You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com> on 2003/09/10 07:44:59 UTC
Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
How about a plan of action?
Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can nominate new committers by sending a note
to the dev mailing list.
Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week. Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate their
preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the incubator PMC and asks for permission
to add the new committers.
-- dims
--- Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1:22 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: committers (again)
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 03:58:38AM -0000,
> > geronimo-dev-digest-help@incubator.apache.org wrote:
> > >...
> > > From: Dain Sundstrom <da...@coredevelopers.net>
> > > Subject: State of the Project
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:11:25 -0500
> > >...
> > > Another challenge facing us is how to grow the committer
> > base. There
> > > is some perception of a cathedral clique of insiders, whereas in
> >
> > Yup. One of the reasons that I suggested adding committers
> > ASAP. The more you wait, the more you reinforce this. You've
> > got a lot of people banging on the door, more than willing to
> > help. Open it, already. And do it on your own terms rather
> > than having the PMC do it.
>
> The door is open, but everyone is milling around in confusion. Let's fix
> it.
>
> >
> > > reality, many of the project management issues have arisen
> > because the
> > > current committers are not used to working together and are
> > new to the
> > > Apache Way. With the initial startup phase behind us, we will be
> > > looking to expand the project rapidly over the next couple
> > of months.
> >
> > There are few true barriers to adding committers. The notion
> > of "current committers are not used to working together" is a
> > red herring. You're already working with the community at
> > large. It has nothing to do with the current set of committers.
> >
>
> I don't think it's a red herring, I think it is a major part of the
> confusion. None of the folks new to Apache really know how it is
> supposed to work and, as I understand it, are tasked with the
> responsibility of deciding. IIRC only one person, ever, at ASF has had
> commit revoked, which should make granting it a decision not to be taken
> lightly.
>
> > I would recommend coming up with, say, a list of four people
> > and submit that list to pmc@incubator for consideration. How
> > about by end of week?
> >
>
> Do we do this in public, or private?
>
> This is not a cathedral question, but an attempt to handle the case
> where someone gets proposed, someone -1's the proposal and has to
> justify it - how do we avoid embarrassing or humiliating a contributor?
>
> > If you don't want to do this, then let's hear a discussion
> > about why. My previous emails on this subject have gone
> > unanswered. :-(
> >
>
> We do want to do it (at least I do) - and we could use some guidance
> from the PMC.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jan Bartel <ja...@mortbay.com>.
Well, my ISP has had my email off the air for a day or two, so I wasn't
able to read this sooner.
My vote goes with the standard Apache way of doing things, which appears
to be Option #2.
As I think Greg Stein pointed out in another posting (I'm still catching
up with the list after my email outtage) this project is world wide,
across many timezones, so we need to make sure there is enough time for
people to respond to votes etc.
Jan
David Blevins wrote:
> Oops, vote's closed -- should have read the whole thread first :)
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:23:48PM +0000, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>+1 #Option 2
>>
>>-David
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:21AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>>With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
>>>I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>>>
>>>Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
>>> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
>>> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
>>> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
>>> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
>>> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
>>> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
>>> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
>>> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
>>> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
>>> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
>>> committers.
>>>
>>>Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
>>> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
>>> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
>>> their contributions and why they should be made a
>>> committer.
>>> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
>>> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
>>> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
>>> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
>>> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>>>
>>>We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
>>>less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>>>
>>>My vote:
>>>Option #1:
>>> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
>>> beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
>>>
>>>Option #2:
>>> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Oops, vote's closed -- should have read the whole thread first :)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:23:48PM +0000, David Blevins wrote:
> +1 #Option 2
>
> -David
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:21AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
> > I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> >
> > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> > Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> > sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> > committers.
> >
> > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> > any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> > their contributions and why they should be made a
> > committer.
> > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
> >
> > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
> > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
> >
> > My vote:
> > Option #1:
> > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
> >
> > Option #2:
> > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
+1 #Option 2
-David
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:21AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>
> Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> committers.
>
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> their contributions and why they should be made a
> committer.
> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>
> We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
> less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>
> My vote:
> Option #1:
> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
>
> Option #2:
> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> No-one objected and no-one new voted overnight so I'm going to declare we
> decided on Option #2.
