You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com> on 2006/09/29 11:06:30 UTC
Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator project
and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and myself to
the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names were
included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on Redhat
related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
possibilities with Celtixfire.
At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail. However,
due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't turned up
and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of September, the ICLAs
were acknowledged and we were told our commiter status was in the
works. However, despite several follow up emails, commiter status was
not given and no answer for the delay provided.
Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal procedure?
Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We believed
that, as supporters of the submission, we had already gone through
the process of arguing who should, or should not, be an initial
commiter, so to be presented with a different result (and one which
appears to have been conducted behind closed doors) is frustrating.
Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project was
discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of the
group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of
adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial
commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis
where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial
commiters typical?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
Redhat).
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Out of curiosity - has any such "internal decision" been made? I can
not find anything in either of the archives - private or dev.
Cheers,
Berin
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
> with the list.
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
>> the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
>> explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list
>> so far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand
>> from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with
>> the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I
>> feel that if they make such an important decision as this they should
>> at least communicate the above.
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
>>> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
>>> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
>>> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
>>> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
>>> increasing the community.
>>>
>>> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
>>> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
>>> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
>>> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>>>
>>> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
>>> have been going on, let me also state that it is
>>> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
>>> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
>>> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
>>> and any leaking of that information is considered
>>> a VERY bad thing to do.
>>>
>>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>>
>>>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>>>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>>>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our
>>>> names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working
>>>> on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential
>>>> collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>>>
>>>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were
>>>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-
>>>> mail. However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they
>>>> hadn't turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
>>>> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
>>>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
>>>> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
>>>> delay provided.
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
>>>> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
>>>> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal
>>>> procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
>>>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we
>>>> had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or
>>>> should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a
>>>> different result (and one which appears to have been conducted
>>>> behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
>>>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation
>>>> of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no
>>>> intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as
>>>> initial commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On
>>>> what basis where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of
>>>> initial commiters typical?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Mark.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>>>> Redhat).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Diephouse
>> (616) 971-2053
>> Envoi Solutions LLC
>> http://netzooid.com
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
> from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can
> you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on
> the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final
> decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's
> email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up
> for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important
> decision as this they should at least communicate the above.
>
> - Dan
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
>> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
>> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
>> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
>> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
>> increasing the community.
>>
>> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
>> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
>> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
>> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>>
>> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
>> have been going on, let me also state that it is
>> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
>> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
>> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
>> and any leaking of that information is considered
>> a VERY bad thing to do.
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>
>>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our
>>> names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are
>>> working on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential
>>> collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>>
>>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were
>>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-
>>> mail. However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they
>>> hadn't turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start
>>> of September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
>>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several
>>> follow up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer
>>> for the delay provided.
>>>
>>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision
>>> to limit the number of commiters and not take into account the
>>> listed individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this
>>> normal procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
>>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission,
>>> we had already gone through the process of arguing who should,
>>> or should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with
>>> a different result (and one which appears to have been
>>> conducted behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>>>
>>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the
>>> project was discussed with the project submitters prior to the
>>> formation of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was
>>> no intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know
>>> about) as initial commiters, why did the project submitter
>>> include us? On what basis where these accounts not set up? Is
>>> random denial of initial commiters typical?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>>> Redhat).
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> (616) 971-2053
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> http://netzooid.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> > you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
> > voting in all of the existing and active wicket committers. Seems like
a
> > reasonable criteria.
> The implicit criteria I'm interpreting from this thread is that it would
be
> forbidden: only activity within the podling (while it is here) would be
> considered as to whether someone should be granted committership or PMC
> status.
I don't see anyone on the Incubator PMC advocating that position. I don't
see why that would generally be a desirable or recommended criteria for
Incubator projects.
> IMHO, mentors should be encouraged to cast the net as wide as possible.
Sure.
> podlings that do not permit active contributors being on the PPMC
> should be dealt with accordingly
Separate issue, but otherwise agreed.
So what's the problem?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
> voting in all of the existing and active wicket committers. Seems like a
> reasonable criteria.
The implicit criteria I'm interpreting from this thread is that it would be
forbidden: only activity within the podling (while it is here) would be
considered as to whether someone should be granted committership or PMC
status. This is certainly how I read what Dan and others are advocating.
IMHO, mentors should be encouraged to cast the net as wide as possible. In
fact, podlings that do not permit active contributors being on the PPMC
should be dealt with accordingly (i.e. swift application of cluebats). --
justin
Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Where in:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> > you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
> > voting in all of the existing and active wicket committers. Seems like
a
> > reasonable criteria.
> The problem is that this is not explicitly clear from the policy. All
> the policy states, and the feeling people get from reading this list
> is that 'Worthiness' needs to be proven before anyone can be part of
> the project.
Ah, the line between law and jurisprudence. To be specific:
jurisprudence, n: the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and
the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do
The process says:
- The PPMC elects Committers
which is a simple statement of process, but you're tacitly assuming
criteria.
> This is what kept me and a lot of our committers away from
> entering the incubator. The policy doesn't instigate a
> feeling of trust with regards to the current members of
> pre-podling projects.
Would it help if the process document illustrated the process and had FAQs?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: RE: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Where in:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
> voting in all of the existing and active wicket committers. Seems like a
> reasonable criteria.
The problem is that this is not explicitly clear from the policy. All
the policy states, and the feeling people get from reading this list
is that 'Worthiness' needs to be proven before anyone can be part of
the project. This is what kept me and a lot of our committers away
from entering the incubator.
The policy doesn't instigate a feeling of trust with regards to the
current members of pre-podling projects.
Martijn
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> > proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
> > proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
>
>
> This works for some proposals but not for others. Take Wicket for example:
> we would require all of the people who already had commit access to Wicket
> re-prove themselves? That's incredibly dismissive of their past
> contributions.
delegation to the PPMC means that the Mentors have it within their
power to solve this one themselves. IMHO it would be right (in the
case of a project like Wicket) for the Mentors to elect all those who
had commit access already as committers right away. i would also see
nothing wrong in moving quickly to drafting all existing Wicket
committers onto the PPMC.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> > proposal.
> This works for some proposals but not for others. Take Wicket for
example:
> we would require all of the people who already had commit access to Wicket
> re-prove themselves?
Where in:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting in all of the existing and active wicket committers. Seems like a
reasonable criteria.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
> proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
This works for some proposals but not for others. Take Wicket for example:
we would require all of the people who already had commit access to Wicket
re-prove themselves? That's incredibly dismissive of their past
contributions. -- justin
RE: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Mads Toftum wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > > - The PPMC elects Committers
> > +1 a step in the right direction.
> +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
> proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
Agreed. The list of initial committers can be morphed to a list of people
interested in being committers of the new project.
Else, if we really do want to say that when the Incubator PMC votes to
accept a project that it is accepting the list of initial committers, then
we would have to defer voting on the project until after the PMC decided on
each comitter, which means voting on the individuals before we vote on the
project.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > > - The PPMC elects Committers
> > >
> > +1 a step in the right direction.
+1
> +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
> proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
+1
(note that this is definitely a process change so we'll need to draw
up a patch for the process document and vote on that)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> >
> +1 a step in the right direction.
+1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
My suggestion is that we would have a wiki page on which interested
committers list themselves and it would be up to the mentors to get
them onto the project, by investigating the merit they've shown in
previous incarnations of the project and the subsequent merit they
show.
It could be the same wiki page as the proposal is drafted on, provided
there's a nice separation.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
+1 a step in the right direction.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me on the process. FWIW, that's what we followed in Harmony
and then ODE.
FWIW, As a mentor for a specific project, I'd like to see some
activity (patches/bugs) from a proposed committer. Not just say a
couple of one line emails before i vote them in as a committer.
thanks,
dims
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective.
>
> > the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as
> > part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide
> > oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of
> > reference without a binding decision.
>
> The Incubator PMC, as a general rule, is probably not in the best position
> to determine whom should be on the Committers list initially, and we
> certainly have rarely if ever taken the time in most cases to review each
> one.
>
> That's part of the problem. Sometimes there is piling on, and sometimes
> there are good reasons for including someone. I heard both sides of that
> from the same people involved in CeltiXFire (as in "THOSE people are piling
> on, but THESE people we want", and we've certainly heard it from other
> projects.
>
> This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in a defined
> manner:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This is simple and human driven, delegating decisions in the normal ASF
> manner. And so long as we meet the standard criteria (at least 3 +1 from
> Incubator PMC members -- again, this is why each project SHOULD have at
> least 3 Mentors -- and proper notice to the PMC throughout the voting
> process), it should work well.
>
> > i would expect any decision made about varying the initial comitters
> > list to appear in the private list of the podling together with at
> > least 3 +1's binding on apache (from incubator PMC members). i've
> > searched the lists and cannot find such a VOTE nor even any
> > discussion.
>
> As above. :-)
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 30 Sep 06, at 10:09 AM 30 Sep 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
>>> from
>>> the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
>>> explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev
>>> list so
>>> far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third
>>> hand from
>>> this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the
>>> PMC's
>>> authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel
>>> that if
>>> they make such an important decision as this they should at least
>>> communicate the above.
>>
>> setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process
>> perspective.
>>
>
> I will again defer to Jason van Zyl who was the prime
> focus of all this. Unless Jason responds by Monday, I
> will email a synopsis from my PoV. I will state however
> that from the get-go, I said:
I just got back from being on the road and wanted to be around and
prepared for the ensuing discussion. There will certainly be some
debate and I didn't want to throw the issue out and then not being
around to follow the discussion.
>
> I would be somewhat hesitant about doing this via
> a con-call. Certainly we can request a cxf-private
> list that contains the mentors and the PPMC
> members (see #2). The reason is simple: such
> policy discussions should be archived, since they
> affect the project and its future.
>
> One key question was "who is the PPMC". My interpretation
> is that the initial PPMC consists of the Mentors and
> the initial group of committers noted and agreed to
> in the proposal. Some had issues with that and said
> that the initial list of committers was "stacked".
Generally, I think there are problems with a number of proposals that
have gone in recently in that they deviate heavily from existing
notions of meritocracy. What's important is that going forward is
that the process is clear as I made assumptions based on how
existing, non-incubating, projects work and there seems to be a
discrepancy between how I feel projects should be initiated according
to Apache history and what some projects are doing or did.
At any rate the discussion was between the mentors so effectively the
PPMC for CeltiXFire. The thread was initiated off list but everyone
agreed to bring it on list and the onus is on me to put the message
forward because I think there are problems. I will fully disclose
everything and summarize to the list by Monday now that I'm back home.
Jason.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
>> the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
>> explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev
>> list so
>> far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand
>> from
>> this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the
>> PMC's
>> authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if
>> they make such an important decision as this they should at least
>> communicate the above.
>
> setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process
> perspective.
>
I will again defer to Jason van Zyl who was the prime
focus of all this. Unless Jason responds by Monday, I
will email a synopsis from my PoV. I will state however
that from the get-go, I said:
I would be somewhat hesitant about doing this via
a con-call. Certainly we can request a cxf-private
list that contains the mentors and the PPMC
members (see #2). The reason is simple: such
policy discussions should be archived, since they
affect the project and its future.
One key question was "who is the PPMC". My interpretation
is that the initial PPMC consists of the Mentors and
the initial group of committers noted and agreed to
in the proposal. Some had issues with that and said
that the initial list of committers was "stacked".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 10/2/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> >
> > This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
> > a defined
> > manner:
> >
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> >
> > This is simple and human driven, delegating decisions in the normal
> > ASF
> > manner.
>
> I don't like that. I don't like that fact that from
> the start, those who are approved as initial committers
> aren't on the PPMC. If that means we need to trim the
> size of the initial pool of committers in the proposal,
> then I'm all for that. But restricting initial PPMC membership
> just to Mentors when those people who are the initial
> committers have (one hopes) already the long association
> with the code and the community aren't included in
> just seems wrong, and getting the podling off to
> the wrong start.
+1
For example, in an existing project like Wicket seeing who is
proposed to be the initial committers is very relevant - especially if
there were key members of that community that didn't want to be part
of the project after moving to the ASF. Since individuals/community is
of prime importance to the ASF, not including a list of initial
committers in this example would IMO be bizarre.
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I don't like that. I don't like that fact that from
> the start, those who are approved as initial committers
> aren't on the PPMC.
Fact, or would-be fact according to the proposal?
> If that means we need to trim the
> size of the initial pool of committers in the proposal,
> then I'm all for that. But restricting initial PPMC membership
> just to Mentors when those people who are the initial
> committers have (one hopes) already the long association
> with the code and the community aren't included in
> just seems wrong, and getting the podling off to
> the wrong start.
+1. It sounds to me like a case of 'whoops, we
let this slip by; we didn't look at that portion of
the proposal as closely as we should have, so let's
rectify that now.' (No insult intended to anyone.)
Short-term solution? Live by the unwritten social
contract: that the 'initial committers' in the accepted
proposal *are* the initial committers for the podling.
Long-term solution? Pay more attention to that part of the
proposal in the future.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSQyXJrNPMCpn3XdAQLS2QQAj7cdiPcTF6dT9fRi9ugIT8Ecma93wJWA
y5Vc27RqKxLOw2yNUPAb2+UDjX1eqci2WSeURe7pZZooBTd+DsUtGftaI8nMbh6b
59u4NLdh4XVHcxwS37vrZ8oyxKBAs2Ba789IhVqne70rZj2yz2ENRYqx+DrPloE9
RQdRXYEqHrA=
=BduE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
> a defined
> manner:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This is simple and human driven, delegating decisions in the normal
> ASF
> manner.
I don't like that. I don't like that fact that from
the start, those who are approved as initial committers
aren't on the PPMC. If that means we need to trim the
size of the initial pool of committers in the proposal,
then I'm all for that. But restricting initial PPMC membership
just to Mentors when those people who are the initial
committers have (one hopes) already the long association
with the code and the community aren't included in
just seems wrong, and getting the podling off to
the wrong start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 1 Oct 06, at 1:05 PM 1 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
+1
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
>> waiting for
>> an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
>> where the
>> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
>> believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
>> contributed to.
>
> That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
> project they
> have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
> contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
> communication on the
> dev list, etc...). That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
> in-appropriate to give them commit access. There name was on the
> initial
> proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions.
> Those
> individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the
> proposal,
> that is enough to get the commit rights.
I think you need to check your facts. We were on the initial
contributor list and have been involved in some email discussions
since the podling started, but since we were not given committer
status as expected, we waited for Jason and others to do their jobs
as they indicated in the very first emails. Kind of putting the cart
before the horse any other way, as far as I can see!
>
> Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial
> commiters should
> actually be those who contribute/commit stuff. Those who don't
> meet that
> barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have
> commit
> rights?
Absolutely none of this was communicated to us or anyone else on the
CXF mailing list AFAIK. If there has been statements like: "we're
waiting to see what/if you contribute" much earlier then we may have
been able to take some appropriate action. There were not. Now unless
you think only psychic people should be allowed into Apache projects,
maybe "we" need to be a little more open and logical about the
process! We were admitted onto the submitters list for a reason, and
argued the case at that point. Any objections should have been raised
there and then, or the list pruned later by constructive and open
debate. Not behind closed doors but a select few.
Mark.
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
>> project they
>> have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
>> contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
>> communication on the
>> dev list, etc...). That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
>> in-appropriate to give them commit access. There name was on the
>> initial
>> proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions.
>> Those
>> individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the
>> proposal,
>> that is enough to get the commit rights.
>>
>> Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial
>> commiters should
>> actually be those who contribute/commit stuff. Those who don't
>> meet that
>> barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have
>> commit
>> rights?
>>
>
I should also state that the intent was to *quickly*
create the PPMC, using the "current" list of committers
as the list (those with CXF commit privs) at which point
the PPMC would then start adding regular committers as
required and expected...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Justin,
>
> On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
>> waiting for
>> an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
>> where the
>> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
>> believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
>> contributed to.
>
> That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
> project they
> have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
> contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
> communication on the
> dev list, etc...). That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
> in-appropriate to give them commit access. There name was on the
> initial
> proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions.
> Those
> individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the
> proposal,
> that is enough to get the commit rights.
>
> Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial
> commiters should
> actually be those who contribute/commit stuff. Those who don't
> meet that
> barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have
> commit
> rights?
>
We should also set some sense of scale here... IIRC, we
are talking about ~3 people, out of ~20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting for
> an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
> believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
> contributed to.
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no communication on the
dev list, etc...). That is why the CXF mentors decided it was
in-appropriate to give them commit access. There name was on the initial
proposal, but after two months, there was still no contributions. Those
individuals are basically stating that since there name was on the proposal,
that is enough to get the commit rights.
Basically, Jason and the other mentors thought the initial commiters should
actually be those who contribute/commit stuff. Those who don't meet that
barrier haven't earned the commit rights, so why should they have commit
rights?
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
daniel.kulp@iona.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
>> then
>> stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
>> manner
>> you find offensive.
>>
>> Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further
>> access"?
>
>
>
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting
> for an
> explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
> Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
> believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they
> contributed
> to.
>
> So, I don't believe this situation isn't a hypothetical at all. --
> justin
>
It seems to me that this is the reverse actually - committers were
approved, and then the PMC revoked their rights. However, this is just
inference on my part so far.
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
> the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and
people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with
the mentors.
If I propose a project, it's my proposal. If I have two coproposers, it's
our proposal. The moment it's -accepted- it's no longer (our) project,
but the ASF's.
