Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Graduation

[Rod Simpson <ro...@rodsimpson.com>]

John,

Can you clarify if we need to include all the modules in the new SGA (e.g. including the stack), or if the new SGA should only include the things that were not in the original grant (SDKs, ugh, portal).

Thanks!

Rod

-- 
Rod Simpson
T @rockerston
W rodsimpson.com

On January 25, 2015 at 8:23:46 AM, John D. Ament (john.d.ament@gmail.com) wrote:

Lewis,  

On Sat Jan 24 2015 at 11:11:17 PM Lewis John Mcgibbney <  
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:  

> Hi John,  
>  
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:50 AM, <  
> dev-digest-help@usergrid.incubator.apache.org> wrote:  
>  
> >  
> > Let me clarify a bit. I do apologize for being a bit brief on my  
> response,  
> > I just had ankle surgery and am not feeling that great afterwards :/  
> >  
>  
> All the best with recovery John.  
>  
>  
> >  
> > To be honest, I think Usergrid is about 75% there.  
>  
>  
> +1, I would say more than that. There is a solid community here. That is  
> the most important thing for me to be honest. The initial group of  
> committers have done a sterling job of promoting UG at every given  
> opportunity.  
>  
>  
> > I think if we clear up  
> > the administrative stuff we can get very close towards graduation,  
>  
>  
> This is true John. We have some issues to have addressed on the link below.  
> I will make best efforts to track the intricacies down and see if we can  
> get them flushed out to the page.  
>  
>  
> > but I  
> > think having one more release, which is completely clean, will be that  
> true  
> > proof the podling's ready to rock.  
> >  
>  
> Another release would be fantastic. I think the podling has proved that  
> release managers are available, keen and willing to stand up to the job.  
> This ticks the release box for me and I am not concerned about Usergrids  
> ability to produce releases.  
> Further on this point, from the initial proposal document  
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UsergridProposal  
>  
> - Move the existing code base to Apache CHECK  
> - Integrate with the Apache development process CHECK  
> - Ensure all dependencies are compliant with Apache License 2.0 CHECK  
> - Set up open-source docs and website CHECK  
> - Incremental development and releases per Apache Guidelines CHECK  
>  
>  
Well, technically we're still struggling w/ bullet 3. As Justin pointed  
out, we still have some issues w/ our notice and license files.  

Specifically where I'm concerned is under "Weak Copy-left" from here  
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html (CDDL license specifically)  

The issues with one of the files was exactly what this calls out and just  
makes me nervous to say there is no other in the source base. Obviously  
the easiest way to ensure it doesn't exist any longer is to remove the  
dependencies from the code base but that's a pretty large effort.  

At some point we should plan to go file by file and make sure it's not  
questionable. There are some questionable files I see in launcher that use  
a very odd format, not quite the format I see in the rest of the code  
base. The fact that they don't use imports and everything is the FQCN  
makes me think it came from elsewhere.  


>  
>  
> > What needs to be updated on here?  
> >  
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/usergrid.html  
> >  
> > - Podling Name Search - since Apigee donated Usergrid, I'm assuming  
> Apigee  
> > has already signed over the name to the ASF. Do we have record of this  
> > somewhere?  
> >  
>  
> Mmmmm. This is fuzzy right now. The initial proposal adds no value here  
> either. If we cannot get formal verification that this has taken place down  
> at Apigee then I think we should kick off a podling name search  
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html#search  
>  
>  
At this point, I've started on some of the leg work around this. It's  
obviously looking good at this point (the platform's been around long  
enough that the only similar term showing up is "a list of users within a  
grid"  


>  
> >  
> > - If you have a full list of committers at this point, we should make  
> sure  
> > the page gets updated with everyones username.  
> >  
>  
> Where on minotaur can I locate this info. Do you know? I will flush it out.  
>  
>  
Ha. I've found this to be a pain. When committers get added they're put  
into the "incubator" group - we don't create ldap groups for podlings.  

What I think would be easiest is to just run through the mail archives and  
see whenever someone's been voted in as a committer, make sure they've  
filed an ICLA and actually created an apache id. I've dealt with a podling  
a while ago where they voted tons of people in as committers - I think  
upwards of 40 people. Of those 40, 8 actually went through the process of  
signing up with Apache.  

Ultimately, when creating the TLP resolution we should only list out active  
committers, people who haven't contributed during incubation should be very  
carefully looked at.  

John  


>  
> >  
> > - Dates are important for many of these sections. It seems to me like  
> much  
> > of this is complete, but I personally don't know the dates in which it  
> > occurred. We should make sure those get updated.  
> >  
>  
> ACK.  
>  

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Graduation

["John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>]

Rod,

I would recommend always leaning towards the safe side.  The general
consensus on the general@ list is that the CCLA isn't a replacement SGA, so
including everything in it is the best.