I've been offline for 24hrs for an ISP reasons - so it would be good to keep
votes like this open for at least a few days.
Not that it matters for me on this one:
+1 for Option #2
cheers
> I'll post this result in the STATUS file and on the wiki - is there anywhere
> else it needs to get recorded?
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:jeremy=RZBK1LssX03d44zGQf8aCqxOck334EZe@public.gmane.org]
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:28 PM
>>To: geronimo-dev=d1GL8uUpDdXTxqt0kkDzDmD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
>>Subject: RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
>>
>>
>>On another thread, RMH said "I'm assuming that we are done voting on how
>>committers are added"
>>
>>After 12 hours, the tally is (binding votes only)
>>Option #1: -0 jboynes
>> +0 jdillon
>>
>>Option #2: +1 jboynes, bsnyder, jdillon, dain, richardmf
>>
>>Distibution of non-binding votes is similar. The trend seems obvious so
>>unless anyone objects I am proposing we close this at 10AM PST 9/11.
>>
>>--
>>Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> No-one objected and no-one new voted overnight so I'm going to declare we
> decided on Option #2.
I've been offline for 24hrs for an ISP reasons - so it would be good to keep
votes like this open for at least a few days.
Not that it matters for me on this one:
+1 for Option #2
cheers
> I'll post this result in the STATUS file and on the wiki - is there anywhere
> else it needs to get recorded?
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:jeremy@coredevelopers.net]
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:28 PM
>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject: RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
>>
>>
>>On another thread, RMH said "I'm assuming that we are done voting on how
>>committers are added"
>>
>>After 12 hours, the tally is (binding votes only)
>>Option #1: -0 jboynes
>> +0 jdillon
>>
>>Option #2: +1 jboynes, bsnyder, jdillon, dain, richardmf
>>
>>Distibution of non-binding votes is similar. The trend seems obvious so
>>unless anyone objects I am proposing we close this at 10AM PST 9/11.
>>
>>--
>>Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: System Architecture Document
Posted by Bruce Snyder <fe...@frii.com>.
This one time, at band camp, Siddhartha Chandurkar said:
SC> I have joined the mailing lists just yesterday,
SC>but I was going through the archives for past 1 1/2
SC>weeks. Since some of the work has already been done I
SC>wanted to understand the overall architecture vision
SC>and how the various modules which are under progress
SC>will colaberate. I was looking for a System
SC>Architecture Document. While browsing through the Wiki
SC>Web. I saw in the TODO list a requirement of the
SC>System Architecture Description Document. I have been
SC>working as a System Designer for the past 3 years,
SC>below is a template which I have formulated based on
SC>my past experience with prodcuts.
SC>If there is no work going on this document. I can
SC>start contributing by writting this document.
SC>
SC> Before I proceed,IMHO. I suggest that we should
SC>have some business drivers of the architecture written
SC>down. Even though these things are important for
SC>commercial products and this being an Open Source
SC>product. In my limited experience this really helps.
SC>This will give us a clear focus and we know the enemy
SC>which we are trying to conquer. (Sun Tzu - "Know your
SC>enemy"). Some of the points that we should consider
SC>are given below.
SC>
SC>Business Drivers
SC>================
SC>+ Describe the business history, environment,
SC>requirements, market differentiators, stakeholders,
SC>current need. How the proposed system will meet those
SC>requirements.
SC>+ Business Constraints. e.g. time to market, customer
SC>needs and standards etc.
SC>+ Technical Constraints
SC>+ Quality attribute requirements and the business
SC>needs from they are derived from
SC>
SC>Having said that below is a proposed template for
SC>System Architecture Description. Some of the things
SC>might not be relevant or some sections might need to
SC>be added.
This is a fine idea and something that is sorely lacking from most Open
Source projects. IMO, a project as big as Geronimo needs this. Many
people spending large amounts of money on 'enterprise' commercial
software have come to expect such artifacts from commercial apps but
when an Open Source app delivers this type of forethought, research,
etc. it lends it that much more credibility. In short, it causes people
to change their mindset from believing that Open Source is just a bunch
of hackers with no plan to believing that there is an organized effort
and therefore true value in the project. This is not my belief I am
simply stating this as a demonstration of what I've heard working for
various companies through the years.