While it's in the proposal stage, only the submittor(s) should be changing
anything, and that includes initial participants. And that -should- include
every individual who's contributed to any incoming code.
Friendly amendments are always welcome, that includes initial participants,
and we've found that most projects are amiable to them.
But from the time it launches anyone earns merit; anyone can be considered
based on their contributions. Mentors are there to ensure the process is
equitable.
Are we trying to avoid 'hurt feelings'? Earn merit, or submit a competing
project to the incubator. Don't stamp your name on another's proposal for
'free' commit access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
> > then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in
> > a manner you find offensive.
> >
> > Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further
> > access"?
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire.
What we saw with CeltiXFire was a piling on of a lot of people who wanted to
be on the initial contributors list --- voted in by virtue of having
self-signed up --- and whom had never contributed anything to the project.
We've seen two problems repeatedly:
-- ASF Committers wanting to join, and feeling excluded
so people started joining on the Initial Committers list, leading to:
-- piling on of people who want to be elected by virtue of
having been on the list when the project is voted.
Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
the project is the best solution to both.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
> then
> stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a
> manner
> you find offensive.
>
> Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further
> access"?
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting for an
explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place where the
Incubator PMC could provide any oversight), but the aggrieved parties
believe they have been barred access to a project they felt they contributed
to.
So, I don't believe this situation isn't a hypothetical at all. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:01:31PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Yes, we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on the
> verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> communities (like Wicket) where people have earned their access elsewhere,
> we are saying that we do not respect that as we will let the mentors by fiat
> decide who is worthy or not.
Oh, this is something slightly different - you're talking of a project
where development was done in the open and it is easy to figure out who
contributed before. In that case, I think that the ppmc should pretty
much automatically accept anyone who has been committers before if they
_personally_ ask for it.
This just isn't as clear when something comes out of a company ... it
has shown itself as a bit too easy to be "creative" in those cases - and
that's what I support putting a stop to.
>
> I don't care much about the sidestepping of meritocracy: the community will
> not be able to graduate until they are diverse - hence the problem is
> self-correcting. If they can't gather a diverse collection of people, then
> no dice.
>
You're putting an awful lot of trust in that final review - it has
slipped before and it will slip more often in the future.
I'm sorry, but I just don't share your plans for world domination^W
carefree attitude towards letting all sorts of potential nightmares into
the incubator.
There's always talk about one company or the other controlling the ASF -
and with people getting paid to mentor, people putting their names on a
project as mentors without even bothering to vote for it and with
companies dumping code and a very large number of "committers" on us,
who's to blame people for speculating like that?
> I am concerned that we may permit PPMCs who view it as their right to refuse
> access to people who have actively contributed in the past and want to
> continue contributing because they don't like them personally or their
> employer or feel that they are not leadership material. Those aren't
> grounds for barring access. -- justin
No more or no less than it would be in a non-incubating project. If you
see any hints of that, that should be fixed by hitting the mentor with a
very large cluestick, not by leaving the doors open for everyone else to
abuse as they see fit.
just my $.02
</flame>
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on
> the verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> communities (like Wicket) where people have earned their access elsewhere,
> we are saying that we do not respect that as we will let the mentors by
fiat
> decide who is worthy or not.
That is simply not factual, and is a fabrication you are making, as well as
a very few others, and one that should be addressed.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the policy, which is entirely limited to
process, that describes the policy driving the process. I agree with you,
as do most, that active committers in the external community should be made
committers as part of the first order of business for the PPMC.
> I am concerned that we may permit PPMCs who view it as their right to
refuse
> access to people who have actively contributed in the past and want to
> continue contributing because they don't like them personally or their
> employer or feel that they are not leadership material. Those aren't
> grounds for barring access.
And just whom do you think would make those decisions, and let them stand?
Remember: the ONLY BINDING VOTES BELONG TO THE INCUBATOR PMC. The Mentors
are PMC members, and therefore their votes are binding. Do you think so
little of the Mentors? Or of the rest of the Incubator PMC, that we should
let such inappropriate behavior stand, even were a Mentor or two to act
inappropriately?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
>
> > If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
>
> So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxxxxxx? or are
> you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
> stacking their employees in to "own" a project?
> I for one find it quite worrying that it is entirely possible to list
> something like 10 or 15 of your employees on a proposal and sidestep the
> whole meritocracy issue.
Yes, we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on the
verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
communities (like Wicket) where people have earned their access elsewhere,
we are saying that we do not respect that as we will let the mentors by fiat
decide who is worthy or not.
I don't care much about the sidestepping of meritocracy: the community will
not be able to graduate until they are diverse - hence the problem is
self-correcting. If they can't gather a diverse collection of people, then
no dice.
I am concerned that we may permit PPMCs who view it as their right to refuse
access to people who have actively contributed in the past and want to
continue contributing because they don't like them personally or their
employer or feel that they are not leadership material. Those aren't
grounds for barring access. -- justin
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> I agree with Roy's approach -- let the podling deal with the
> committer issue during incubation.
Uh ... everyone is saying that we should let the podling deal with the
Committer issue during Incubation. We're only dickering over how. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
> committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
> coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
> earned) merit. It seems to me that this could change the fundamental nature
> of the ASF.
This has also been one of my concerns. But then it's only an issue if
individuals on the proposal have not earned the necessary merit in the
original project. I sense some of us suspect this to be the case.
However, I agree with Roy's approach -- let the podling deal with the
committer issue during incubation.
--
jaaron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Isn't there a rule that the community should be diverse, i.e. not
dependent on one company? How doesn't this affect the proposal's
initial list of committers/ppmc members?
Martijn
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation,
> > we
> > > would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
> > > access: that is completely unfair.
> > >
> > > If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
> >
> > So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxxxxxx? or are
> > you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
> > stacking their employees in to "own" a project?
> > I for one find it quite worrying that it is entirely possible to list
> > something like 10 or 15 of your employees on a proposal and sidestep the
> > whole meritocracy issue.
>
>
> I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
> committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
> coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
> earned) merit. It seems to me that this could change the fundamental nature
> of the ASF.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> vh
> >
> > Mads Toftum
> > --
> > http://soulfood.dk
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation,
> we
> > would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
> > access: that is completely unfair.
> >
> > If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
>
> So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxxxxxx? or are
> you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
> stacking their employees in to "own" a project?
> I for one find it quite worrying that it is entirely possible to list
> something like 10 or 15 of your employees on a proposal and sidestep the
> whole meritocracy issue.
I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
earned) merit. It seems to me that this could change the fundamental nature
of the ASF.
--
Martin Cooper
vh
>
> Mads Toftum
> --
> http://soulfood.dk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:32:44AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
> would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
> access: that is completely unfair.
>
> If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
So are you suggesting we boot out a project like xxxxxxx? or are
you happy with incubator projects being fully open for companies
stacking their employees in to "own" a project?
I for one find it quite worrying that it is entirely possible to list
something like 10 or 15 of your employees on a proposal and sidestep the
whole meritocracy issue.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>> Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
>> barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the
>> ASF. Robert and I have independently expressed our views that this
>> won't do so.
>
> -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
> would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
> access: that is completely unfair.
I entirely agree With Justin's perspective. Any stakeholder of incoming,
existing code/docs etc, or any contributor at inception or during incubation
should become (if they desire) 1. a committer, and 2. a stakeholder in the
PPMC, which is generally morphed 1:1 into the PMC at graduation.
If this discourages forks at the ASF, then politically that's exactly where
the ASF should stand on forks.
> If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
Exactly, ++1. This is why an initial list of committers, and initial
code deposit must be precisely defined at the time of considering the
proposal for incubation.
One problem is that we have a list of initial participants in the initial
incubation vote that passed, and I'm totally unclear how anyone believes
those aren't the participants that the Incubator PMC voted to compose the
submitted project. A participant who has neither PPMC nor Commit access
is a non-participant.
There are two solutions; 1. don't submit a list of participants beyond
the initial PPMC list, or perhaps 2. always add a category of interested
individuals, so we approve a PPMC, initial committers, and others interested.
Initial committers should correspond to incoming code and collaborators
by mutual agreement. Additional committers can evolve by contributions
during incubation.
Perhaps the policy failing here is that only the initial PPMC/incubation
submission author is the only one who should be modifying the list of
initial participants.
But if this PMC voted on a list of initial participants, Noel, I'm confused
why the PMC's directive would be ignored.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> -1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
> would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
> access: that is completely unfair.
I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and then
stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in a manner
you find offensive.
Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contributed it further access"?
> If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code.
So every Committer on every outside project must be accepted as an ASF
Commiter without any consideration whatsoever? Just how polar do you want
to cast the issue?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review and vote
> on comitters.
>
> So far, as responses we have:
>
> +1:
> Noel J. Bergman
> Mads Toftum
> Henri Yandell
> Davanum Srinivas
> Jason Van Zyl
> Robert Burrell Donkin
>
> Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
> barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the
> ASF. Robert
> and I have independently expressed our views that this won't do so.
-1. I think your response is extremely misguided. In this situation, we
would accept code without allowing the people who contributed it further
access: that is completely unfair.
If we do not accept the people, we don't accept the code. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review and vote
> on comitters.
>
> So far, as responses we have:
>
> +1:
> Noel J. Bergman
> Mads Toftum
> Henri Yandell
> Davanum Srinivas
> Jason Van Zyl
> Robert Burrell Donkin
-1 from me.
I agree with what Justin and Jim said and I don't see how having just
the mentors decide improves scrutiny over having them in the proposal
and giving the whole Incubator PMC the opportunity to express an
opnion.
If a proposal comes with a long list of proposed committers or people
"piling on" - then its more likely to cause objections if its been
scrutinized by a wider audience than omitting the information from the
proposal and leaving it to the mentors to sort out.
Niall
> Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
> barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the ASF. Robert
> and I have independently expressed our views that this won't do so.
>
> Since we've discussed almost this exact proposal in the past, I'll try to
> get some time Monday or Tuesday to dig up any past objections, unless
> someone beats me to it.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> I would say this is part of a direction where more authority is
> delegated from PMC to mentors.
Yes, but not nearly the same as the Board delegating to the PMC. The
Mentors are merely PMC members who are actively involved in that community.
> *) who constitute mentors for a project is not always properly
> accounted during the life of the project.
To a specific extent, who cares, other than to maintain oversight? For
this, we're talking about voting, and very PMC member has an equal vote on
every single project within the Incubator.
> *) this makes it more important that mentors have some amount of
> experience at the incubator (instead of "just" being valued ASF
> members).
I don't vote for ASF Membership unless I believe that the person would be an
asset to the Incubator. I can't speak for anyone else. Feel free to start
naming ASF Members whom you don't think would be good Mentors. Bring
asbestos longjohns. ;-) Not that I disagree with you on the potential, but
that they are ASF Members, and we really should have multiple Mentors to at
least hedge against your concern.
> *) in the case of existing projects coming in, "elects additional
> PPMC members" really does feel wrong as a sentence. Even if its quite
> possible for the mentors to elect the PPMC immediately, it doesn't
> convey the right feeling.
Why not? What is the psychological response that you have to the mechanism?
> I like the direction, but I don't like the wording, and I would like
> to see just a little more detail to make things less ambiguous.
Please feel free to elaborate on improvements. For one, it seems that
people would like to have a lot more policy statement (and examples)
accompany the process, illustrating how we would and would not want the
process practiced.
> I don't like how you call a vote a few hours after someone expresses
> a concern. I share Justin's (and Martijn's) concern and I don't think
> you fully addressed it at all.
I didn't call a vote; I made note of what already existed. So many people
had *already* posted votes that I just wanted to gather them. You'll note
that I also started a concurrent thread for discussion. And I'm hardly in a
rush to count votes. As I said, I was even planning to go back into the
archives to look for other objections, not just Justin's, although from the
looks of it, others have taken care of that.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Hmpf.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
I would say this is part of a direction where more authority is
delegated from PMC to mentors. Some observations
*) who constitute mentors for a project is not always properly
accounted during the life of the project.
*) this makes it more important that mentors have some amount of
experience at the incubator (instead of "just" being valued ASF
members).
*) in the case of existing projects coming in, "elects additional
PPMC members" really does feel wrong as a sentence. Even if its quite
possible for the mentors to elect the PPMC immediately, it doesn't
convey the right feeling.
I like the direction, but I don't like the wording, and I would like
to see just a little more detail to make things less ambiguous. In
terms of a vote, that would normally be a -1, but since I assume (uh
oh) that'll happen anyway before this is actually turned into website
documentation, count me a sceptical -0.
> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review
> and vote
> on comitters.
>
> So far, as responses we have:
>
> +1:
> Noel J. Bergman
> Mads Toftum
> Henri Yandell
> Davanum Srinivas
> Jason Van Zyl
> Robert Burrell Donkin
>
> Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
> barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the
> ASF. Robert
> and I have independently expressed our views that this won't do so.
>
> Since we've discussed almost this exact proposal in the past, I'll
> try to
> get some time Monday or Tuesday to dig up any past objections, unless
> someone beats me to it.
I don't like how you call a vote a few hours after someone expresses
a concern. I share Justin's (and Martijn's) concern and I don't think
you fully addressed it at all.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
> mentors are *not* the community of the podling.
Of course not. They are there to provide guidance *AND* the necessary
official PMC oversight (AND VOTES) required for ASF decisions.
> Anything that has the mentors alone making decisions - even
> initially - as to who is in and out is (to me) arbitrarily
> beuracractic.
Which is why we need to make sure that the first order of business is
getting the community players onto the PPMC, and providing community input.
Now, if you want to amend the plan to do that as part of the project vote,
fine. Hopefully, we can at least identify those people, and from them the
rest.
> Alternatively, give the full community - as defined in the proposal
That's the problem. We don't have a community there. We have a
free-for-all sign up process --- in at least some places, you'll even find
someone documenting a period of time within which any ASF Committer can
signup for any podling and automatically be granted Committer status --- and
I've taken numerous complaints from all sides about the free-for-all,
regardless of the origin of the people signing up (or being signed up, in
the case of some employers stuffing their employees onto an attractive
project). But, once again, we're talking about nothing more than a
bootstrap process to get exactly where you want to be.
To be blunt, a major goal of this bootstrap is to help manage the Initial
Committer List FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INCOMING COMMUNITY.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
>>community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
>>allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
>>don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
>>create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that
>>decision for them.
>
>
> That accusation is false, misleading and insulting. The Mentors are people
> who both the PMC and incoming community have generally agreed will mentor
> the project. Not some "arbitrary bureaucratic beast", a comment that I
> consider demeaning to the ASF as a whole, by the way, since the PMC is
> fundamental to ASF process.
And I consider it insulting to have my paragraph quoted back without
putting in the line that qualified what I meant.
"Before anyone jumps down my throat - I like the PPMC, but it should
represent the community, not (within reason) enforce a style on the
community.)"
If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
mentors are *not* the community of the podling. Anything that has the
mentors alone making decisions - even initially - as to who is in and
out is (to me) arbitrarily beuracractic. Alternatively, give the full
community - as defined in the proposal - of the podling control (through
the PPMC vehicle) and I think it is goodness.
A good PMC represents the community of the project. A bad one dictates
to the community. Surely the same is true of the PPMC?
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Berin Lautenback wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
> > project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
> > in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
> > with the results.
> +1. Reading through this thread it reads like we want to have our cake
> and eat it to.
> - We want to have a full proposal that we approve and vote on, then we
> want to ignore the bits of the proposal we don't like (initial list of
> committers).
Actually, Henri Yandel proposes that the Initial Committers list be dropped
in the current form.
> - We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
> community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
> allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
> don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
> create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that
> decision for them.
That accusation is false, misleading and insulting. The Mentors are people
who both the PMC and incoming community have generally agreed will mentor
the project. Not some "arbitrary bureaucratic beast", a comment that I
consider demeaning to the ASF as a whole, by the way, since the PMC is
fundamental to ASF process.
And what is the first order of business? Making sure that known, active,
community members join them on the PPMC. And what is the next order of
business? Working with these active members to make sure that every other
active member also becomes a committer and (probably) PPMC member.
As for "first bit of community they build (the communal decision in a
proposal as to who is allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore", I
have to laugh. Do you have any idea how many projects have complained about
people piling into the initial committer list? It is hardly the community
they built. Consider:
- the initial committer list was originally JUST those people
coming WITH the project
- ASF Committers complained about being excluded
- ASF Committers and others started self-inclusion on the list
- Projects started complaining about a lot of people who they
don't know and who have never contributed being initial
Committers.
Sybase's complained that their proposal had a ton of people added who Sybase
didn't know because people writing the proposal (not Sybase) wanted to make
sure that their staff got added. We've seen the same with CeltiXFire, while
at the same time, IONA felt that a specific person from RedHat *would* be an
asset.
The proposed process is a mechanism to restore exactly what you say is
desirable.
> And as far as I'm concerned - if the people who wrote the proposal
> agreed to the names being on the list, then those names should
> automatically carry through as committers.
See above.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
> project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
> in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
> with the results. Don't like that answer? Then dissolve the podling
> and start over. Have committers that haven't bothered to contribute?
> Then vote them off the island, just like a real PMC. Truth in advertising
> demands that you follow the process as described in the proposal and
> use the Apache mailing lists for all project discussions.
+1. Reading through this thread it reads like we want to have our cake
and eat it to.
- We want to have a full proposal that we approve and vote on, then we
want to ignore the bits of the proposal we don't like (initial list of
committers).