John

On Sat Feb 14 2015 at 10:33:57 AM Rod Simpson <ro...@rodsimpson.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Can you clarify if we need to include all the modules in the new SGA (e.g.
> including the stack), or if the new SGA should only include the things that
> were not in the original grant (SDKs, ugh, portal).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rod
>
> --
> *Rod Simpson*
> T @rockerston
> W rodsimpson.com
>
> On January 25, 2015 at 8:23:46 AM, John D. Ament (john.d.ament@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Lewis,
>
> On Sat Jan 24 2015 at 11:11:17 PM Lewis John Mcgibbney <
> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:50 AM, <
> > dev-digest-help@usergrid.incubator.apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Let me clarify a bit. I do apologize for being a bit brief on my
> > response,
> > > I just had ankle surgery and am not feeling that great afterwards :/
> > >
> >
> > All the best with recovery John.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > To be honest, I think Usergrid is about 75% there.
> >
> >
> > +1, I would say more than that. There is a solid community here. That is
> > the most important thing for me to be honest. The initial group of
> > committers have done a sterling job of promoting UG at every given
> > opportunity.
> >
> >
> > > I think if we clear up
> > > the administrative stuff we can get very close towards graduation,
> >
> >
> > This is true John. We have some issues to have addressed on the link
> below.
> > I will make best efforts to track the intricacies down and see if we can
> > get them flushed out to the page.
> >
> >
> > > but I
> > > think having one more release, which is completely clean, will be that
> > true
> > > proof the podling's ready to rock.
> > >
> >
> > Another release would be fantastic. I think the podling has proved that
> > release managers are available, keen and willing to stand up to the job.
> > This ticks the release box for me and I am not concerned about Usergrids
> > ability to produce releases.
> > Further on this point, from the initial proposal document
> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UsergridProposal
> >
> > - Move the existing code base to Apache CHECK
> > - Integrate with the Apache development process CHECK
> > - Ensure all dependencies are compliant with Apache License 2.0 CHECK
> > - Set up open-source docs and website CHECK
> > - Incremental development and releases per Apache Guidelines CHECK
> >
> >
> Well, technically we're still struggling w/ bullet 3. As Justin pointed
> out, we still have some issues w/ our notice and license files.
>
> Specifically where I'm concerned is under "Weak Copy-left" from here
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html (CDDL license specifically)
>
> The issues with one of the files was exactly what this calls out and just
> makes me nervous to say there is no other in the source base. Obviously
> the easiest way to ensure it doesn't exist any longer is to remove the
> dependencies from the code base but that's a pretty large effort.
>
> At some point we should plan to go file by file and make sure it's not
> questionable. There are some questionable files I see in launcher that use
> a very odd format, not quite the format I see in the rest of the code
> base. The fact that they don't use imports and everything is the FQCN
> makes me think it came from elsewhere.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > What needs to be updated on here?
> > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/usergrid.html
> > >
> > > - Podling Name Search - since Apigee donated Usergrid, I'm assuming
> > Apigee
> > > has already signed over the name to the ASF. Do we have record of this
> > > somewhere?
> > >
> >
> > Mmmmm. This is fuzzy right now. The initial proposal adds no value here
> > either. If we cannot get formal verification that this has taken place
> down
> > at Apigee then I think we should kick off a podling name search
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html#search
> >
> >
> At this point, I've started on some of the leg work around this. It's
> obviously looking good at this point (the platform's been around long
> enough that the only similar term showing up is "a list of users within a
> grid"
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > - If you have a full list of committers at this point, we should make
> > sure
> > > the page gets updated with everyones username.
> > >
> >
> > Where on minotaur can I locate this info. Do you know? I will flush it
> out.
> >
> >
> Ha. I've found this to be a pain. When committers get added they're put
> into the "incubator" group - we don't create ldap groups for podlings.
>
> What I think would be easiest is to just run through the mail archives and
> see whenever someone's been voted in as a committer, make sure they've
> filed an ICLA and actually created an apache id. I've dealt with a podling
> a while ago where they voted tons of people in as committers - I think
> upwards of 40 people. Of those 40, 8 actually went through the process of
> signing up with Apache.
>
> Ultimately, when creating the TLP resolution we should only list out
> active
> committers, people who haven't contributed during incubation should be
> very
> carefully looked at.
>
> John
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > - Dates are important for many of these sections. It seems to me like
> > much
> > > of this is complete, but I personally don't know the dates in which it
> > > occurred. We should make sure those get updated.
> > >
> >
> > ACK.
> >
>
>