This document is definitely something that needs to be placed in the
Wiki so that others can contribute to it and it can grow.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
System Architecture Document
Posted by Siddhartha Chandurkar <si...@yahoo.com>.
Hi all,
I have joined the mailing lists just yesterday,
but I was going through the archives for past 1 1/2
weeks. Since some of the work has already been done I
wanted to understand the overall architecture vision
and how the various modules which are under progress
will colaberate. I was looking for a System
Architecture Document. While browsing through the Wiki
Web. I saw in the TODO list a requirement of the
System Architecture Description Document. I have been
working as a System Designer for the past 3 years,
below is a template which I have formulated based on
my past experience with prodcuts.
If there is no work going on this document. I can
start contributing by writting this document.
Before I proceed,IMHO. I suggest that we should
have some business drivers of the architecture written
down. Even though these things are important for
commercial products and this being an Open Source
product. In my limited experience this really helps.
This will give us a clear focus and we know the enemy
which we are trying to conquer. (Sun Tzu - "Know your
enemy"). Some of the points that we should consider
are given below.
Business Drivers
================
+ Describe the business history, environment,
requirements, market differentiators, stakeholders,
current need. How the proposed system will meet those
requirements.
+ Business Constraints. e.g. time to market, customer
needs and standards etc.
+ Technical Constraints
+ Quality attribute requirements and the business
needs from they are derived from
Having said that below is a proposed template for
System Architecture Description. Some of the things
might not be relevant or some sections might need to
be added.
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
DOCUMENT for Apache's Geronimo project
1. Title
<The Title of the Product>
2. Revision History
<Revision History of the Document>
3. Introduction
A Brief Introduction of the Product
3.1 Purpose
<Brief description of the Product and the purpose of
the document, plus the intentended audience>
3.2 Scope
<Scope of the Product>
3.3 Definitions, Acronyms, Terminology and Abrivations
<Descrption of all the terms, acronyms, Abrivations
that will help to understand the Document.
Reference to the Glossary/Dictionary can be given here
if it is present>
3.4 References
<References to the documents which are input to this
document. Their Title and the location from where
they are accessible>
3.5 Overview
<Explains what this document contains and how the
document is organized
4. Architectural Goals and Constraints
<Section describes the main Arcthitectural goals and
constraints which are driving the architecture>
5. UseCase View
<Scenarios/Usecases (Architecturally Significant Use
Cases) that represent the central functionality of the
system>
5.1 UseCase Realization
<Section describes how these Usecase are realized by
the architecture. How various subsystems contribute to
their functionality
6. Logical View
6.1 Subsystem Decomposition
6.2.n Desription of Subsystems
<This section describes the decomposition of the
System into subsystem, their relationships and
responsiblities>
7. Interaction Diagram Between Subsytems
<The Interaction Diagrams (Sequences) between the
interfaces of the subsystem. Note. The flow should be
on the subsystem interface level. Details of the
subsystem should not be depicted here>
8. Process View
<The section descibes the varoius processes and
threads interact>
9. Data View (Optional)
<Section descibes how the persistent data is managed
in the system>
10. Deployment View
<Section desrcibes how the system will be deployed and
the Hardware configurations it supports>
11. Quality Attributes
<Section descibes how the Architecures satisfies the
various quality attributes of the system i.e.
reliability, usability, security, performance,
scalability, modifiability and extensibility,
availability etc.>
thanks & regards,
Siddhartha
http://www.visioncodified.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
Votes like this at the ASF can not be "closed". The only time votes
can be closed is if the time limit was announced at the time the
vote was called, and that only really makes sense on things that
are time critical (like a members meeting on IRC).
-aaron
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 10:27 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On another thread, RMH said "I'm assuming that we are done voting on
> how
> committers are added"
>
> After 12 hours, the tally is (binding votes only)
> Option #1: -0 jboynes
> +0 jdillon
>
> Option #2: +1 jboynes, bsnyder, jdillon, dain, richardmf
>
> Distibution of non-binding votes is similar. The trend seems obvious so
> unless anyone objects I am proposing we close this at 10AM PST 9/11.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
No-one objected and no-one new voted overnight so I'm going to declare we
decided on Option #2.