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
create an arbitrary bureaucratic beast (the PPMC) that will make that
decision for them. (Before anyone jumps down my throat - I like the
PPMC, but it should represent the community, not (within reason) enforce
a style on the community.)
Personally I want to see community in action. Let the initial list of
committers in, make them the PPMC and watch what happens. If we don't
like the way it settles down - *then* we have a reason to step in and argue.
And as far as I'm concerned - if the people who wrote the proposal
agreed to the names being on the list, then those names should
automatically carry through as committers. If you don't like the
results - then as Roy says - "Vote them off the island". But do it
openly, do it transparently and do it on the lists.
BTW - There is a middle ground here. There is nothing that says that
the list of committers must carry through from podling to project. Why
not have a review prior to being made a project that looks at all
commits? If anyone on the initial list has never committed or
contributed during the course of the incubation, then they get removed
from the committer list. That can even be a process that the PPMC votes
on prior to exit.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
There are, as I see it, 2 issues being discussed:
1. Is the Initial PPMC the Initial list of
committers noted in the proposal. I think
we've all expressed views in one way or
another.
2. The CXF-specific issue: that the initial list of
committers was not only NOT the initial PPMC,
but some of them weren't even granted initial
commit privs.
I'd like to address #2 because I feel that this is
something I should have noticed sooner. I didn't. And
I take responsibility for it.
When all this started coming down, the 1st I heard
of it was an Email to some people saying that we
should have a ConCall about some issues that
they had been discussing privately:
1. That the initial list of committers included
people who "should not" have been on the list
2. Setting up the PPMC.
At this point, I must admit that I made a fatal mistake:
I looked at
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/cxf.html
to refresh my mind, instead of
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CeltiXfireProposal
regarding the committer list. So when we discussed
all this via Email, I was looking at the *current* list
of people with cxf commit privs as compared to the full
list of *who should have had them*. As such, when some
people were trimmed from the cxf list, with their
approval, that did not fully resolve the whole issue.
But I had thought that it had: no one was removed
without their OK and we had a commit list that
everyone agreed was a good PPMC list. You see,
that was what I was focused on, so much that I didn't
really see the other issue. Again, I admit it.
Anyway, as mentioned in a previous Email, my hope was
that we could setup the PPMC quickly so that other
committers could be added in soon, as chosen
by the PPMC. In fact, there is an Infra request
to create the cxf-private list for the PPMC pending.
My assumption was that the list on the site matched
the list that was on the proposal, and that the
main issue was people who had commit but really
shouldn't have in the 1st place. That *was* one
issue, but not the only one.
In any case, had I truly understood that, I would
have urged that we contact those who had not
had commit privs yet, and let those who had
questions or issues with them being on the
list address them...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
+1
On 2 Oct 2006, at 22:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> -1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors
>>> are the
>>> least capable of selecting a PPMC.
>>
>> I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
>
> You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
> almost always true, and since we are talking about general incubation
> policy in this thread (not CXF), we should not assume that the Mentors
> have even the slightest clue about who deserves to be on the PPMC.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the proposal contains a list of
> initial committers, the people in that list agreed to lend
> their names to the proposal in an effort to make it more appealing
> for adoption by the Incubator PMC (or whatever other PMC is
> responsible),
> and thus it is the Incubator PMC that decides who will be on the PPMC.
> That's what I vote for when asked to vote on a proposal, and as far
> as I am concerned there will be no deviation from that list except
> by voluntary removal or formal action of the PPMC (including *all*
> of those people on that initial list as approved by the Incubator).
>
> Beyond that, I have no opinion on the specific conditions in CXF.
> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
>
> This is really important. Fools may call it bureaucratic and too
> much overhead for "open source", but it is that adherence to basic
> principles of cooperative self-governance that allows an Apache
> project to survive the passing of fools. We exchange the efficiencies
> of individual dictatorship for a less efficient process that requires
> more people to be involved (and thus buy into) whatever decisions
> need to be made. We cannot short-circuit that process while trying
> to instill it.
>
> ....Roy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
> >> podling and the Mentors.
> >
> > this is not policy ATM
>
> Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
it isn't in the process documentation. this is the only description we
have of current policy. a patch (the process document is RTC) or a
message ID would be useful.
> >> They do have binding votes on everything
> >> *except* releases because we delegated that to them, right?
> >
> > i don't understand how this can work with the current structure. AFAIK
> > PPMCs have no organisational standing (they are no official
> > committees) and are not recognized by the board. AIUI they cannot take
> > decisions binding on apache. their main role ATM seems to be as a
> > training exercise.
>
> How can they avoid making decisions that are binding on Apache?
> Importing code into subversion is a decision that is binding on Apache.
importing code is an action. the meaning i intended for 'binding' is
an action which is taken on behalf of apache. AIUI anyone with commit
privilages could upload tar ball containing source to an apache
server. if they upload the tar ball after due process then they may be
acting on behalf of apache. if they just upload the tar ball then they
are acting as an individual and must take personal responsility for
their action.
> It just isn't a very important decision. The PPMCs are making binding
> decisions every day -- the only condition we placed on them was that
> at least three +1 votes had to come from the PMC (whether or not those
> people happened to be Mentors) for releases and adding new committers.
and for adding new PPMCers, i presume
> That does not mean the other votes are ignored.
AIUI those actions you mention are the ones which in any project
require a majority of binding votes. these are the votes which the
committee needs to decide on so that there is organisational (rather
than personal) responsibility. there are lots of other votes but IMHO
they are primarily social rather than official (though at least of
equal importance).
> The only reason PMCs have organizational standing is because they
> are a group of named individuals on a committee that has been
> assigned a task by the board in accordance with the bylaws. A PPMC
> becomes an official committee as soon as the Incubator creates it,
> since its creation is well within the scope given by the board to
> the incubator project and the individuals are named in the status file.
but i don't see any official creation process. AIUI the board creates
new committees through a top level project resolution voted upon by
the board. ATM there is no explicit vote from the incubator PMC, there
is explicit policy in the process document and we do not insist that
the proposal contains a section about the PPMC. there is no
papertrail.
> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
> quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
i don't think that this is in the policy document. a patch or a
message ID would be very useful.
> > bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
> > ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
> > project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
> > appointed PPMC members).
>
> That just isn't true. Somebody took a thread out of context and
> applied it where it doesn't make any sense. The restriction that
> only a PMC can release software has very little to do with all
> of the other decisions a project might make.
if the PPMCs were official committees, i would agree. maybe they are
but i just don't see the paperwork or the process documentation to
support this claim. it would be cleaner if they were official
committees but IMO we need a little more ceremony before it is clear
that they are.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
> members (and I use the term advisedly)
which term?
> have binding votes. My belief is that only PPMC members have
> binding votes, and that all committers should automatically
> be on the PPMC.
Those are two separate issues. I really have relatively little care about
the latter. On the former, I strongly disagree. If we follow your
suggestion to its extreme conclusions, we might as well close the Incubator
and have the Board adopt all of these new projects. After all, there would
be no oversight nor control. These PPMCs are largely populated by people
new to the ASF. The Incubator PMC is charged with managing all of its
projects: oversight and decisions. We are responsible for making sure that
the new communities develop the ability to act as ASF communities, but we
cannot expect that behavior from day zero, which is why we exist.
> I do not go along with Noel's remarks re PMC and legality;
> one of the aspects of the incubator is that podlings
> are very carefully contained and *unable* to make
> decisions binding on the ASF. Therefore, there should
> be no issue about the bindingness of voted by PPMC members
> who aren't also PMC members -- they should be binding on
> the ppodling. I mean 'podling.' :-)
Votes to elect Committers effect the ASF. Votes to release. Most other
types of things don't even require a vote. Code? You're right: who cares,
so long as the code is properly vetted? I really don't see the need to
debate whether patch A or patch B is the right one, if either. But you
don't have to vote on commits, unless someone wants to veto a change.
So let's put it this way: what "decisions" are you prepared to delegate, and
which ones are you not prepared to delegate? We may find that we are
arguing over nothing.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
For some reason, I had the impression that there was
a phantom 'P' somewhere in the references to 'PMC'
going back and forth between Noel and Roy.
For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
members (and I use the term advisedly) have binding
votes. My belief is that only PPMC members have
binding votes, and that all committers should automatically
be on the PPMC.
I do not go along with Noel's remarks re PMC and legality;
one of the aspects of the incubator is that podlings
are very carefully contained and *unable* to make
decisions binding on the ASF. Therefore, there should
be no issue about the bindingness of voted by PPMC members
who aren't also PMC members -- they should be binding on
the ppodling. I mean 'podling.' :-)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSUG25rNPMCpn3XdAQIs/AQAiCqYuryZokxHkaN4+MFpKbfPbmtwbnxS
i1dRSmOyymjGJ2XFdlvfTolL9gpD7Sld52AGp82DveOxEaS+S8yOaOOg6tkDZMo2
knHy9+I9edI5N71CHV0rsxpy1NZMwsba6yeeAIEbZOyML0mL8TsoUFFIyQLO92Ie
aP4OY2qGHCw=
=El8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
>>> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
>>> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
>>> quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
>> EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1 votes. Because that's what we
>> need, and those are the ones that are binding. Without that
>> minimum quorum of three PMC +1 votes, you don't have enough
>> binding votes.
> Every vote that counts toward the majority is a binding vote.
> If the PPMC members out-vote the PMC members on any issue, the
> majority still carries. If a committer can veto a commit, then
> they have a binding vote. Are you using the term differently?
See below.
> I really don't understand how you can expect a PPMC to make a
> decision on anything if they can't vote and be counted. I
> thought that is why we created PPMCs.
I expect non-PMC members on the PPMC to vote as if their votes matter and
ignore the technicality, but unless/until the ASF Board indicates that there
is a change in ASF policy regarding non-PMC members and binding votes, those
votes are advisory only.
That said, I expect the Mentors to make sure that there are sufficient
binding votes to allow the project to make decisions. And to also instill
the idea that the goal is a consensus; if you're counting votes to see who
wins, that's not a consensus.
> I wanted to put everyone on the Incubator PMC and thus solve both
problems,
> but others were satisfied by the delegation
The vast majority of all Committers on Incubator projects have precisely
zero history with the ASF. many lack it with Open Source at all, and should
not be given binding decisions from day zero. You talk about people earning
their Committer rights, and how you have a higher bar for that so that by
the time you elect them as a Committer you're ready to trust them with
decision making. Well, on day zero, they have earned nothing so far in
terms of ASF decision making, and yet they must have commit rights in order
for the project to progress.
When they leave the Incubator, they will either move to TLP status, gain PMC
rights, and have binding decisions; or they will be incorporated into some
existing TLP, whose PMC will make the decisions. I've already commented on
the unfairness of graduating into an existing TLP and not being made a PMC
member of the relevant PMC.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
>> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
>> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
>> quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
>
> EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1 votes. Because that's what we
> need, and
> those are the ones that are binding. Without that minimum quorum
> of three
> PMC +1 votes, you don't have enough binding votes.
Every vote that counts toward the majority is a binding vote.
If the PPMC members out-vote the PMC members on any issue, the
majority still carries. If a committer can veto a commit, then
they have a binding vote. Are you using the term differently?
I really don't understand how you can expect a PPMC to make a
decision on anything if they can't vote and be counted. I thought
that is why we created PPMCs. I wanted to put everyone on the
Incubator PMC and thus solve both problems, but others were
satisfied by the delegation, based IIRC on the fact that the
board resolution that created the Incubator is different from
any of the TLPs. *shrug*
Maybe we should just change the bylaws?
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
> quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1 votes. Because that's what we need, and
those are the ones that are binding. Without that minimum quorum of three
PMC +1 votes, you don't have enough binding votes.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
>> podling and the Mentors.
>
> this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
>> They do have binding votes on everything
>> *except* releases because we delegated that to them, right?
>
> i don't understand how this can work with the current structure. AFAIK
> PPMCs have no organisational standing (they are no official
> committees) and are not recognized by the board. AIUI they cannot take
> decisions binding on apache. their main role ATM seems to be as a
> training exercise.
How can they avoid making decisions that are binding on Apache?
Importing code into subversion is a decision that is binding on Apache.
It just isn't a very important decision. The PPMCs are making binding
decisions every day -- the only condition we placed on them was that
at least three +1 votes had to come from the PMC (whether or not those
people happened to be Mentors) for releases and adding new committers.
That does not mean the other votes are ignored.
The only reason PMCs have organizational standing is because they
are a group of named individuals on a committee that has been
assigned a task by the board in accordance with the bylaws. A PPMC
becomes an official committee as soon as the Incubator creates it,
since its creation is well within the scope given by the board to
the incubator project and the individuals are named in the status file.
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
> bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
> ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
> project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
> appointed PPMC members).
That just isn't true. Somebody took a thread out of context and
applied it where it doesn't make any sense. The restriction that
only a PMC can release software has very little to do with all
of the other decisions a project might make.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
> ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
> project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
> appointed PPMC members).
> if this process isn't good enough then let's create a better one.
+1
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> >> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> >> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> >> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> >> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> >> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
> >
> > To be really picky, that is not quite accurate. I wholeheartedly
> > agree that
> > Mentors have no right to make decisions as if they owned the
> > project. They
> > are there to help and be part of the community decision making
> > process.
> > However, Mentors have the only binding votes. You have many times
> > decried
> > giving binding votes to people who are not on a PMC.
>
> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
> podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
> They do have binding votes on everything
> *except* releases because we delegated that to them, right?
i don't understand how this can work with the current structure. AFAIK
PPMCs have no organisational standing (they are no official
committees) and are not recognized by the board. AIUI they cannot take
decisions binding on apache. their main role ATM seems to be as a
training exercise.
bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
appointed PPMC members).
if this process isn't good enough then let's create a better one.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly agree that Mentors have no right to make decisions
>> as if they owned the project. They are there to help and be part of
>> the community decision making process. However, Mentors have the only
>> binding votes. You have many times decried giving binding votes to
>> people who are not on a PMC.
> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
> podling and the Mentors. They do have binding votes on everything
> *except* releases because we delegated that to them, right?
I have no problem if we agree to codify the former for the Incubator,
although I remain of the belief that Committer -> PMC Member progression is
normally a progression not concurrent. But since we're talking about a
PPMC, I'm fine with it.
Oh, and by the way, the PPMC == the Incubator PMC + the Committers, but
let's not split hairs on that point.
HOWEVER ... with respect to your latter comment, no, only PMC members have
binding votes. That's not an Incubator issue, that's an ASF issue. We
might act as if others' votes matter, but since they are not PMC Members,
they are not covered under the Bylaws, and therefore fall into that
unprotected area that you've often warned people about. I can even find the
e-mail you wrote on that subject, which launched a number of Jakarta and XML
projects into seeking TLP status.
So I'm being picky in my terms. Binding votes belong ONLY to PMC members,
and that's on the legal grounds, not community basis. You want to correct
me, go ahead. But that has implications far outside of the Incubator, so
let's make sure that we're talking about the same thing.
>>> Fools may call it bureaucratic and too much overhead for "open
>>> source", but it is that adherence to basic principles of cooperative
>>> self-governance that allows an Apache project to survive the passing
>>> of fools. We exchange the efficiencies of individual dictatorship
>>> for a less efficient process that requires more people to be involved
>>> (and thus buy into) whatever decisions need to be made. We cannot
>>> short-circuit that process while trying to instill it.
>> I entirely agree, which is why you should re-read the proposed
>> bootstrapping
>> process. It is entirely about what you just wrote, above. It is
>> entirely about a bootstrapping process so that the project can be
>> more self-governing.
> No, your proposed bootstrapping process is nothing more than a
> "bait-and-switch" process with fancy clothing.
It is most certainly not intended to be so.
> You are assuming that the mentors will do the right thing once they
> have the right to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of the podling.
Considering that you argue that Mentors should be ASF Members, are you now
going to argue that they would do the wrong thing? And IF THEY DO, is the
entire Incubator PMC going to stand around and accept it? I THINK NOT! We
need to make sure that if the Mentors are acting improperly, that (a)
everyone has a good idea of what PROPER means, and (b) that EVERYONE has a
means to protest actions that appear to be improper.
The ASF is all about Community, which means PEOPLE. PEOPLE make decisions.
Rules make decisions FOR people. I'm happy to empower people to make
decisions --- and where the adjective arbitrary comes from, well that
certainly requires justification --- and to provide a means to correct them
as necessary.
> That isn't why we have these processes. If we could all just assume
> that everyone is going to do what everyone else expects, then we
> wouldn't need these processes at all.
Everyone isn't ASF Members. Everyone isn't a Mentor, and responsible to the
rest of the ASF for their conduct. Is it really the case that I'm the only
one around here with faith in my fellow ASF Members, and our collective
ability to oversee and correct our actions?
> The process exists both to set the proper expectation (committers == PPMC)
That's conflating two separate issues (but see above).
> and to enable the Mentors to help without making decisions *for* the
project.
It still remains that they have the only binding votes, unless you're
changing your views on the legal status of non-PMC members.
> The Incubator PMC (or any sponsoring PMC) should vote on a podling
> based on the contents of that proposal.
> The podling-proposal has a list of people that are going to be
> governing the project and that list is the committers, not just
> the list of mentors. That is the only bootstrap process that
> has ever been documented.
Agreed, and then we have problems (and I've taken the phone calls) from
people complaining about piling onto the initial committer list. And a
variety of complaints from ASF Members about free passages to Committership
for total unknowns.
