlings that you might be referring to.
>
> I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
>
Haha.... well, the reality is that the Incubator wouldn't have a choice. If
the Board passes a pTLP resolution, then there isn't much the IPMC could do
about it :-P
Now, I'm not suggesting the Board would be eager to just rip podlings out
of the Incubator with *some* modicum of discussion with the IPMC. I'm just
pedantically pointing out the reality of the situation... hehe...
Cheers,
-g
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth
>> while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and
>> has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
>
> That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
> podlings that you might be referring to.
I don't see why the Incubator wouldn't just let them go.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth
> while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and
> has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
That is a discussion for perhaps the Incubator, but more specifically the
podlings that you might be referring to.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> 3.7 --> That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to
> private@
>
> 3.8 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines.
>
> 3.9 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines.
>
> i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover these three points and can be
> removed.
>
>
> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth
while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and
has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ?
rgds
jan i
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Niclas!
> >
> > First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195
> > Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate
> > on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to
> > the level of details currently on Incubator pages.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > Roman,
> > >
> > > See comments below to
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional".
> > > I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the
> > > "provisional" concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance
> > by
> > > linking to page http://xxxx' where xxxx is another page on ComDev
> > > explaining pTLP from the user's perspective.
> >
> > Good catch. Done.
> >
> > > I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to
> > suggest
> > > to change that to;
> >
> > Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary?
> >
> > > Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project
> > >
> > > * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at
> > > http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names
> > > * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP.
> > > * Request Jira from INFRA
> > > * Request Mailing lists from INFRA
> > > * Add project to Reporting Schedule
> > > * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA
> > > * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers.
> > > * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies
> > > * IP Clearance as described on
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > > * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable.
> > > * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable.
> > > * Update Apache Navigation to include project
> > > * Request User Accounts from INFRA
> > > * Request CMS from INFRA
> > > * Migrate existing documentation to Apache.
> > > * Ensure "Provisional" markings are adhered to, and link to http://
> ....
> > > * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list
> > > * Migrate existing codebase to Apache
> > > * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > > * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE
> file.
> > > * Ensure compliance with Branding policy
> > > * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration.
> >
> > Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it
> > to the level
> > of details of the current Incubator process documentation.
> >
> > Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize
> > Incubator
> > as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
3.7 --> That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to
private@
3.8 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines.
3.9 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines.
i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover these three points and can be
removed.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> Hi Niclas!
>
> First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195
> Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate
> on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to
> the level of details currently on Incubator pages.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
> > Roman,
> >
> > See comments below to
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
> >
> >
> > 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional".
> > I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the
> > "provisional" concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance
> by
> > linking to page http://xxxx' where xxxx is another page on ComDev
> > explaining pTLP from the user's perspective.
>
> Good catch. Done.
>
> > I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to
> suggest
> > to change that to;
>
> Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary?
>
> > Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project
> >
> > * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names
> > * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP.
> > * Request Jira from INFRA
> > * Request Mailing lists from INFRA
> > * Add project to Reporting Schedule
> > * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA
> > * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers.
> > * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies
> > * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> > * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable.
> > * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable.
> > * Update Apache Navigation to include project
> > * Request User Accounts from INFRA
> > * Request CMS from INFRA
> > * Migrate existing documentation to Apache.
> > * Ensure "Provisional" markings are adhered to, and link to http://....
> > * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list
> > * Migrate existing codebase to Apache
> > * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file.
> > * Ensure compliance with Branding policy
> > * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration.
>
> Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it
> to the level
> of details of the current Incubator process documentation.
>
> Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize
> Incubator
> as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Hi Niclas!
First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195
Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate
on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to
the level of details currently on Incubator pages.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Roman,
>
> See comments below to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
>
>
> 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional".
> I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the
> "provisional" concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by
> linking to page http://xxxx' where xxxx is another page on ComDev
> explaining pTLP from the user's perspective.
Good catch. Done.
> I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest
> to change that to;
Could you elaborate on why do you think it is not necessary?
> Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project
>
> * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at
> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names
> * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP.
> * Request Jira from INFRA
> * Request Mailing lists from INFRA
> * Add project to Reporting Schedule
> * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA
> * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers.
> * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies
> * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable.
> * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable.
> * Update Apache Navigation to include project
> * Request User Accounts from INFRA
> * Request CMS from INFRA
> * Migrate existing documentation to Apache.
> * Ensure "Provisional" markings are adhered to, and link to http://....
> * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list
> * Migrate existing codebase to Apache
> * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file.
> * Ensure compliance with Branding policy
> * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration.
Great list! Added it to the dedicated section and plan to massage it
to the level
of details of the current Incubator process documentation.
Honestly, I think if that level is enough for the board to recognize Incubator
as legit it should be enough to recognize a pTLP.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas!
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Roman,
>
> See comments below to
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP
>
>
> 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional". I
> also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the
> "provisional" concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by
> linking to page http://xxxx' where xxxx is another page on ComDev
> explaining pTLP from the user's perspective.
>
> After the two bullet points, the following text "At the same time those
> folks are beholden to the project not an external entity (like IPMC). By
> creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then a pTLP can groom new
> PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the PMC. The
> Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do whatever it
> wants in that regard." sounds to me a bit harsh, and I would like to
> suggest the following instead;
> "The initial PMC should therefor, at least in theory, have a stronger base
> for grooming new committers and PMC members, than the regular podling
> graduate."
>
>
> I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest
> to change that to;
>
> 3.
> 7. "The first business for the initial PMC is to complete the pTLP
> checklist of tasks, primarily in coordinating with infrastructure, end
> ensure compliance with branding and legal policies. See http://xxxxx/"
> 8. "The pTLP day-to-day operation is identical to a regular TLP. It is
> recommended that the PMC members are extra careful, to avoid confrontation
> and seek consensus to the greatest extent possible, and to explicitly
> explain all activities in greater detail to community members, as part of
> the learning process."
>
>
> Below is the beginning of tasks that should be listed, and I think a
> separate page for this, order not totally thought through. These tasks
> could exist as a set of one Jira tasks with a subtask for each, which can
> be cloned for each new project.
>
> Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project
>
> * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at
> http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names
> * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP.
> * Request Jira from INFRA
> * Request Mailing lists from INFRA
> * Add project to Reporting Schedule
> * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA
> * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers.
> * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies
> * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable.
> * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable.
> * Update Apache Navigation to include project
> * Request User Accounts from INFRA
> * Request CMS from INFRA
> * Migrate existing documentation to Apache.
> * Ensure "Provisional" markings are adhered to, and link to http://....
> * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list
> * Migrate existing codebase to Apache
> * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file.
> * Ensure compliance with Branding policy
> * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration.
>
> There might more that I can't think of this morning.
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>