I'll post this result in the STATUS file and on the wiki - is there anywhere
else it needs to get recorded?
--
Jeremy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Boynes [mailto:jeremy@coredevelopers.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:28 PM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
>
>
> On another thread, RMH said "I'm assuming that we are done voting on how
> committers are added"
>
> After 12 hours, the tally is (binding votes only)
> Option #1: -0 jboynes
> +0 jdillon
>
> Option #2: +1 jboynes, bsnyder, jdillon, dain, richardmf
>
> Distibution of non-binding votes is similar. The trend seems obvious so
> unless anyone objects I am proposing we close this at 10AM PST 9/11.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
On another thread, RMH said "I'm assuming that we are done voting on how
committers are added"
After 12 hours, the tally is (binding votes only)
Option #1: -0 jboynes
+0 jdillon
Option #2: +1 jboynes, bsnyder, jdillon, dain, richardmf
Distibution of non-binding votes is similar. The trend seems obvious so
unless anyone objects I am proposing we close this at 10AM PST 9/11.
--
Jeremy
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Richard Monson-Haefel <Ri...@Monson-Haefel.com>.
On 9/10/03 10:21 AM, in article
GHEHKNNAODAPCLJONCCDEEJHCPAA.jeremy@coredevelopers.net, "Jeremy Boynes"
<je...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
>
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
+1 We should stick with ASF SOP.
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Elias Sinderson <el...@cse.ucsc.edu>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
>I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>[...]
>Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
>
+1 - The standard ASF process seems to work well for other ASF projects.
Cheers,
Elias
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
+1 to both :) At least now everyone knows what to expect :)
--- Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
> With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>
> Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> committers.
>
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> their contributions and why they should be made a
> committer.
> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>
> We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
> less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>
> My vote:
> Option #1:
> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
>
> Option #2:
> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
non-binding +1
The Apache way is the thing that defines an apache project, if geronimo is
having problems adopting it thats why it's being incubated.
I favour ASF people helping geronimo to follow the normal process above
having a new geronimo process.
d.
RE: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
+1 For standard ASF procedures.
I don't see any reason to adopt a different approach, even on an interim
basis. One of the purposes for being in the incubator is to learn and get
used to ASF procedures.
--- Noel
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@coredevelopers.net>.
+0 option #1
+1 option #2
--jason
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 12:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
> quickly so
> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>
> Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> committers.
>
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> their contributions and why they should be made a
> committer.
> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>
> We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
> (+1's
> less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>
> My vote:
> Option #1:
> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
>
> Option #2:
> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
>
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Boynes said:
>
> JB>Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
>
> +1
>
> Follow the ASF SOP. The Geronimo project is no more special than any
> other project so I see no need to deviate.
+1 there is no better time then the present to get on the right path...
it's the well beaten one :-)
-dain
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Bruce Snyder <fe...@frii.com>.
This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Boynes said:
JB>Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
+1
Follow the ASF SOP. The Geronimo project is no more special than any
other project so I see no need to deviate.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo.html
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Siva <si...@sivasundaram.com>.
Yeah.both the methods seems to be similar except
the initial phase.As greg stein mentioned,we should
increase the committer base as soon as possible.
So i believe,the first option works out to be better
Siva
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Blewitt" <Al...@ioshq.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
> Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
> procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
> kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
> propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
> block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
> proposed committers.
>
> Alex.
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
Ryan,
Problem is that not much has happened so far...Note that the regular process can be invoked at any
time by any committer. I was indeed forcing the issue to show non-committers who are interested
that something is happening on that front. No, i never mentioned anything about picking X or Y #
of committers. Each person would get a vote +1/-1/+0/-0 as per regular voting rules.
As i said before any way you guys pick is ok as long as something is happening :)
-- dims
--- Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > Surely the basic ideas are the same, though?
>
> I was trying to point out that there doesn't have to be a set week for
> nominations. It is possible to have 100 new committers in the next 10
> minutes if a current committer steps up and nominates people and they have
> the votes.
>
> If you are a committer and you feel someone *deserves* to be a committer
> just propose them as committer right now! Why wait for some week thats set
> aside.