But aside from that, if we want to do it this way, that means voting on each
named person, not just the entire project. This might mean that we finally
have a real job for the Champion: review every person named on the proposal,
making sure that only the "right" people are on it, and letting the
Incubator PMC know why each of them should be there.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
>> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
>> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
>> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
>> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
>> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
>
> To be really picky, that is not quite accurate. I wholeheartedly
> agree that
> Mentors have no right to make decisions as if they owned the
> project. They
> are there to help and be part of the community decision making
> process.
> However, Mentors have the only binding votes. You have many times
> decried
> giving binding votes to people who are not on a PMC.
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors. They do have binding votes on everything
*except* releases because we delegated that to them, right?
>> Fools may call it bureaucratic and too much overhead for "open
>> source",
>> but it is that adherence to basic principles of cooperative
>> self-governance that allows an Apache project to survive the passing
>> of fools. We exchange the efficiencies of individual dictatorship
>> for
>> a less efficient process that requires more people to be involved
>> (and
>> thus buy into) whatever decisions need to be made. We cannot
>> short-circuit that process while trying to instill it.
>
> I entirely agree, which is why you should re-read the proposed
> bootstrapping
> process. It is entirely about what you just wrote, above. It is
> entirely
> about a bootstrapping process so that the project can be more
> self-governing.
No, your proposed bootstrapping process is nothing more than a
"bait-and-switch" process with fancy clothing. You are assuming
that the mentors will do the right thing once they have the right
to make arbitrary decisions on behalf of the podling.
That isn't why we have these processes. If we could all just assume
that everyone is going to do what everyone else expects, then we
wouldn't need these processes at all. The process exists both to set
the proper expectation (committers == PPMC) and to enable the Mentors
to help without making decisions *for* the project. Above all, the
right process means people don't waste our time whining about it
after the fact.
The Incubator PMC (or any sponsoring PMC) should vote on a podling
based on the contents of that proposal. It should not vote on a
proposal
and then tell someone we appoint to go ahead and do anything they want
under the rubric of that project name. The podling-proposal has a list
of people that are going to be governing the project and that list is
the committers, not just the list of mentors. That is the only
bootstrap process that has ever been documented. A project that wants
a smaller group of people (or just its mentors) to be the sole source
from which bootstrapping begins should not list any committers on
the proposal. That way, when the sponsoring PMC votes to accept a
podling,
they do so knowing full well who is going to be making the next
decision.
Mentors are people we add to a project. They have nothing whatsoever
to do with the initial committer process other than helping the podling
make the appropriate requests to infrastructure.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
To be really picky, that is not quite accurate. I wholeheartedly agree that
Mentors have no right to make decisions as if they owned the project. They
are there to help and be part of the community decision making process.
However, Mentors have the only binding votes. You have many times decried
giving binding votes to people who are not on a PMC.
> Fools may call it bureaucratic and too much overhead for "open source",
> but it is that adherence to basic principles of cooperative
> self-governance that allows an Apache project to survive the passing
> of fools. We exchange the efficiencies of individual dictatorship for
> a less efficient process that requires more people to be involved (and
> thus buy into) whatever decisions need to be made. We cannot
> short-circuit that process while trying to instill it.
I entirely agree, which is why you should re-read the proposed bootstrapping
process. It is entirely about what you just wrote, above. It is entirely
about a bootstrapping process so that the project can be more
self-governing.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> -1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are
>> the
>> least capable of selecting a PPMC.
>
> I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
almost always true, and since we are talking about general incubation
policy in this thread (not CXF), we should not assume that the Mentors
have even the slightest clue about who deserves to be on the PPMC.
The fact of the matter is that the proposal contains a list of
initial committers, the people in that list agreed to lend
their names to the proposal in an effort to make it more appealing
for adoption by the Incubator PMC (or whatever other PMC is
responsible),
and thus it is the Incubator PMC that decides who will be on the PPMC.
That's what I vote for when asked to vote on a proposal, and as far
as I am concerned there will be no deviation from that list except
by voluntary removal or formal action of the PPMC (including *all*
of those people on that initial list as approved by the Incubator).
Beyond that, I have no opinion on the specific conditions in CXF.
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
This is really important. Fools may call it bureaucratic and too
much overhead for "open source", but it is that adherence to basic
principles of cooperative self-governance that allows an Apache
project to survive the passing of fools. We exchange the efficiencies
of individual dictatorship for a less efficient process that requires
more people to be involved (and thus buy into) whatever decisions
need to be made. We cannot short-circuit that process while trying
to instill it.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 1 Oct 06, at 6:38 PM 1 Oct 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>>
>> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
>> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
>> - The PPMC elects Committers
>>
>> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
>> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review
>> and vote
>> on comitters.
>
> -1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are the
> least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF. I know
both code bases reasonably well as a casual user and I know for
example that Dan and Dan are very active and would have the knowledge
to bring other PPMC members aboard. Dan and Dan were the first people
I asked to be added to the PPMC so discussions could be started
regarding brining in as many other developers who were known to be
committed to the project. So your argument here is not accurate in
general.
> They generally know nothing about
> the code or the community, but rather know how to get things done at
> Apache. The Incubator PMC is even less able than that when it comes
> to selecting Mentors in the first place.
>
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
> project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the
> beginning
> in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are
> stuck
> with the results. Don't like that answer? Then dissolve the podling
> and start over. Have committers that haven't bothered to contribute?
> Then vote them off the island, just like a real PMC. Truth in
> advertising
> demands that you follow the process as described in the proposal and
> use the Apache mailing lists for all project discussions.
>
> ....Roy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> >
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> >
> > This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> > something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review
> > and vote on comitters.
> -1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are the
> least capable of selecting a PPMC. They generally know nothing about
> the code or the community, but rather know how to get things done at
> Apache. The Incubator PMC is even less able than that when it comes
> to selecting Mentors in the first place.
But the Mentors have the only binding votes, as PMC Members. And this is
why the process includes:
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
And from where do they get such? FROM THE INCOMING COMMUNITY, of course!
And from where do they, we, or anyone, find out who is active? From the
people they've just selected to help manage the project.
You are missing the point that the entirely simple process outlined is
nothing more than a mechanism. The policy that drives it is another matter
entirely, and we all expect that the polices should be proper, open, and in
the ASF spirit.
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
> project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
> in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
> with the results.
How do they stop them from piling on? Should I got dig up your complaints
about people piling onto projects? Or everyone else's?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review
> and vote
> on comitters.
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are the
least capable of selecting a PPMC. They generally know nothing about
the code or the community, but rather know how to get things done at
Apache. The Incubator PMC is even less able than that when it comes
to selecting Mentors in the first place.
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results. Don't like that answer? Then dissolve the podling
and start over. Have committers that haven't bothered to contribute?
Then vote them off the island, just like a real PMC. Truth in
advertising
demands that you follow the process as described in the proposal and
use the Apache mailing lists for all project discussions.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 6 Oct 06, at 9:38 AM 6 Oct 06, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a
>> freely editable
>> Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
>
> +1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established
> etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's proposal
>
>> You feel excluded (I have); Convince the Proposor that you belong.
>
> +1
>
>> You feel "piling on" is happening; Ask the Proposer to qualify the
>> selection
>> criteria, and have a dialog if you find it "inappropriate".
>
> +1, and the Champion should be the first one to bring up this topic
> with the proposed initial committers, before the proposal even shows
> up at Apache.
>
>
My apologies, I simply assumed the right thing would be done. And if
I didn't catch it then possibly other Apache members, or Board
members that might have been involved with the proposal. The first
project that I mentored was OpenEJB and David Blevins put this
process together without really having to ask anyone and I think it's
really the way it should be done:
---
As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did
this for two reasons
1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of
activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn)
2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our
moving to apache and want to participate
We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some
old committers active again, so that was a big plus.
---
I think this is the best way to find the initial list of committers
and David should be commended for this as he really is abiding by how
things are supposed to be done around here.
So no, I didn't say anything because I wasn't looking for people with
zero commits or people who "contributed to discussions". Definitely
something in the future to distinguish between actual committers, as
defined by every project that operates here, versus people who are
interested in contributing in the future. Apparently this is not
clear, even for some members at Apache, so it should be clarified in
future proposals. Live and learn.
Jason.
> Cliff
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Daniel Kulp <da...@iona.com>.
Justin,
On Sunday October 08 2006 9:55 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > However, in that case I would really like to see it that
> > if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
> > and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
> > included in the initial list, since I think it helps
> > bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
>
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that
> I'm okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is
> happy with that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial
> list and desire that they earn their commit bits through actual
> participation, I'm okay with that too.
My question is: how is the podling community supposed to decide if it's
OK or not? Prior to the PMC accepting the podling, there isn't any
formal lists setup (other than general@incubator) for the podling
participants to discuss this except through the proposers, which are
probably the ones doing the "piling on".
I suppose thats part of the "champions" job is to talk to all the
participants and gage the concerns and such. I'd just be concerned with
flooding the general@incubator list with a bunch of "does XXX belong as a
commiter on project YYY" type chatter. This list is hard enough to
follow somedays.
I suppose one idea might be upon proposal submission but prior to the PMC
vote, immediately setup the "dev" list so the podling community can start
talking and working together to "fix up" the proposal. At that point,
other ASF members who were not contacted as part of the proposal could
also join the list and possibly help guide the podling, express interest
in helping, ask to join as commiters, etc... Basically, try to "jump
start" the community before the official iPMC vote. This could ALSO
help the iPMC people see how the people are acting, etc... which could
also provide valuable insight into helping them vote.
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001
daniel.kulp@iona.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
>> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
>> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
>> included in the initial list, since I think it helps
>> bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
>
>
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is
> that I'm
> okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is
> happy with
> that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list
> and desire
> that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm
> okay with
> that too.
>
Of course.
> Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should
> be the
> role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're
> going to
> get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that
> list must
> be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
The role of the Champion alone? Certainly the proposal is an
organic document that the entire podling-to-be is involved
with, so whereas the Champion has a role to play, I
don't think it's their responsibility to believe that
they know better than the community. How many champions
are truly so deeply involved in the soon-to-be-transplanted
community that they can make such decisions?
Of course, yes, the Champion does have the responsibility
to handle "piling on" cases... But if they need to do
it with a hammer, then the proposal's in bad shape
anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
>
> In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
> gold standard for creating this initial list:
>
> ---
> As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
> neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
> actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
> file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did
> this for two reasons
>
> 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of
> activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn)
> 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our
> moving to apache and want to participate
>
> We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some
> old committers active again, so that was a big plus.
> ---
The concern I have with this procedure is that we'd drop folks after the
proposal is voted on and approved. If this procedure were done before
approval to create the initial list, that's okay with me. My concern is
that if someone is on the initial list, that they have the right to
commit/PPMC status if they ask for it. -- justin
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:32:56AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> ---
> As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
> neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
> actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
> file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did
> this for two reasons
>
> 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of
> activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn)
> 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our
> moving to apache and want to participate
>
> We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some
> old committers active again, so that was a big plus.
> ---
>
+1 especially if this is carried out _before_ the proposal is voted on.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 10/9/06, Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> If you _really_ want to add this extra backdoor, then at least make it a
> requirement that every bloody name has to be on the proposal and make
> this backdoor expire at the end of incubation.
No argument on the "every bloody name has to be on the proposal" bit,
but I see no reason to make it expire at the end of incubation.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:50AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Those people can be seeded as an 'initial
> emeritus list' and can simply regain access by asking for it again without
> having to prove themselves all over again. -- justin
>
I still think that's a bad idea. If they don't actively ask to be put on
the proposal, then we'd be voting for someone who may or may not turn
up.
Horror scenario no. 1 - a project like php - we vote it in with with a
few handfuls of active people and then at a later date all people who
have had commit over the years turn up to get accounts...
If you _really_ want to add this extra backdoor, then at least make it a
requirement that every bloody name has to be on the proposal and make
this backdoor expire at the end of incubation.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On October 9, 2006 8:51:29 AM +0200 Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> wrote:
> So you want to give commit to people who don't even ask for it?
> That seems like taking it a step too far for me.
> If someone turns up 6 months down the line, I'm sure the people who came
> with the podling will be quick to get a vote going and the formality in
> place.
You're missing the point - these people had earned commit access wherever the
codebase lived before. Those people can be seeded as an 'initial emeritus
list' and can simply regain access by asking for it again without having to
prove themselves all over again. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:52:56PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
> contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the
> ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the
> code again. At the very least we should have some provision for
> preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can
> come back at any time.
>
So you want to give commit to people who don't even ask for it?
That seems like taking it a step too far for me.
If someone turns up 6 months down the line, I'm sure the people who came
with the podling will be quick to get a vote going and the formality in
place.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 10/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> > incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> > I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> > being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
> > contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the
> > ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the
> > code again. At the very least we should have some provision for
> > preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can
> > come back at any time.
>
> Uhm there is, no?
>
> * join committers by following the instructions
> * introduce yourself
> * declare yourself emeritus/temporarily (at least) retired
>
> Otherwise
>
> * join the dicussion
> * introduce yourself as the folk who wrote the Xxxx components
> * ask to participate
>
> If you can't do the first over the course of 2 mos, 3 mos, 6 mos or
> the year it takes to graduate, follow the second course?
>
> Somewhere in this scheme common sense needs to be re-introduced :)
Ok, so I'm mostly using my experience from Subversion as an example
here, since it's the largest non-ASF project I'm involved in. We've
got a large number of formerly very active but currently dormant
committers. Every so often one of them will become active again, and
contribute either a small useful bug fix, or a large new feature
(usually by becoming active again for a period of time, because they
no better than to drop a code bomb on us). I'd hate for there to be
any impediment to such a thing just because a project moved to the
ASF. The fact that the committer would have to send in the CLA and
wait for an account is already an impediment enough, it gets even
worse if they have to potentially fall into a debate with the younger
generation of developers over their "right" to commit access.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
> contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the
> ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the
> code again. At the very least we should have some provision for
> preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can
> come back at any time.
Uhm there is, no?
* join committers by following the instructions
* introduce yourself
* declare yourself emeritus/temporarily (at least) retired
Otherwise
* join the dicussion
* introduce yourself as the folk who wrote the Xxxx components
* ask to participate
If you can't do the first over the course of 2 mos, 3 mos, 6 mos or
the year it takes to graduate, follow the second course?
Somewhere in this scheme common sense needs to be re-introduced :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
>
> On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
> >> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
> >> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
> >> included in the initial list, since I think it helps
> >> bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
> >
> >
> > Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is
> > that I'm
> > okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is
> > happy with
> > that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list
> > and desire
> > that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm
> > okay with
> > that too.
> >
> > Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should
> > be the
> > role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're
> > going to
> > get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that
> > list must
> > be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
>
> +1
>
> In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
> gold standard for creating this initial list:
>
> ---
> As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
> neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
> actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
> file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did
> this for two reasons
>
> 1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of
> activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn)
> 2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our
> moving to apache and want to participate
I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
contributor were to show up 6 months after the project moved to the
ASF and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to the
code again. At the very least we should have some provision for
preemptively marking inactive people as emeritus committers, who can
come back at any time.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
>> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
>> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
>> included in the initial list, since I think it helps
>> bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
>
>
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is
> that I'm
> okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is
> happy with
> that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list
> and desire
> that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm
> okay with
> that too.
>
> Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should
> be the
> role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're
> going to
> get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that
> list must
> be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
+1
In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
gold standard for creating this initial list:
---
As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
file and gave people basically two months to add their name. I did
this for two reasons
1. filters the completely inactive and proves at least some level of
activity (you have to at least read the list and update svn)
2. a formal acknowledgment that you understand and agree with our
moving to apache and want to participate
We ended up with a smaller list of committers, but actually got some
old committers active again, so that was a big plus.
---
Jason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
>> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
>> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
>> included in the initial list, since I think it helps
>> bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
>
>
>
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is
> that I'm
> okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy
> with
> that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and
> desire
> that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm
> okay with
> that too.
>
> Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should be the
> role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're
> going to
> get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that
> list must
> be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
>
+1 - I like your explanation & reasoning.
- Dan
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:55:47AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm
> okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with
> that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire
> that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with
> that too.
>
Why even bother with that? it is usually so much easier to give out
commit access to people who already are committers - if we hold off on
that type of "piling on" until after the proposal has been accepted,
then we're sure that the podling want those people on there, and we
don't risk voting on a proposal that is skewed by various people adding
themselves because they can.
Sure, I think podling should be open to taking active committers (from
non-incubator projects) onto the list without much fuss, but that's
different from opening the gates to everyone, will get roughly as many
people committing on the project and doesn't have the same avenues for
abuse as your position.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
> and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
> included in the initial list, since I think it helps
> bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm
okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with
that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desire
that they earn their commit bits through actual participation, I'm okay with
that too.
Noel's said that being the arbitrator of who is on the list should be the
role of the Champion and I think that's probably as good as we're going to
get. But, by the time the Incubator PMC votes on a proposal, that list must
be set (i.e. no deletions after the vote concludes). -- justin
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical
>> requirements,
>> but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
>> members.
>
> Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active) committers.
>
> Any project that we have that is populated by only one or two
> companies would get a -1 from me at graduation - but 3 is fine. =)
> -- justin
>
And certainly one aspect of being incubated is to grow the
community and ensure its health. Any podling with committers
from only 1 or 2 companies only has obviously not done
that and warrants a -1.
We run into a weird situation, IMO, if we get too formal
and number-oriented as far as the initial committer
list, simply because it makes it hard for external
companies to donate code to the ASF, if that code was
proprietary. In that case, of course all "current"
committers would be from one company, and so declining
the podling proposal just on that account would be silly.
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it helps
bootstrap the community process right off the bat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
> but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
> members.
Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active) committers.
Any project that we have that is populated by only one or two companies would
get a -1 from me at graduation - but 3 is fine. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1 (non-binding, but opinionated)
Craig
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I
> hope is
> an agreeable solution:
>
> ----------------------
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the
> initial
> committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming
> community to
> justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new
> committer,
> etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any
> concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the
> initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming
> community
> to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include
> the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any
> concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on
> the grounds
> that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there
> is still a
> vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any
> specific
> barrier to (re-)entry.]
>
> The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal
> submitted to
> the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a
> successful vote
> to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial
> committer
> and PPMC lists.
>
> *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects,
> and need
> not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the
> project is
> accepted.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
> process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
> wordsmithing and consensus.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service
Developers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
> an agreeable solution:
>
> ----------------------
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
> committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
> justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
> etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
> to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds
> that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a
> vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific
> barrier to (re-)entry.]
>
> The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
> the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
> to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
> and PPMC lists.
>
> *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
> not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
> accepted.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
> process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
> wordsmithing and consensus.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non binding)
This sounds reasonable, and takes clearly into account the incoming community.
Martijn
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
> an agreeable solution:
>
> ----------------------
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
> committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
> justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
> etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
> to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds
> that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a
> vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific
> barrier to (re-)entry.]
>
> The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
> the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
> to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
> and PPMC lists.
>
> *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
> not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
> accepted.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
> process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
> wordsmithing and consensus.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
Niall
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
> an agreeable solution:
>
> ----------------------
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
> committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
> justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
> etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
> to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds
> that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a
> vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific
> barrier to (re-)entry.]
>
> The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
> the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
> to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
> and PPMC lists.
>
> *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
> not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
> accepted.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
> process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
> wordsmithing and consensus.
>
> --- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
+1
On 12 Oct 06, at 11:42 AM 12 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I
> hope is
> an agreeable solution:
>
> ----------------------
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the
> initial
> committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming
> community to
> justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new
> committer,
> etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any
> concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the
> initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming
> community
> to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include
> the
> justification, although the Champion should share it (and any
> concerns) with
> the Incubator PMC.
>
> [Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on
> the grounds
> that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there
> is still a
> vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any
> specific
> barrier to (re-)entry.]
>
> The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal
> submitted to
> the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a
> successful vote
> to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial
> committer
> and PPMC lists.
>
> *Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects,
> and need
> not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the
> project is
> accepted.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
> process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
> wordsmithing and consensus.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like
> adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly
> dependent on the champion.
Keep in mind that the Champion role would still end with the begining of
Incubation. So the Champion's role is helping to draft the proposal,
including reviewing the Committer and PPMC lists. Someone has to do it.
> Take wicket as a recent example -- there its developers interfaced
> directly with the PMC to talk about this kind of thing, and not
> through their champions.
Actually, my view, after having spoken with (almost) everyone involved from
Iona and the ASF is that if this HAD been done for CXF, we would have
avoided the conflicts entirely.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Oct 12, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I
> hope is
> an agreeable solution:
I have never liked this explicit "champion" role, and I don't like
adding responsibilities to it, making things even more explicitly
dependent on the champion. Take wicket as a recent example -- there
its developers interfaced directly with the PMC to talk about this
kind of thing, and not through their champions.
You can count me -0 if you want.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by "Recordon, David" <dr...@verisign.com>.
Also having gone through this recently, +1 (non binding).
It will however be really important that this policy is easy to find for someone looking to enter incubation as to make sure it is discussed with the champion.
--David
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
Sent: Thu 10/12/2006 9:42 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
----------------------
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
[Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds
that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a
vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific
barrier to (re-)entry.]
The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
and PPMC lists.
*Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
accepted.
----------------------
Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
wordsmithing and consensus.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: How to submit policy changes?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
> > > all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
> > > policy document.
>
> > I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive. And it may not make the
> > policy as clear, when presented in the form of a diff.
>
> In the specific case of the bootstrap proposal, it would appear to effect:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/entry.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Champion
these pages are CTR. these can simply be updated once the policy is
approved. if there are no changes in the actual policy then what we
have are changes to recommendations and suggestions which are not
binding policy.
> And while we will need to record the policy, I'd rather not see a
> straightforward policy degenerate into a debate over how to factor web
> pages. And it seems clear to me that such a diff across multiple pages
> would be far more difficult for people to understand.
>
> Thoughts?
policy is recorded only in one document so the diff would just be for
the http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html.
IMO the policy document should be a simple record of what has been
agreed by the IPMC with all explainations and descriptions pushed to
documents which are CTR.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: How to submit policy changes?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
> > all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
> > policy document.
> I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive. And it may not make the
> policy as clear, when presented in the form of a diff.
In the specific case of the bootstrap proposal, it would appear to effect:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/entry.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html#Cha
mpion
And while we will need to record the policy, I'd rather not see a
straightforward policy degenerate into a debate over how to factor web
pages. And it seems clear to me that such a diff across multiple pages
would be far more difficult for people to understand.
Thoughts?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
How to submit policy changes?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded
> and document on the incubator site.
Agreed.
> all changes to the policy document require a formal vote.
Which is what is being called here, after discussion since ApacheCon.
> therefore to avoid a second vote to record a policy already approved,
> all policy changes should be proposed in the form of patches to the
> policy document.
I see your point, but it seems a tad excessive. And it may not make the
policy as clear, when presented in the form of a diff.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 10/25/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
> Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
> Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
> negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote:
(comments on policy change process)
i've come to the strong opinion that all policy needs to be recorded
and document on the incubator site. all changes to the policy document
require a formal vote. therefore to avoid a second vote to record a
policy already approved, all policy changes should be proposed in the
form of patches to the policy document.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Antoine Levy-Lambert <an...@gmx.de>.
Thanks Martijn.
Regards,
Antoine
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> PPMC = Podling project management committee
> IPMC = Incubator project management committee
>
> if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Martijn
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
PPMC = Podling project management committee
IPMC = Incubator project management committee
if I'm not mistaken.
Martijn
On 10/25/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <an...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Noel,
>
> sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Antoine
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400
> Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>
> An: general@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
>
> > The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> > PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project
?
See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by Antoine Levy-Lambert <an...@gmx.de>.
Hello Noel,
sorry to ask a basic question. What does PPMC mean ? Is it the sub PMC of a particular incubator project ?
Regards,
Antoine
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0400
Von: "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>
An: general@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: [VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
> The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
> PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Based upon all of the discussion -- and positive feedback from Dims, Eric
Newcomer, Craig Russell, Jason van Zyl, Martijn Dashorst, David Recordon and
Nail Pemberton; slight negative feedback from Leo Simons; and no strongly
negative feedback that I notice -- this is now put forth for a formal vote:
----------------------
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
and PPMC lists.
*Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
accepted.
----------------------
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
REVISED Policy on Initial Committer and PPMC members
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Based upon all of the discussion, I'll pose the following as what I hope is
an agreeable solution:
----------------------
The Champion shall work with the incoming community to identify the initial
committers. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community to
justify each inclusion (active committer, highly desired new committer,
etc., but not arbitrary). The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
The Champion shall work with the incoming community identify the initial
PPMC members*. The Champion shall review each with the incoming community
to justify each inclusion. The proposal does not need to include the
justification, although the Champion should share it (and any concerns) with
the Incubator PMC.
[Editiorial: the topic of Emeritus Committers is unaddressed, on the grounds
that when an Emeritus Committer asks to become a Committer, there is still a
vote, and there is no requirement that the Community apply any specific
barrier to (re-)entry.]
The Champion shall include the list(s) in the Project Proposal submitted to
the Incubator PMC for voting to accept the project. Upon a successful vote
to accept, the proposal as accepted shall determine the initial committer
and PPMC lists.
*Incubator PMC members have oversight on all Incubator projects, and need
not be listed, although Mentors need to be identified when the project is
accepted.
----------------------
Needless to say (as anyone who has observed the discussion around the
process proposal should realize), this is offered invite discussion,
wordsmithing and consensus.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> What I believe we've found works best over the years is to consider
> the entire behavior of the project over its incubation and raise
> questions about any trends pushing it in the wrong direction.
I agree. It is about people making decisions, not rules making decisions
for them.
> I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
> but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
> members.
See above. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable
> Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established
etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's proposal
> You feel excluded (I have); Convince the Proposor that you belong.
+1
> You feel "piling on" is happening; Ask the Proposer to qualify the selection
> criteria, and have a dialog if you find it "inappropriate".
+1, and the Champion should be the first one to bring up this topic
with the proposed initial committers, before the proposal even shows
up at Apache.
> I mean, who cares if "Company X" starts a podling in ASF Incubator with 400
> employees getting commit access to that project?
+1, I think it is a mistake to impose an artificial limit to the
number of people who can be initial committers from the same company
if each one of them is going to be spending a significant amount of
time working on the project.
> If we change the wording in Graduation Criteria to include "maximum 30% of
> committers from the same company", then that excessive initial PPMC on the
> Proposal quickly becomes a handicap.
I agree with the sentiment here, but we've been through the 50% rule
before and found it to have flaws. There have been podlings that most
Incubator PMC members were quite happy with by the time the graduation
vote came around, but they consisted of >50% from the same employer.
We specifically dropped the 50% requirement about 2.5 years ago when
we saw that a podling was operating openly, transparently, and based
on merit; and, they had added a couple committers to further diversify
the group, but were having trouble finding more contributors with
consistent and valuable contributions to bring in as a committer.
They also didn't want to drastically drop the 'merit bar' for
committers just to meet some imposed percentage so they could graduate
(many ways to 'game the system' here).
What I believe we've found works best over the years is to consider
the entire behavior of the project over its incubation and raise
questions about any trends pushing it in the wrong direction. We also
should consider any actual or perceived employer domination that is
either biasing project decisions or intimidating others from getting
involved.
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
(not to say that I thought Niclas was advocating for a particular
numerical requirement right now -- I just wanted to agree with his
idea that employer domination can be considered at graduation, but
caution the use of hard numbers)
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while.
ROFLMAO.
This has been an even longer thread for those who haven't been absent! :-)
> If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely
editable
> Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
It might be, except for the fact that we've had proposals going through
third parties, and then trying to understand how their proposal got
hijacked.
> You feel excluded (I have); Convince the Proposor that you belong.
And if the proposer is being exclusory? One of the tasks we have here in
the Incubator is to correct such improper behavior.
> You feel "piling on" is happening; Ask the Proposer to qualify the
selection
> criteria, and have a dialog if you find it "inappropriate".
My thought is to have the Champion (at last, a role for the Champion) vet
each and every name on the propose committer list, and justify them so that
we can vote on them when we vote on the project.
> If we change the wording in Graduation Criteria to include "maximum 30% of
> committers from the same company", then that excessive initial PPMC on the
> Proposal quickly becomes a handicap.
Well, Roy went the other way, and suggested that having even a handful of
independent people was sufficient, when one of the BEA projects was having
trouble with that as its last unmet criteria.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 02:46, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
> isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while...
It has been very interesting. I understand Noel's PoV and "it will work,
because we want to", but personally I find a lot of Justin's arguments
really "strong" and "right".
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
You feel excluded (I have); Convince the Proposor that you belong.
You feel "piling on" is happening; Ask the Proposer to qualify the selection
criteria, and have a dialog if you find it "inappropriate".
I mean, who cares if "Company X" starts a podling in ASF Incubator with 400
employees getting commit access to that project?
If we change the wording in Graduation Criteria to include "maximum 30% of
committers from the same company", then that excessive initial PPMC on the
Proposal quickly becomes a handicap.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> -1 from Jim.
> I think that the initial PPMC should stay as documented,
Documented where? Or rather, WHICH documentation? I don't mean the URL. I
mean the current web site, or the proposal under comment, since the proposal
under comment does exactly what you're suggesting should be done.
> since it gets the podling off on the right start, bootstrapping
> the PPMC with those who are already, hopefully, major movers in
> the community.
No kidding?! Really? Great idea! What exactly did you think that
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
meant? Was it really so unclear that "additional PPMC Members" would be
"those who are already, hopefully, major movers in the community."
Look at Jason's example of the first two people added to the PPMC. Or your
own comment that "my hope was that we could setup the PPMC quickly so that
other committers could be added in soon, as chosen by the PPMC." Exactly as
it ought to work, IMO. So what's the problem?
> This simply means that during the proposal cycle the mentors
> and the sponsors and initial list of committers requires more
> oversight.
And the reason why we cannot leave this to the Mentors and "those who are
already, hopefully, major movers in the community" is ... ?
> Or, if you prefer, each podling proposal specifies exactly
> Sponsor Organization
> Sponsor
> Mentor(s)
> Initial PPMC
> Initial Committers
So we have to vote on each person on those lists before we vote on the
project, since we've already had many complaints both about piling on and
being excluded. And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
> note that requiring the initial PPMC also implies, IMO, that
> 1 is not the optimal number of Mentors, but at least 3 or
> more would be required.
Already desirable if they want to have any decision making ability
whatsoever.
> Since we already have some issues with podlings with "large"
> numbers of Mentors, this leads the incubator down a path I
> don't think we want.
Such as?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
> This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
> something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review
> and vote
> on comitters.
>
> So far, as responses we have:
>
-1 from Jim.
I think that the initial PPMC should stay as documented,
since it gets the podling off on the right start,
bootstrapping the PPMC with those who are already,
hopefully, major movers in the community. This
simply means that during the proposal cycle the
mentors and the sponsors and initial list of committers
requires more oversight.
Or, if you prefer, each podling proposal specifies
exactly:
Sponsor Organization
Sponsor
Mentor(s)
Initial PPMC
Initial Committers
and leave nothing to chance.
Also note that requiring the initial PPMC also implies,
IMO, that 1 is not the optimal number of Mentors, but
at least 3 or more would be required... Since we
already have some issues with podlings with "large"
numbers of Mentors, this leads the incubator
down a path I don't think we want.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing the proposal's initial committers list to
something suggestive not binding, allowing the the Mentors review and vote
on comitters.
So far, as responses we have:
+1:
Noel J. Bergman
Mads Toftum
Henri Yandell
Davanum Srinivas
Jason Van Zyl
Robert Burrell Donkin
Justin has raised a concern that we not create an unfair or insulting
barrier existing, active. committers on communities joining the ASF. Robert
and I have independently expressed our views that this won't do so.
Since we've discussed almost this exact proposal in the past, I'll try to
get some time Monday or Tuesday to dig up any past objections, unless
someone beats me to it.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Robert,
> setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective.
> the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as
> part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide
> oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of
> reference without a binding decision.
The Incubator PMC, as a general rule, is probably not in the best position
to determine whom should be on the Committers list initially, and we
certainly have rarely if ever taken the time in most cases to review each
one.
That's part of the problem. Sometimes there is piling on, and sometimes
there are good reasons for including someone. I heard both sides of that
from the same people involved in CeltiXFire (as in "THOSE people are piling
on, but THESE people we want", and we've certainly heard it from other
projects.
This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in a defined
manner:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This is simple and human driven, delegating decisions in the normal ASF
manner. And so long as we meet the standard criteria (at least 3 +1 from
Incubator PMC members -- again, this is why each project SHOULD have at
least 3 Mentors -- and proper notice to the PMC throughout the voting
process), it should work well.
> i would expect any decision made about varying the initial comitters
> list to appear in the private list of the podling together with at
> least 3 +1's binding on apache (from incubator PMC members). i've
> searched the lists and cannot find such a VOTE nor even any
> discussion.
As above. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
> the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
> explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
> far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from
> this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's
> authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if
> they make such an important decision as this they should at least
> communicate the above.
setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective.
the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as
part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide
oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of
reference without a binding decision.
i would expect any decision made about varying the initial comitters
list to appear in the private list of the podling together with at
least 3 +1's binding on apache (from incubator PMC members). i've
searched the lists and cannot find such a VOTE nor even any
discussion.
it's important that apache has records of all decisions taken.
if the matter is so delicate that the PPMC list is not private enough,
i would hope that the mentors would raise this on the incubator PMC
list. if this is not confidential enough then i would hope that the
mentors contact the incubator chair personally.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
> from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can
> you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on
> the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final
> decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's
> email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up
> for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important
> decision as this they should at least communicate the above.
>
> - Dan
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
>> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
>> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
>> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
>> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
>> increasing the community.
>>
>> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
>> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
>> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
>> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>>
>> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
>> have been going on, let me also state that it is
>> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
>> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
>> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
>> and any leaking of that information is considered
>> a VERY bad thing to do.
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>
>>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our
>>> names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are
>>> working on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential
>>> collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>>
>>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were
>>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-
>>> mail. However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they
>>> hadn't turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start
>>> of September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
>>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several
>>> follow up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer
>>> for the delay provided.
>>>
>>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision
>>> to limit the number of commiters and not take into account the
>>> listed individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this
>>> normal procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
>>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission,
>>> we had already gone through the process of arguing who should,
>>> or should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with
>>> a different result (and one which appears to have been
>>> conducted behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>>>
>>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the
>>> project was discussed with the project submitters prior to the
>>> formation of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was
>>> no intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know
>>> about) as initial commiters, why did the project submitter
>>> include us? On what basis where these accounts not set up? Is
>>> random denial of initial commiters typical?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>>> Redhat).