>
> The only purpose I see to something like that is to motivate the current
> committers to actually nominate someone. If this is the case this is
> defeating the purpose of the system. It should be a spontaneous vote based
> on the merits of the proposed committer. Not "We need 4 new committers, who
> do we pick?"
>
> Ryan
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
> Surely the basic ideas are the same, though?
I was trying to point out that there doesn't have to be a set week for
nominations. It is possible to have 100 new committers in the next 10
minutes if a current committer steps up and nominates people and they have
the votes.
If you are a committer and you feel someone *deserves* to be a committer
just propose them as committer right now! Why wait for some week thats set
aside.
The only purpose I see to something like that is to motivate the current
committers to actually nominate someone. If this is the case this is
defeating the purpose of the system. It should be a spontaneous vote based
on the merits of the proposed committer. Not "We need 4 new committers, who
do we pick?"
Ryan
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@coredevelopers.net>.
We need to make you a commiter NOW!
=)
--jason
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 12:38 AM, n. alex rupp wrote:
> If speed is the concern, how is a week-long process (option #1) better
> than
> the traditional process (option #2)?
>
> In option number two any of the committers can suggest someone, bring
> up a
> vote and conclude the matter by day's end. There is no week-long
> waiting
> period and there is no need to coordinate efforts with an ASF sponsor.
> It
> just happens, as quickly as the developers see fit. (PMC intervention
> notwithstanding)
>
> ( the non-committer places his imaginary ballot)
> -0 for option #1
> +1 for option #2
>
> --
> N. Alex Rupp (n_alex_rupp@users.sf.net)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Blewitt" <Al...@ioshq.com>
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
>
>
>> Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
>> procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
>> kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
>> propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
>> block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
>> proposed committers.
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>> On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
>>> quickly so
>>> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>>>
>>> Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
>>> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
>>> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
>>> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
>>> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
>>> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
>>> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
>>> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
>>> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
>>> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
>>> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
>>> committers.
>>>
>>> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
>>> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
>>> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
>>> their contributions and why they should be made a
>>> committer.
>>> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
>>> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
>>> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
>>> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
>>> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>>>
>>> We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
>>> (+1's
>>> less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>>>
>>> My vote:
>>> Option #1:
>>> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
>>> beginning for all committers rather than a custom
>>> one
>>>
>>> Option #2:
>>> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by "n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>.
If speed is the concern, how is a week-long process (option #1) better than
the traditional process (option #2)?
In option number two any of the committers can suggest someone, bring up a
vote and conclude the matter by day's end. There is no week-long waiting
period and there is no need to coordinate efforts with an ASF sponsor. It
just happens, as quickly as the developers see fit. (PMC intervention
notwithstanding)
( the non-committer places his imaginary ballot)
-0 for option #1
+1 for option #2
--
N. Alex Rupp (n_alex_rupp@users.sf.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Blewitt" <Al...@ioshq.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
> Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
> procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
> kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
> propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
> block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
> proposed committers.
>
> Alex.
>
> On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
> > quickly so
> > I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> >
> > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> > Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> > sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> > committers.
> >
> > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> > any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> > their contributions and why they should be made a
> > committer.
> > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
> >
> > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
> > (+1's
> > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
> >
> > My vote:
> > Option #1:
> > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
> >
> > Option #2:
> > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
> >
>
>
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
It was just a suggestion. Nothing more. I want this project to succeed as much as anyone else and
have indicated that am ready to help when it comes to Web Services related JSR's. When the time
comes, i will submit patches just like anyone else. Also, FYI, every PMC can have its own rules as
to process(es).
What prompted me were the following: (Do you spot a pattern?)
> "The door is open, but everyone is milling around in confusion. Let's fix it"
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org&msgId=1031820)
AND
> N. Alex Rupp has graciously allowed me to host the project under his SourceForge
> service-cache project (until the changes are incorporated into the tree
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org&msgNo=3158)
AND
> Allowing commit access to modules/mail and specs/javamail
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.geronimo.devel/1874)
Thanks,
dims
--- Bill_de_h�ra <bi...@dehora.net> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > and once geronimo has a critical mass, regular processes can be used.
>
> I think Geronimo has critical mass now. I also think the normal
> process will work out fine. I understand folks want to get stuck in,
> but I don't see anything special about this project that would
> require a new process or even a process bootstrap.