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> (616) 971-2053
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> http://netzooid.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from
this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's
authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if
they make such an important decision as this they should at least
communicate the above.
- Dan
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
> increasing the community.
>
> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>
> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
> have been going on, let me also state that it is
> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
> and any leaking of that information is considered
> a VERY bad thing to do.
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
>> were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on
>> Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
>> possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>
>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
>> to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
>> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
>> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of September,
>> the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our commiter status was
>> in the works. However, despite several follow up emails, commiter
>> status was not given and no answer for the delay provided.
>>
>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
>> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
>> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal procedure?
>> Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We
>> believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already gone
>> through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be an
>> initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result (and
>> one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors) is
>> frustrating.
>>
>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of
>> the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of
>> adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial
>> commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis
>> where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial
>> commiters typical?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>> Redhat).
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Kevin Conner <Ke...@jboss.com>.
It is a shame that it has taken so long for us to hear about this. I
have been emailing about my committer status for a while now and, to
date I have received zero (0) replies. Not even an acknowledgment.
I only heard about this decision through Mark.
Kev
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from
this email and an offhand mention in Bo's email? I am OK with the PMC's
authority as thats what I signed up for at Apache, but I feel that if
they make such an important decision as this they should at least
communicate the above.
- Dan
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
> increasing the community.
>
> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>
> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
> have been going on, let me also state that it is
> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
> and any leaking of that information is considered
> a VERY bad thing to do.
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
>> were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on
>> Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
>> possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>
>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
>> to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
>> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
>> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of September,
>> the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our commiter status was
>> in the works. However, despite several follow up emails, commiter
>> status was not given and no answer for the delay provided.
>>
>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
>> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
>> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal procedure?
>> Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We
>> believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already gone
>> through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be an
>> initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result (and
>> one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors) is
>> frustrating.
>>
>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of
>> the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of
>> adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial
>> commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis
>> where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial
>> commiters typical?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>> Redhat).
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ml...@redhat.com>.
I would agree with the notion of a low bar to membership for
incubators. I run the JBossESB effort which has really only been
going since March and we've taken a similar approach. The community
has grown immensely since then, with a dozen serious committers from
a range of companies. Give people a chance and they'll help. Add
barriers to entry and they'll go elsewhere.
Mark.
On 29 Sep 2006, at 14:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
> increasing the community.
>
> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>
> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
> have been going on, let me also state that it is
> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
> and any leaking of that information is considered
> a VERY bad thing to do.
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our
>> names were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working
>> on Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential
>> collaboration possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>
>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were
>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
>> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
>> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
>> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
>> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
>> delay provided.
>>
>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
>> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
>> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal
>> procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we
>> had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or
>> should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a
>> different result (and one which appears to have been conducted
>> behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>>
>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation
>> of the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no
>> intention of adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as
>> initial commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On
>> what basis where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of
>> initial commiters typical?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
>> Redhat).
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
increasing the community.
I would recommend that anyone who does not have
commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
which serve to indicate the work they've done.
As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
have been going on, let me also state that it is
really against the ASF to make any sort of development
decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
and any leaking of that information is considered
a VERY bad thing to do.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
> were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on
> Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
> possibilities with Celtixfire.
>
> At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
> to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
> delay provided.
>
> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal
> procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we
> had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or
> should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a
> different result (and one which appears to have been conducted
> behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>
> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of
> the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of
> adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial
> commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis
> where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial
> commiters typical?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark.
>
> --
>
> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
> Redhat).
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
increasing the community.
I would recommend that anyone who does not have
commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
which serve to indicate the work they've done.
As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
have been going on, let me also state that it is
really against the ASF to make any sort of development
decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
and any leaking of that information is considered
a VERY bad thing to do.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
> were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on
> Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
> possibilities with Celtixfire.
>
> At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
> to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
> delay provided.
>
> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal
> procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false
> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission, we
> had already gone through the process of arguing who should, or
> should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with a
> different result (and one which appears to have been conducted
> behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>
> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of
> the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of
> adding us (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial
> commiters, why did the project submitter include us? On what basis
> where these accounts not set up? Is random denial of initial
> commiters typical?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark.
>
> --
>
> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of
> Redhat).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Oct 6, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> 2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated
> loads of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some.
> The guy you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he
> has difficulty passing through airport security (*).
Ok that came out wrong! That sentence had more explicit reference to
both the 3, now 2, mentors and the one, now none, champion in there,
and I shortened it considerably, and then the "(well, until
recently)" comment no longer referred to Jason stepping down as CXF
mentor, and it turns out to be a painful grammatical mess-up which
says the wrong thing. My English gets worse when I'm grumpy.
Sorry :-$
In no way did I mean to imply that "the mentors for CXF" have some
how "lost" any kind of merit due to recent events. That is just too
silly for words.
Once again, apologies. I know what -- beer on me next week?
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I did not like the idea of rebooting CXF because I think
> the CXF community would have lost an important
> "lessons-learned" opportunity...
IMHO, there's been a 'lessons-learned' opportunity
for the incubator, too.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSaYZ5rNPMCpn3XdAQJKdwP+J3KFMUhpV3CFbA6Hml3sDEobBMEn7wl1
xnXHvNZpZ9bFAHod7HaOALz/drL//hKT3Xu7gd3kgKbNKuF2oWPCkqm/hja19PMO
OUKoeyCIZ2R/+WL4ZdCWMhyrrqUdU99JKYQ/eeuUxJUea5smActAURqpewMoEous
Cl079uTdkio=
=6C4B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Just an update:
o Jason has stepped down as Mentor for CXF.
o The PPMC has been setup.
o Anyone who was supposed to get commit privs and did not
is being contacted to see if they still want it, and
if they say Yes, will receive it.
o If they also request to join the PPMC, they will
be welcomed in.
I did not like the idea of rebooting CXF because I think
the CXF community would have lost an important
"lessons-learned" opportunity...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Mark Little wrote:
> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
> more experienced?
No and hell no. "Because I said so" doesn't cut it anymore today than it
did when I was 5. Technicalities aside (ignore the binding votes issue),
we're all peers in a community. Ideas and action should be the tokens of
value, not authority. For the Nth time today, our goal is consensus. Votes
should be a celebration (ratification) of a consensus, not the tool (and a
poor one at that) to make one.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:09 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> I'd previously suggested (with an fresh message topic, even) a meeting at
> ApacheCon
>
> Message-ID: <NB...@devtech.com>
>
> but no one replied. I'm still game for an Incubation meeting with whomever
> wants to gather.
If this is to happen on Thursday I will be there.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> List of things to pack for ApacheCon
:-)
I'd previously suggested (with an fresh message topic, even) a meeting at
ApacheCon
Message-ID: <NB...@devtech.com>
but no one replied. I'm still game for an Incubation meeting with whomever
wants to gather.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
I find that you only suffer a hangover if you actually sober up.
There's a simple solution to that ;-)
Mark.
On 7 Oct 2006, at 10:46, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> List of things to pack for ApacheCon:
> - some eggs
> - tomato juice
> - asperine and
> - vitamine C pills...
>
> With all the beer going back and forth, until the full beer dept is
> paid off, you're bound for some serious hangover. I'm sorry I can't be
> a witness for this event :)
>
> I agree with many that this thread is very interesting from a learning
> experience... If you only saw the google adsense proposals I recieved
> when I followed this thread in gmail.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 10/6/06, Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com> wrote:
>> In which case I apologies if I got the context wrong. Let's please
>> just collectively shake hands (hard to do via email I know) and agree
>> to buy each other some drinks if we ever catch up face-to-face.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> On 6 Oct 2006, at 22:29, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > Mark,
>> >
>> > I believe you took my entire message out of its intended
>> > context, which was the recent me/you/Leo/you minithread.
>> > Most definitely not the entire looong discussion thread,
>> > nor the overall topic with all the threads hanging from it.
>> >
>> > Sorry if I wasn't clear.
>> > - --
>> > #ken P-)}
>> >
>> > Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> > Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>> >
>> > "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> >
>> > iQCVAwUBRSbKzprNPMCpn3XdAQLCYAQAxYD+JEAMBCEdOm0DUvdi8+kketHuLsRj
>> > yTh0E8/jy9QQRY+tgo2N411e9EQ60YWhywr2mAOhxi9QTE3NrBCAnHvFPJLw5pI6
>> > nLp9ypGyxy3CqSD6FEFwzAKOPxsoAsQW+mXTMV0t28dF3Ki2rOUlON9G7of8mLAF
>> > J7cfLU48CCQ=
>> > =X7WY
>> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/
> wicket">Vote</a>
> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/
> wicket">Wicket</a>
> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
> the World!</a>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
List of things to pack for ApacheCon:
- some eggs
- tomato juice
- asperine and
- vitamine C pills...
With all the beer going back and forth, until the full beer dept is
paid off, you're bound for some serious hangover. I'm sorry I can't be
a witness for this event :)
I agree with many that this thread is very interesting from a learning
experience... If you only saw the google adsense proposals I recieved
when I followed this thread in gmail.
Martijn
On 10/6/06, Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com> wrote:
> In which case I apologies if I got the context wrong. Let's please
> just collectively shake hands (hard to do via email I know) and agree
> to buy each other some drinks if we ever catch up face-to-face.
>
> All the best,
>
> Mark.
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 22:29, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I believe you took my entire message out of its intended
> > context, which was the recent me/you/Leo/you minithread.
> > Most definitely not the entire looong discussion thread,
> > nor the overall topic with all the threads hanging from it.
> >
> > Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> > - --
> > #ken P-)}
> >
> > Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> > Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
> >
> > "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iQCVAwUBRSbKzprNPMCpn3XdAQLCYAQAxYD+JEAMBCEdOm0DUvdi8+kketHuLsRj
> > yTh0E8/jy9QQRY+tgo2N411e9EQ60YWhywr2mAOhxi9QTE3NrBCAnHvFPJLw5pI6
> > nLp9ypGyxy3CqSD6FEFwzAKOPxsoAsQW+mXTMV0t28dF3Ki2rOUlON9G7of8mLAF
> > J7cfLU48CCQ=
> > =X7WY
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket">Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket">Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
In which case I apologies if I got the context wrong. Let's please
just collectively shake hands (hard to do via email I know) and agree
to buy each other some drinks if we ever catch up face-to-face.
All the best,
Mark.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 22:29, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark,
>
> I believe you took my entire message out of its intended
> context, which was the recent me/you/Leo/you minithread.
> Most definitely not the entire looong discussion thread,
> nor the overall topic with all the threads hanging from it.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRSbKzprNPMCpn3XdAQLCYAQAxYD+JEAMBCEdOm0DUvdi8+kketHuLsRj
> yTh0E8/jy9QQRY+tgo2N411e9EQ60YWhywr2mAOhxi9QTE3NrBCAnHvFPJLw5pI6
> nLp9ypGyxy3CqSD6FEFwzAKOPxsoAsQW+mXTMV0t28dF3Ki2rOUlON9G7of8mLAF
> J7cfLU48CCQ=
> =X7WY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
I believe you took my entire message out of its intended
context, which was the recent me/you/Leo/you minithread.
Most definitely not the entire looong discussion thread,
nor the overall topic with all the threads hanging from it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSbKzprNPMCpn3XdAQLCYAQAxYD+JEAMBCEdOm0DUvdi8+kketHuLsRj
yTh0E8/jy9QQRY+tgo2N411e9EQ60YWhywr2mAOhxi9QTE3NrBCAnHvFPJLw5pI6
nLp9ypGyxy3CqSD6FEFwzAKOPxsoAsQW+mXTMV0t28dF3Ki2rOUlON9G7of8mLAF
J7cfLU48CCQ=
=X7WY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 21:34, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>>
>>> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
>>
>> And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
>
> Actually, I think that's patently false. You never learned
> anything from a book? Or a lecture? Or a discussion?
Hmmm. Now isn't it a discussion that we've been having?
> And people gain merit by doing, not by learning. The
> learning comes first, naturally. :-)
Kind of depends what's involved in "doing".
>
>> And everyone makes mistakes (including you, myself and people in
>> Apache). To believe otherwise is to not live in the real world.
>
> True enough.
>
>> To not question others is to live in a totalitarian regime.
>
> No, that's when you're not *allowed* to question.
Quite right ;-)
> Being able
> to but not doing so is of debatable utility.
I think you made my point better than I did. Thanks :-)
> Assuming you're
> right without asking questions, in opposition to others with
> more experience in the subject, is likewise typically suboptimal.
Oh, I did ask questions. Remember the first email?
>
>> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
>> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
>> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
>> more experienced?
>
> I don't think that's Leo's point. I suspect the one he's
> trying to make is that the above is a perfect opportunity
> to ask those questions you mentioned, rather than dogmatically
> assuming irreducible incompatibility.
>
> Of course, you might want to check your facts. :-)
;)
>
>> Even factoring experience in (and experience ranges across a lot of
>> different areas, and I admit to being lacking in Apache experience
>> compared to many others, but certainly not lacking in the field of
>> computing), that's a crazy way to think.
>
> 'Even factoring in?' Leo's whole point is about experience;
> it's not something to be 'factored into' the discussion with
> him. And experience with Apache is the issue here, not
> general industry-wide credentials. And I don't think it's
> particularly crazy for someone who is less-experienced to
> provisionally assume a more-experienced person is correct
> when there's a difference of opinion. Would you argue with
> a haematologist about the meaning of rouleaux formations
> in a blood sample, even if you're a qualified dermatologist?
> Or would you perhaps assume he knew what he was talking
> about, and maybe ask questions about the subject?
I did ask, now didn't I?
>
>> I'm sorry but I don't recall reading in any of the Apache literature
>> that a frontal lobotomy was a pre-requisite to joining!
>
> That's more than a little over the top. I doubt remarks
> like that are going to help foster community and peer
> relationships.
Given the previous comments in the email, I disagree. But then you
probably expected me to say that anyway.
>
>> So lemmings are the kind of individuals you want in Apache? People
>> who just follow without questioning?
>
> More of the same, alas.
>
>> I think your comments show a level of naivete and to be honest, are
>> uncalled for.
>
> I hope you won't be surprised or insulted if anyone
> extends you the same courtesy.
That's fair enough. At this stage none of us are talking entirely
objectively.
>
>> Processes (governments, corporate, open source etc.) grown and evolve
>> because people question them and push the boundaries. I think the
>> original point of this thread was such a push.
>
> If so, I respectfully suggest that you might consider
> finding a different way of expressing yourself. This
> one seems to have polarised some people against you.
Going back to facts: you need to get all of yours right first. I (and
others) did try other avenues of expressing and querying first.
Several. Over the course of weeks. This was the last frustrated
effort before giving up, to be perfectly honest!
> And that's something that can laid wholly at their doors;
I assume you meant "cannot be".
> you need to take some responsibility for it as well.
I'm not (and won't) point the finger of blame at anyone. As I said to
Leo, we all make mistakes. I hope that as a community we can learn
from this and try to move on with no negative feelings: I certainly
don't have any.
>
>>> That mindset somehow tends to start with "the people around me are
>>> trying to do the Right Thing", if you can't bring yourself around
>>> to that world view, you might as well look for a more productive
>>> environment right now.
>>
>> Huh? OK, so you obviously live in some alternative reality to the
>> real world ;-) I'm happy to take this offline, because it is no
>> longer relevant to this discussion.
>
> I disagree. Leo's remark is spot-on and highly relevant. If
> you are not interested in learning how things are done at the
> ASF, and choose to assume axiomatically you know better than the
> people who have been there for years, then you shouldn't be here.
I didn't assume that. What I did assume was that people make mistakes
and that certain actions appeared to be against Apache rules/
processes. Bringing those issues to the fore (either to be told my
suppositions were wrong, or for things to be corrected) was the ONLY
reason behind the email I sent. Maybe this isn't what Leo meant, but
his comment read like I should have just accepted what was happening
in silence and assumed it was the Right Thing.
> CeltixFire will not succeed here without fitting into the Apache
> milieu. Variety is welcomed; fundamental and incompatible
> differences of view are not.
>
>>> Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
>>> things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
>>> typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already,
>>
>> Get off your soapbox and stop trying to make this personal. To the
>> best of my knowledge, until this email this entire thread was not
>> personal. It was about people trying to figure out the right thing to
>> do in a complex situation.
>
> I think Leo was saying, in his blunt way, the same thing I
> did above: intentional or not, your manner of expression
> is not regarded by some as conducive to friendly discourse.
It's definitely not a one-way street either. I can blame frustration
on my part, plus the fact that email is a poor medium for these kinds
of discussions. I'm prepared to draw a line under this and move on a
little bit more enlightened (positive statement, so don't
misinterpret) about the Apache process and community.
>
>> Well if you're ever willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about
>> this as everyone else appears to be, let me know. Until then I'll
>> treat this email as static.
>
> You might want to check your facts.
No comment. I think we should just move on.
Mark.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRSa95JrNPMCpn3XdAQLcsQQA0RbzsZ44vI4LICSGUDZcaPwNgcw5I/0K
> 2o97gOkM01FSYiXxpo1oltiPtLy70QPavgVgIAXrTAVW/9onssfxoWLnrt+8fbCy
> 02FUD0BThLTEnzcfTdKmYBwZZ1N1qUlb4A8EVYowOMvD+VqIE+CUWgtsDKFOods2
> gnqJHPfLQTA=
> =Q8eJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
>
>> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
>
> And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
Actually, I think that's patently false. You never learned
anything from a book? Or a lecture? Or a discussion?
And people gain merit by doing, not by learning. The
learning comes first, naturally. :-)
> And everyone makes mistakes (including you, myself and people in
> Apache). To believe otherwise is to not live in the real world.
True enough.
> To not question others is to live in a totalitarian regime.
No, that's when you're not *allowed* to question. Being able
to but not doing so is of debatable utility. Assuming you're
right without asking questions, in opposition to others with
more experience in the subject, is likewise typically suboptimal.
> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
> more experienced?
I don't think that's Leo's point. I suspect the one he's
trying to make is that the above is a perfect opportunity
to ask those questions you mentioned, rather than dogmatically
assuming irreducible incompatibility.
Of course, you might want to check your facts. :-)
> Even factoring experience in (and experience ranges across a lot of
> different areas, and I admit to being lacking in Apache experience
> compared to many others, but certainly not lacking in the field of
> computing), that's a crazy way to think.
'Even factoring in?' Leo's whole point is about experience;
it's not something to be 'factored into' the discussion with
him. And experience with Apache is the issue here, not
general industry-wide credentials. And I don't think it's
particularly crazy for someone who is less-experienced to
provisionally assume a more-experienced person is correct
when there's a difference of opinion. Would you argue with
a haematologist about the meaning of rouleaux formations
in a blood sample, even if you're a qualified dermatologist?
Or would you perhaps assume he knew what he was talking
about, and maybe ask questions about the subject?
> I'm sorry but I don't recall reading in any of the Apache literature
> that a frontal lobotomy was a pre-requisite to joining!
That's more than a little over the top. I doubt remarks
like that are going to help foster community and peer
relationships.
> So lemmings are the kind of individuals you want in Apache? People
> who just follow without questioning?
More of the same, alas.
> I think your comments show a level of naivete and to be honest, are
> uncalled for.
I hope you won't be surprised or insulted if anyone
extends you the same courtesy.
> Processes (governments, corporate, open source etc.) grown and evolve
> because people question them and push the boundaries. I think the
> original point of this thread was such a push.
If so, I respectfully suggest that you might consider
finding a different way of expressing yourself. This
one seems to have polarised some people against you.
And that's something that can laid wholly at their doors;
you need to take some responsibility for it as well.
>> That mindset somehow tends to start with "the people around me are
>> trying to do the Right Thing", if you can't bring yourself around
>> to that world view, you might as well look for a more productive
>> environment right now.
>
> Huh? OK, so you obviously live in some alternative reality to the
> real world ;-) I'm happy to take this offline, because it is no
> longer relevant to this discussion.
I disagree. Leo's remark is spot-on and highly relevant. If
you are not interested in learning how things are done at the
ASF, and choose to assume axiomatically you know better than the
people who have been there for years, then you shouldn't be here.
CeltixFire will not succeed here without fitting into the Apache
milieu. Variety is welcomed; fundamental and incompatible
differences of view are not.
>> Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
>> things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
>> typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already,
>
> Get off your soapbox and stop trying to make this personal. To the
> best of my knowledge, until this email this entire thread was not
> personal. It was about people trying to figure out the right thing to
> do in a complex situation.
I think Leo was saying, in his blunt way, the same thing I
did above: intentional or not, your manner of expression
is not regarded by some as conducive to friendly discourse.
> Well if you're ever willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about
> this as everyone else appears to be, let me know. Until then I'll
> treat this email as static.
You might want to check your facts.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSa95JrNPMCpn3XdAQLcsQQA0RbzsZ44vI4LICSGUDZcaPwNgcw5I/0K
2o97gOkM01FSYiXxpo1oltiPtLy70QPavgVgIAXrTAVW/9onssfxoWLnrt+8fbCy
02FUD0BThLTEnzcfTdKmYBwZZ1N1qUlb4A8EVYowOMvD+VqIE+CUWgtsDKFOods2
gnqJHPfLQTA=
=Q8eJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 21:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Replying from the peanut gallery because the friction is getting
> too high.
>
> On 10/6/06, Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
>> >
>> > Erm.
>> >
>> > 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
>>
>> And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
>
> Questioning is good. Long threads are good and I even reckon long
> argumentative threads are good as its a sign of a group learning
> something. As long as the friction of that doesn't get too hot.
I agree. Friction is good to a point. Beer is also a good way to cool
down friction :-)
> Passive observing (lurking tends to be the common word here) shouldn't
> be disregarded though - it's the best way to get a feel for a
> community.
I understand and agree. I'm happy to lurk ;-)
>
>> > 2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated
>> > loads of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some.
>> > The guy you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he
>> > has difficulty passing through airport security (*).
>>
>> And everyone makes mistakes (including you, myself and people in
>> Apache). To believe otherwise is to not live in the real world. To
>> not question others is to live in a totalitarian regime. If that's
>> what you want, then fine. But it's not my ideal.
>
> This'll be a theme here - but I think you're reading too much into
> Leo's email. Questioning = good; let's keep respect involved (in all
> directions *aimed at everyone on the mailing list because it never
> hurts to remind us all of that*).
Maybe Leo read more into my emails then, because at no time did I say
anything that was meant as disrespect to anyone. If you feel that
wasn't the case, let me know.
>
>> > (1)+(2) make it rather likely that, in this instance, those other
>> > people might just know exactly what they're talking about. They
>> > won't pull rank on you because that's never any fun and hardly
>> > useful, but it serves you well to not simply cast their opinion
>> aside.
>>
>> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
>> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
>> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
>> more experienced? Even factoring experience in (and experience ranges
>> across a lot of different areas, and I admit to being lacking in
>> Apache experience compared to many others, but certainly not lacking
>> in the field of computing), that's a crazy way to think. I'm sorry
>> but I don't recall reading in any of the Apache literature that a
>> frontal lobotomy was a pre-requisite to joining!
>
> Nope. Leo didn't say 'accept'; he said 'not simply cast aside'.
Understood and I didn't cast aside AFAIK. Just didn't agree.
> Much
> of the stuff we do in open source when it's beyond a single person
> project is not the field of computing but the field of
> peopleware/communities/whatever this month's term is. There's lots of
> experience in that at Apache and it's worth listening to it.
I've been involved with peopleware/communities/whatever for many many
years too. But I don't think it's helpful it to start a p*ssing
competition. Mutual respect is good: there are things open source
communities can learn from other areas, and vice versa. I think the
dynamic aspects of OS communities make them more able to adapt and be
flexible than "closed source" communities, which is a good thing.
However, adaptation is not always an easy process.
> I'll
> agree with anyone that it often comes across as mantra, but I don't
> believe the mantra exists. It's a bunch of people trying to define a
> common undefined set of principles.
>
> Plus mod_lobotomy is still too buggy.
Sounds like a need for a new incubator project then ;-)
>
>> > On the contrary, since you're apparently trying to become a
>> > committer on an apache project, what you need to do is change your
>> > mindset into one where their (and pretty much anyone else's until
>> > proven otherwise) opinion holds, well, merit.
>>
>> So lemmings are the kind of individuals you want in Apache?
>
> Arseholes aren't the people we want.
Good.
> Not implying you are
Even better.
> - but the
> last email lacked courtesy.
I don't think there was a lack of courtesy. But you should try
reading Leo's email objectively from my perspective. I don't want
this to get personal, so won't say more on that subject.
> Email's a crap medium for that, but as
> face to face is never an easy option it's the best of the rest.
Email is crap for this sort of thing. We can definitely agree on that.
>
> This isn't a malaise that's limited to just newcomers - there are
> enough people at the ASF already who dive in with a strong no-nonsense
> speak-your-mind opinion. The only way you get away with that kind of
> thing is to have a history of being right, and that's a hard thing to
> do as a newcomer to a community. Personally I'd wish for all
> speak-their-minders to take time to think.
We could start a whole new thread on this ;-)
>
>> People
>> who just follow without questioning? Sorry, but I've been in this
>> industry for far too long to just follow things that appear to be
>> wrong. I have no idea of your own background and you obviously have
>> none about mine, so don't simply assume I'll stand quiet or fall into
>> "emperor's new clothes" mode. I am willing to learn. But if
>> differences of opinion aren't allowed in *any* society, we may as
>> well go back to the stone-age! I think your comments show a level of
>> naivete and to be honest, are uncalled for. Processes (governments,
>> corporate, open source etc.) grown and evolve because people question
>> them and push the boundaries. I think the original point of this
>> thread was such a push.
>
> +1 to differences of opinion. +1 to expressing those differences
> constructively.
I hope that this entire thread has been constructive. I'd say that at
least 90% of what I've read falls into that category.
>
>> > That mindset somehow tends to start with "the people around me are
>> > trying to do the Right Thing", if you can't bring yourself around
>> > to that world view, you might as well look for a more productive
>> > environment right now.
>>
>> Huh? OK, so you obviously live in some alternative reality to the
>> real world ;-) I'm happy to take this offline, because it is no
>> longer relevant to this discussion.
>
> I think it's a pretty important part of Leo's email (yep, he's on a
> soapbox, I suspect I am too - if this were just about trying to
> recommend things to you it would be private - this is also about the
> apache-mentoring of the new project(s)). People are involved with a
> project because they want to be - not because someone is paying them
> to do it and they hate it. Maybe that won't be true as more and more
> companies get involved with the Incubator and the ASF, but it's
> definitely a foundation of our community. We're saying stuff because
> we personally care about it and think it will be of benefit to our
> involvement. Hopefully it's a healthy project where benefit for our
> personal involvement maps onto benefit for all - and we're expected to
> accept that the community has consensus that disagrees with us.
I understand and agree. This may have been lost in the email tirade,
but the impetus for the email that started this thread was believing
in doing the right thing for the community (at least based on the
information available). So I'm saying things because I personally
care about them too.
>
> I'm soapboxing, but believing people have agendas isn't healthy.
I don't necessarily believe people had agendas. As I said in the
response to Leo, I disagreed with decisions and wanted a healthy
discussion around them rather than being presented with the end result.
> Agendas exist I'm sure - the best way to deal with that is with a
> healthy and strong community. Then the symptoms of the agendas will
> get questioned and it'll be done politely so as not to damage the
> community.
+1
>
>> > Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
>> > things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
>> > typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already,
>>
>> Get off your soapbox and stop trying to make this personal. To the
>> best of my knowledge, until this email this entire thread was not
>> personal. It was about people trying to figure out the right thing to
>> do in a complex situation.
>
> Probably a good example of when people should change the title on a
> mail thread. Leo's email is community mentoring, not trying to solve
> the situation at hand.
>
>> > but there are others where the communities thrive and grow because
>> > of a more "enlightened" approach!'' or any number of statements
>> > I've seen as part of this thread which we tend to label as
>> > ``flamebait'' around here.
>>
>> Well if you're ever willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about
>> this as everyone else appears to be, let me know. Until then I'll
>> treat this email as static.
>
> The easiest thing to do in these cases is not to reply to the mail.
> That's hard though as it means you're letting someone else get the
> last word in and if you disagree violently with them then none of us
> want to do that. The standard advice is to get the emotion out (write
> a reply and kill it, take a walk, vent at a colleague) and then reply.
> I'd also advise not replying to the parts of the original that made
> you angry.
Oh, the email you saw wasn't the first one I wrote ;-) I've been
involved in various community efforts (OMG standards, IETF, W3C,
OASIS etc.) for over 20 years and you quickly learn the advice you've
outlined above.
>
> Apologies for all that waffle - even with editing it's hard to keep
> these kinds of emails concise (or to not sound like a pompous
> windbag).
Nah. Good discussion to be perfectly honest.
Mark.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Replying from the peanut gallery because the friction is getting too high.
On 10/6/06, Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com> wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > Erm.
> >
> > 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
>
> And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
Questioning is good. Long threads are good and I even reckon long
argumentative threads are good as its a sign of a group learning
something. As long as the friction of that doesn't get too hot.
Passive observing (lurking tends to be the common word here) shouldn't
be disregarded though - it's the best way to get a feel for a
community.
> > 2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated
> > loads of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some.
> > The guy you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he
> > has difficulty passing through airport security (*).
>
> And everyone makes mistakes (including you, myself and people in
> Apache). To believe otherwise is to not live in the real world. To
> not question others is to live in a totalitarian regime. If that's
> what you want, then fine. But it's not my ideal.
This'll be a theme here - but I think you're reading too much into
Leo's email. Questioning = good; let's keep respect involved (in all
directions *aimed at everyone on the mailing list because it never
hurts to remind us all of that*).
> > (1)+(2) make it rather likely that, in this instance, those other
> > people might just know exactly what they're talking about. They
> > won't pull rank on you because that's never any fun and hardly
> > useful, but it serves you well to not simply cast their opinion aside.
>
> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
> more experienced? Even factoring experience in (and experience ranges
> across a lot of different areas, and I admit to being lacking in
> Apache experience compared to many others, but certainly not lacking
> in the field of computing), that's a crazy way to think. I'm sorry
> but I don't recall reading in any of the Apache literature that a
> frontal lobotomy was a pre-requisite to joining!
Nope. Leo didn't say 'accept'; he said 'not simply cast aside'. Much
of the stuff we do in open source when it's beyond a single person
project is not the field of computing but the field of
peopleware/communities/whatever this month's term is. There's lots of
experience in that at Apache and it's worth listening to it. I'll
agree with anyone that it often comes across as mantra, but I don't
believe the mantra exists. It's a bunch of people trying to define a
common undefined set of principles.
Plus mod_lobotomy is still too buggy.
> > On the contrary, since you're apparently trying to become a
> > committer on an apache project, what you need to do is change your
> > mindset into one where their (and pretty much anyone else's until
> > proven otherwise) opinion holds, well, merit.
>
> So lemmings are the kind of individuals you want in Apache?
Arseholes aren't the people we want. Not implying you are - but the
last email lacked courtesy. Email's a crap medium for that, but as
face to face is never an easy option it's the best of the rest.
This isn't a malaise that's limited to just newcomers - there are
enough people at the ASF already who dive in with a strong no-nonsense
speak-your-mind opinion. The only way you get away with that kind of
thing is to have a history of being right, and that's a hard thing to
do as a newcomer to a community. Personally I'd wish for all
speak-their-minders to take time to think.
> People
> who just follow without questioning? Sorry, but I've been in this
> industry for far too long to just follow things that appear to be
> wrong. I have no idea of your own background and you obviously have
> none about mine, so don't simply assume I'll stand quiet or fall into
> "emperor's new clothes" mode. I am willing to learn. But if
> differences of opinion aren't allowed in *any* society, we may as
> well go back to the stone-age! I think your comments show a level of
> naivete and to be honest, are uncalled for. Processes (governments,
> corporate, open source etc.) grown and evolve because people question
> them and push the boundaries. I think the original point of this
> thread was such a push.
+1 to differences of opinion. +1 to expressing those differences constructively.
> > That mindset somehow tends to start with "the people around me are
> > trying to do the Right Thing", if you can't bring yourself around
> > to that world view, you might as well look for a more productive
> > environment right now.
>
> Huh? OK, so you obviously live in some alternative reality to the
> real world ;-) I'm happy to take this offline, because it is no
> longer relevant to this discussion.
I think it's a pretty important part of Leo's email (yep, he's on a
soapbox, I suspect I am too - if this were just about trying to
recommend things to you it would be private - this is also about the
apache-mentoring of the new project(s)). People are involved with a
project because they want to be - not because someone is paying them
to do it and they hate it. Maybe that won't be true as more and more
companies get involved with the Incubator and the ASF, but it's
definitely a foundation of our community. We're saying stuff because
we personally care about it and think it will be of benefit to our
involvement. Hopefully it's a healthy project where benefit for our
personal involvement maps onto benefit for all - and we're expected to
accept that the community has consensus that disagrees with us.
I'm soapboxing, but believing people have agendas isn't healthy.
Agendas exist I'm sure - the best way to deal with that is with a
healthy and strong community. Then the symptoms of the agendas will
get questioned and it'll be done politely so as not to damage the
community.
> > Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
> > things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
> > typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already,
>
> Get off your soapbox and stop trying to make this personal. To the
> best of my knowledge, until this email this entire thread was not
> personal. It was about people trying to figure out the right thing to
> do in a complex situation.
Probably a good example of when people should change the title on a
mail thread. Leo's email is community mentoring, not trying to solve
the situation at hand.
> > but there are others where the communities thrive and grow because
> > of a more "enlightened" approach!'' or any number of statements
> > I've seen as part of this thread which we tend to label as
> > ``flamebait'' around here.
>
> Well if you're ever willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about
> this as everyone else appears to be, let me know. Until then I'll
> treat this email as static.
The easiest thing to do in these cases is not to reply to the mail.
That's hard though as it means you're letting someone else get the
last word in and if you disagree violently with them then none of us
want to do that. The standard advice is to get the emotion out (write
a reply and kill it, take a walk, vent at a colleague) and then reply.
I'd also advise not replying to the parts of the original that made
you angry.
Apologies for all that waffle - even with editing it's hard to keep
these kinds of emails concise (or to not sound like a pompous
windbag).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Mark Little wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>> Mark Little wrote:
>>>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>>>>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>>>>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>>>>
>>>> "obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future
>>>> please.
>>>
>>> Lighten up, Mark.
>>>
>>> I'm describing things from *my* perspective. Don't tell
>>> me what my perspective is. I'm also responding to the
>>> question you posed in the very first message in this
>>> thread, before additional information was revealed, in
>>> light of that information.