>
> And, he said darkly, altering processes now potentially sets a
> precedent for future abuse. I haven't committed anything except
> words so far, so I don't dare vote, but my opinion is that the
> current committers should be given the benefit of the doubt. This
> project still is a few weeks young, give it some time to settle.
>
> Bill de h�ra
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Bill de hÓra <bi...@dehora.net>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> and once geronimo has a critical mass, regular processes can be used.
I think Geronimo has critical mass now. I also think the normal
process will work out fine. I understand folks want to get stuck in,
but I don't see anything special about this project that would
require a new process or even a process bootstrap.
And, he said darkly, altering processes now potentially sets a
precedent for future abuse. I haven't committed anything except
words so far, so I don't dare vote, but my opinion is that the
current committers should be given the benefit of the doubt. This
project still is a few weeks young, give it some time to settle.
Bill de hÓra
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
and once geronimo has a critical mass, regular processes can be used.
-- dims
--- Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> yep. the problem i was trying to tackle was that no one had an idea what was going to happen and
> when.
>
> -- dims
>
> --- Alex Blewitt <Al...@ioshq.com> wrote:
> > Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
> > procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
> > kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
> > propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
> > block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
> > proposed committers.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >
> > > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
> > > quickly so
> > > I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> > >
> > > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> > > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> > > Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> > > sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> > > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> > > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> > > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> > > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> > > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> > > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> > > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> > > committers.
> > >
> > > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> > > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> > > any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> > > their contributions and why they should be made a
> > > committer.
> > > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> > > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> > > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> > > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> > > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
> > >
> > > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
> > > (+1's
> > > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
> > >
> > > My vote:
> > > Option #1:
> > > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> > > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
> > >
> > > Option #2:
> > > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
yep. the problem i was trying to tackle was that no one had an idea what was going to happen and
when.
-- dims
--- Alex Blewitt <Al...@ioshq.com> wrote:
> Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
> procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
> kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
> propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
> block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
> proposed committers.
>
> Alex.
>
> On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> > With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
> > quickly so
> > I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
> >
> > Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> > Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> > sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> > nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> > mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> > Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> > their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> > Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> > incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> > committers.
> >
> > Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> > Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> > any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> > their contributions and why they should be made a
> > committer.
> > Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> > The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> > ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> > (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> > Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
> >
> > We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
> > (+1's
> > less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
> >
> > My vote:
> > Option #1:
> > -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> > beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
> >
> > Option #2:
> > +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
> >
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: [vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Alex Blewitt <Al...@ioshq.com>.
Surely the basic ideas are the same, though? They are following ASF
procedures; the only difference proposed by Davanum is that to
kick-start the process off, rather than waiting for the committers to
propose people, a number of people step forward in that week and then
block voting occurs. The only difference is kick-starting the list of
proposed committers.
Alex.
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/London, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed
> quickly so
> I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
>
> Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
> Existing committers can nominate new committers by
> sending a note to the dev mailing list.
> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
> nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
> Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
> their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
> incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
> committers.
>
> Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
> Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
> any time. The proposing committer generally lists
> their contributions and why they should be made a
> committer.
> Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
> The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
> ( three +1's and no -1's) as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
> (note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
> Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>
> We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days
> (+1's
> less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
>
> My vote:
> Option #1:
> -0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
> beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
>
> Option #2:
> +1 jboynes - It's the normal process
>
[vote] Process for adding committers
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
With two options on the table, I think we need to put this to bed quickly so
I am calling for a vote between the two following options:
Option #1 from Davanum Srinivas:
Step #1: 1 week of Nominations.
Existing committers can nominate new committers by
sending a note to the dev mailing list.
Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of
nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev
mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week.
Existing committers can use +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate
their preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the
incubator PMC and asks for permission to add the new
committers.
Option #2 from Ryan Ackley:
Step #1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at
any time. The proposing committer generally lists
their contributions and why they should be made a
committer.
Step #2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
The vote is open for 3 days and requires consensus
( three +1's and no -1's) as per
http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html
(note this is a different link than Ryan's original)
Step #3: A positive result is handled as per
http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
We go with whichever option gets the highest score after three days (+1's
less -1's) unless the outcome is obvious.