>>
>> OK, fair enough ;-)
>>
>>> And yes, it's 'obvious' to me, in the same way that if
>>> someone said Gandhi created al-Qaeda it would be 'obviously'
>>> incorrect. When I referred to myself as a 'complete outsider,'
>>> I meant with regard to this specific issue, not wrt the
>>> ASF or incubator. I *do* have a little experience with
>>> those.
>>>
>>> If anyone considered altering the committer list, and it got
>>> altered, there's nothing random about that. And that appears
>>> - -- to me -- to be what happened.
>>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree then.
>
> Erm.
>
> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
> 2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated
> loads of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some.
> The guy you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he
> has difficulty passing through airport security (*).
And everyone makes mistakes (including you, myself and people in
Apache). To believe otherwise is to not live in the real world. To
not question others is to live in a totalitarian regime. If that's
what you want, then fine. But it's not my ideal.
>
> (1)+(2) make it rather likely that, in this instance, those other
> people might just know exactly what they're talking about. They
> won't pull rank on you because that's never any fun and hardly
> useful, but it serves you well to not simply cast their opinion aside.
So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
more experienced? Even factoring experience in (and experience ranges
across a lot of different areas, and I admit to being lacking in
Apache experience compared to many others, but certainly not lacking
in the field of computing), that's a crazy way to think. I'm sorry
but I don't recall reading in any of the Apache literature that a
frontal lobotomy was a pre-requisite to joining!
>
> On the contrary, since you're apparently trying to become a
> committer on an apache project, what you need to do is change your
> mindset into one where their (and pretty much anyone else's until
> proven otherwise) opinion holds, well, merit.
So lemmings are the kind of individuals you want in Apache? People
who just follow without questioning? Sorry, but I've been in this
industry for far too long to just follow things that appear to be
wrong. I have no idea of your own background and you obviously have
none about mine, so don't simply assume I'll stand quiet or fall into
"emperor's new clothes" mode. I am willing to learn. But if
differences of opinion aren't allowed in *any* society, we may as
well go back to the stone-age! I think your comments show a level of
naivete and to be honest, are uncalled for. Processes (governments,
corporate, open source etc.) grown and evolve because people question
them and push the boundaries. I think the original point of this
thread was such a push.
> That mindset somehow tends to start with "the people around me are
> trying to do the Right Thing", if you can't bring yourself around
> to that world view, you might as well look for a more productive
> environment right now.
Huh? OK, so you obviously live in some alternative reality to the
real world ;-) I'm happy to take this offline, because it is no
longer relevant to this discussion.
>
> Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
> things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
> typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already,
Get off your soapbox and stop trying to make this personal. To the
best of my knowledge, until this email this entire thread was not
personal. It was about people trying to figure out the right thing to
do in a complex situation.
> but there are others where the communities thrive and grow because
> of a more "enlightened" approach!'' or any number of statements
> I've seen as part of this thread which we tend to label as
> ``flamebait'' around here.
Well if you're ever willing to enter into a reasoned discussion about
this as everyone else appears to be, let me know. Until then I'll
treat this email as static.
Thanks,
Mark.
>
> Thanks,
>
> LSD
>
> (*) http://feathercast.org/?p=27
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Mark Little wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Mark Little wrote:
>>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>>
>>>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>>>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>>>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>>>
>>> "obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future
>>> please.
>>
>> Lighten up, Mark.
>>
>> I'm describing things from *my* perspective. Don't tell
>> me what my perspective is. I'm also responding to the
>> question you posed in the very first message in this
>> thread, before additional information was revealed, in
>> light of that information.
>
> OK, fair enough ;-)
>
>> And yes, it's 'obvious' to me, in the same way that if
>> someone said Gandhi created al-Qaeda it would be 'obviously'
>> incorrect. When I referred to myself as a 'complete outsider,'
>> I meant with regard to this specific issue, not wrt the
>> ASF or incubator. I *do* have a little experience with
>> those.
>>
>> If anyone considered altering the committer list, and it got
>> altered, there's nothing random about that. And that appears
>> - -- to me -- to be what happened.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree then.
Erm.
1) ASF is a meritocracy.
2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated loads
of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some. The guy
you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he has
difficulty passing through airport security (*).
(1)+(2) make it rather likely that, in this instance, those other
people might just know exactly what they're talking about. They won't
pull rank on you because that's never any fun and hardly useful, but
it serves you well to not simply cast their opinion aside.
On the contrary, since you're apparently trying to become a committer
on an apache project, what you need to do is change your mindset into
one where their (and pretty much anyone else's until proven
otherwise) opinion holds, well, merit. That mindset somehow tends to
start with "the people around me are trying to do the Right Thing",
if you can't bring yourself around to that world view, you might as
well look for a more productive environment right now.
Secondly, I suggest you learn, and learn right now, to stop writing
things along the lines of ``is random denial of initial committers
typical?'' or ``I've used the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there
are others where the communities thrive and grow because of a more
"enlightened" approach!'' or any number of statements I've seen as
part of this thread which we tend to label as ``flamebait'' around here.
Thanks,
LSD
(*) http://feathercast.org/?p=27
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>>
>> "obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future
>> please.
>
> Lighten up, Mark.
>
> I'm describing things from *my* perspective. Don't tell
> me what my perspective is. I'm also responding to the
> question you posed in the very first message in this
> thread, before additional information was revealed, in
> light of that information.
OK, fair enough ;-)
>
> And yes, it's 'obvious' to me, in the same way that if
> someone said Gandhi created al-Qaeda it would be 'obviously'
> incorrect. When I referred to myself as a 'complete outsider,'
> I meant with regard to this specific issue, not wrt the
> ASF or incubator. I *do* have a little experience with
> those.
>
> If anyone considered altering the committer list, and it got
> altered, there's nothing random about that. And that appears
> - -- to me -- to be what happened.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.
>
> So to answer your very pointed question: "Is random denial
> of initial commiters typical?" I say, "No, it isn't,
> and I don't think that's what happened here."
It was a loaded question to start with ;-)
>
>>> Again, you will draw your own conclusions. Of course, your remark
>>> assumes that 'all the facts' are generally and publicly available,
>>> and 'all the parties involved' are equally well-advertised.
>>
>> In an open process I'd assume that was certainly the case.
>
> Then I think your expectations are impossibly high.
> There will *always* be facts and relationships not
> universally known. And people are people, and will
> forget things and have their own opinions about what's
> relevant and needing of mention -- and what isn't. The
> trick is to make sure that the *critical* ones *are* known.
> And that won't always happen.
>
>>> *My* inference and interpretation is that there is absolutely
>>> no/zero/nada institutional malice involved.
>>
>> And has anyone implied any different? I certainly haven't.
>
> Sorry, but it seemed to me from remarks like this:
>
>> Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
>> assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit
>
> and
>
>> Any objections should have been raised there and then, or the list
>> pruned later by constructive and open debate. Not behind closed doors
>> but a select few.
>
> that you felt you were being discriminated against. If that's
> not what you meant or how you feel, I apologise for
> misunderstanding.
Discriminated against? Possibly. Institutional malice? Never crossed
my mine to be honest.
Mark.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRSUOfZrNPMCpn3XdAQLx6QQAp+AE7MR47w6DFUnOTgAB6AUm/gU/BQX/
> amG7apSMJd/qCQ/X1TVNDBtyIkayDHgISTUeF/+mfCARhKDXuONTsagq6DysnsUZ
> T+iTXEXPOdkXJPnKJu12fNtCT56Qo3kmAq4byA2QMOrWqK3xmYR8oxkYw7n+kUa+
> e2KTmI6ZBK0=
> =ieWm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>
> "obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future
> please.
Lighten up, Mark.
I'm describing things from *my* perspective. Don't tell
me what my perspective is. I'm also responding to the
question you posed in the very first message in this
thread, before additional information was revealed, in
light of that information.
And yes, it's 'obvious' to me, in the same way that if
someone said Gandhi created al-Qaeda it would be 'obviously'
incorrect. When I referred to myself as a 'complete outsider,'
I meant with regard to this specific issue, not wrt the
ASF or incubator. I *do* have a little experience with
those.
If anyone considered altering the committer list, and it got
altered, there's nothing random about that. And that appears
- -- to me -- to be what happened.
So to answer your very pointed question: "Is random denial
of initial commiters typical?" I say, "No, it isn't,
and I don't think that's what happened here."
>> Again, you will draw your own conclusions. Of course, your remark
>> assumes that 'all the facts' are generally and publicly available,
>> and 'all the parties involved' are equally well-advertised.
>
> In an open process I'd assume that was certainly the case.
Then I think your expectations are impossibly high.
There will *always* be facts and relationships not
universally known. And people are people, and will
forget things and have their own opinions about what's
relevant and needing of mention -- and what isn't. The
trick is to make sure that the *critical* ones *are* known.
And that won't always happen.
>> *My* inference and interpretation is that there is absolutely
>> no/zero/nada institutional malice involved.
>
> And has anyone implied any different? I certainly haven't.
Sorry, but it seemed to me from remarks like this:
> Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
> assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit
and
> Any objections should have been raised there and then, or the list
> pruned later by constructive and open debate. Not behind closed doors
> but a select few.
that you felt you were being discriminated against. If that's
not what you meant or how you feel, I apologise for
misunderstanding.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSUOfZrNPMCpn3XdAQLx6QQAp+AE7MR47w6DFUnOTgAB6AUm/gU/BQX/
amG7apSMJd/qCQ/X1TVNDBtyIkayDHgISTUeF/+mfCARhKDXuONTsagq6DysnsUZ
T+iTXEXPOdkXJPnKJu12fNtCT56Qo3kmAq4byA2QMOrWqK3xmYR8oxkYw7n+kUa+
e2KTmI6ZBK0=
=ieWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ma...@jboss.com>.
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>>
>>>> Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
>>> Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
>>> assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive.
>>
>> No offense meant, but given the blackbox approach, what else could
>> one infer from this?!
>
> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you
> choose. It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider,
> that there was nothing 'random' about this at all.
"obvious" has nothing to do with it. Check your facts in future please.
>
>> Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
>> assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit, I'm not in
>> the mood to give the benefit of the doubt. A "careful decision" would
>> be one based on all of the facts and arrived at by consultation with
>> all of the parties involved.
>
> Again, you will draw your own conclusions. Of course,
> your remark assumes that 'all the facts' are generally
> and publicly available, and 'all the parties involved'
> are equally well-advertised.
In an open process I'd assume that was certainly the case.
>
> *My* inference and interpretation is that there is
> absolutely no/zero/nada institutional malice involved.
And has anyone implied any different? I certainly haven't.
Mark.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRSQzx5rNPMCpn3XdAQIwlQP9EfXNG+Db3YcUAFCinsD+RKxLbdLQCBrW
> mzOliAAxhyUoIsii5SIscCgJloW3IbvoPonjjGEUtTmYuPCCR7YOD6cjofUlUMli
> S4T4CwvkIjN9fHvVy1ZY2OGAsFlnPJtdE8JGzg82xVRVrerbIW+4HFQDz/IG9hoL
> jB5o3eZBEZc=
> =snfD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
>
>>> Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
>> Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
>> assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive.
>
> No offense meant, but given the blackbox approach, what else could
> one infer from this?!
You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you
choose. It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider,
that there was nothing 'random' about this at all.
> Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
> assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit, I'm not in
> the mood to give the benefit of the doubt. A "careful decision" would
> be one based on all of the facts and arrived at by consultation with
> all of the parties involved.
Again, you will draw your own conclusions. Of course,
your remark assumes that 'all the facts' are generally
and publicly available, and 'all the parties involved'
are equally well-advertised.
*My* inference and interpretation is that there is
absolutely no/zero/nada institutional malice involved.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRSQzx5rNPMCpn3XdAQIwlQP9EfXNG+Db3YcUAFCinsD+RKxLbdLQCBrW
mzOliAAxhyUoIsii5SIscCgJloW3IbvoPonjjGEUtTmYuPCCR7YOD6cjofUlUMli
S4T4CwvkIjN9fHvVy1ZY2OGAsFlnPJtdE8JGzg82xVRVrerbIW+4HFQDz/IG9hoL
jB5o3eZBEZc=
=snfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Mark Little <ml...@redhat.com>.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 08:17, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were
>> asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
>> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
>> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
>> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
>> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
>> delay provided.
>
> Sometimes this kind of thing does happen around here; its part of
> having stuff done by volunteers (who, incidentally, where probably
> at ApacheCon EU, ApacheCon Asia, on holiday, and then probably had
> loads of stuff to do at work).
Understood, but in Kevin's case there have been many weeks without
any acknowledgment of his emails. Sorry, but despite having other
jobs to do a little courtesy goes a long way.
>
>> Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We
>> believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already
>> gone through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be
>> an initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result
>> (and one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors)
>> is frustrating.
>
> Quite understandable, it seems your assumptions were correct 2
> months ago (having your name on an initial committer list obviously
> tends to mean you'll be one of the initial committers!), and aren't
> correct now, and this wasn't communicated well at all. From follow-
> up I understand that your mentors will provide more insight into
> what happened, which you're definitely entitled to (and quite a few
> people around here will definitely want to know, so sending this e-
> mail was a good thing). Further discussion should probably be with
> them and the cxf PPMC.
Does tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth though. More so about how
it has been handled.
>
>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
>> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation
>> of the group.
>
> Hmm. I don't like the "piling on" phrase, it somehow presents this
> picture to me of some stupid lemmings seeing a way to conquer the
> ASF, which is offensive because our contributors aren't like lemmings.
It's a phrase I've seen used before concerning Apache projects and
one that was used by some (though not us AFAIK) when building the
list of initial committers as the project was being formed and
submitted.
> However, the ASF in general and the incubator in specific *is*
> always concerned about having a "sort of ASF kind of community",
> and experience has shown that big lists of new-to-apache, new-to-
> the-project committers for a new incubator project doesn't always
> work the best way.
>
>
>> Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
>
> Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
> assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive.
No offense meant, but given the blackbox approach, what else could
one infer from this?!
> The assumption should be that it was a careful decision made in the
> best interest of CXF and the ASF.
Sorry, but being strung along for the past 2 months on one set of
assumptions only to be presented with a fait accomplit, I'm not in
the mood to give the benefit of the doubt. A "careful decision" would
be one based on all of the facts and arrived at by consultation with
all of the parties involved.
>
> Once again, sorry about this frustrating experience for you. I hope
> all the responses provide some more insight into why things
> happened the way they did.
I does to a degree, and thanks for spending the time to try to answer
my questions. I appreciate it.
Mark.
>
> LSD
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
> were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are working on
> Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential collaboration
> possibilities with Celtixfire.
(Note the ASF process does not really care about which companies
employ which contributors most of the time. Companies discussing
amongst them what to do with an ASF project is not something we
encourage, and in any case, doesn't count as an argument towards
anything, from an ASF point of view.)
> At the formation of the project all members of the group were asked
> to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
> However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
> turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start of
> September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our
> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several follow
> up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer for the
> delay provided.
Sometimes this kind of thing does happen around here; its part of
having stuff done by volunteers (who, incidentally, where probably at
ApacheCon EU, ApacheCon Asia, on holiday, and then probably had loads
of stuff to do at work). Please remember these events two years from
now and turn them into a positive by contributing towards improving
things in this area of the ASF!
> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision to
> limit the number of commiters and not take into account the listed
> individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this normal procedure?
No, but it has sort-of happened before. With harmony, we started with
no initial committers beyond the project mentors, and that was a
decision by the mentors.
> Have we been waiting 2 months based on false assumptions? We
> believed that, as supporters of the submission, we had already gone
> through the process of arguing who should, or should not, be an
> initial commiter, so to be presented with a different result (and
> one which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors) is
> frustrating.
Quite understandable, it seems your assumptions were correct 2 months
ago (having your name on an initial committer list obviously tends to
mean you'll be one of the initial committers!), and aren't correct
now, and this wasn't communicated well at all. From follow-up I
understand that your mentors will provide more insight into what
happened, which you're definitely entitled to (and quite a few people
around here will definitely want to know, so sending this e-mail was
a good thing). Further discussion should probably be with them and
the cxf PPMC.
> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the project
> was discussed with the project submitters prior to the formation of
> the group.
Hmm. I don't like the "piling on" phrase, it somehow presents this
picture to me of some stupid lemmings seeing a way to conquer the
ASF, which is offensive because our contributors aren't like
lemmings. However, the ASF in general and the incubator in specific
*is* always concerned about having a "sort of ASF kind of community",
and experience has shown that big lists of new-to-apache, new-to-the-
project committers for a new incubator project doesn't always work
the best way.
CXF is a complex mix of existing code and projects, big ideals, a new
direction, and oh, it is also an incubating project. It is not easy
to see exactly how things (are meant to) work there.
> Something seems wrong here; if there was no intention of adding us
> (and perhaps others we don't know about) as initial commiters, why
> did the project submitter include us?
I don't know. If I had written the CXF proposal, the only initial
committers I would have listed would've been the people for whom it
was quite clear that they had already contributed significantly to
the codebases (celtix and xfire), who planned to work actively on
bootstrapping the CXF community, and who had some open source
experience already.
> On what basis where these accounts not set up?
Again, I don't know. I can tell you that a request for user accounts
for Carl Trieloff nor Mark Little ever reached root@ (who create
accounts). Apparently it was mostly a decision by the project's mentors.
> Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive. The
assumption should be that it was a careful decision made in the best
interest of CXF and the ASF.
Once again, sorry about this frustrating experience for you. I hope
all the responses provide some more insight into why things happened
the way they did.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org