My vote:
Option #1:
-0 jboynes - I think we should use a standard process from the
beginning for all committers rather than a custom one
Option #2:
+1 jboynes - It's the normal process
Re: The Apache way of adding committers
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
Ryan,
My suggestion was geared towards building up the # of committers in quicker fashion than is
possible by the normal process. Especially because there are so many good people contributing on
this list, we need to ramp up quickly.
-- dims
--- Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can nominate new
> > > committers by sending a note
>
> I haven't really been following the whole discussion but I will list the way
> its normally done for apache projects.
>
> Step#1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at any time. The
> proposing committer generally lists their contributions and why they should
> be made a committer.
> Step#2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
>
> see this page for more details on the process:
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
>
> see this page for details on voting:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
The Apache way of adding committers
Posted by Ryan Ackley <sa...@cfl.rr.com>.
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can nominate new
> > committers by sending a note
I haven't really been following the whole discussion but I will list the way
its normally done for apache projects.
Step#1: Any committer can propose someone as a committer at any time. The
proposing committer generally lists their contributions and why they should
be made a committer.
Step#2: Any current committer can vote on the new committer.
see this page for more details on the process:
http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/newcommitters.html
see this page for details on voting:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by "n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>.
Michael,
I think everyone here has a responsibility to themselves and to the
community to do their best to answer questions and disseminate information
about the project and its surrounding technologies without lording their
experience over the rest of the crowd. My experience here has been very
positive--the community on this list is very instructional as well as
functional. A lot of the stuff we're working on is the culmination of years
of research and independent experience--not always something we can
reasonably demand our newcomers gather before they post questions. You and
your questions, and the questions of all the other newcomers are welcome on
the geronimo-dev list as far as I'm concerned, and I'm confident everyone
here will do what they can to help--provided you're willing to help yourself
as well. I'd be willing to bet nobody here learned what they know about
J2EE in a classroom.
That said, a "New to J2EE?" section of the Wiki would be a fine resource for
newcomers to the project--a place to start learning about the internals of
the technology. There are many good books and online resources available
for the different subsystems of Geronimo. Compiling a list of them in the
wiki would be a good place to start.
Finally, nothing beats the code for examples and evidence of the technology.
Also, remember--there are few better ways to learn something than by
teaching it.
Best,
--
N. Alex Rupp (n_alex_rupp@users.sf.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Portnoy" <ma...@yahoo.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
>
> Okay, so I'm new to open-source projects. While I have
> plenty of software engineering experience It has all
> been embedded, C,C++ Assembly.
>
> I think a seperate e-mail list should be created for
> newbies or people who want to contribute. So we
> can ask the "stupid" questions. and possible get
> somebody who could "mentor" us, if you will. Just
> so we could get enough hand-holding to get us over
> the rough-spots.
>
> Of course that means that some of you "old-timers"
> must
> be willing to monitor the list and contribute. I know
> most of you old-timers didn't have anybody to hold
> your hand, but I do think it will be helpful to the
> people and the project.
>
> Michael "my $.02" Portnoy
>
>
> =====
> _______________________________________________________
> The messages and documents transmitted with this notice contain
> confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are
> the intended recipient of this information, you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
> the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately.
>
> http://home.austin.rr.com/michaelportnoy/
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by "n. alex rupp" <ru...@umn.edu>.
That's definitely the process--but there's more to it than that IMO. It's
in all of our best interests to help out new developers. This needn't be
thought of as "hand holding". I don't think we'd be coddling anyone by
compiling a list of references and resources to the 50,000 foot view of the
technology on our wiki.
The point is to grow a strong community, with the understanding that strong
technology will result from it.
: )
--
N. Alex Rupp (n_alex_rupp@users.sf.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Urberg" <ti...@yahoo.com>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
> I can remember when I was fairly new to open source (which wasn't that
long
> ago). I'm not sure any hand holding is required. The way it works is you
just
> grab the code base, get to know it, find something that is broken,
announce to
> everyone that you're going to fix it, and how (to make sure that no one
else is
> doing the same thing) and then fix it. Then either commit if (if you have
> rights) or send it to the list for someone else to commit it. The same
goes for
> new fuctionality. It's really not as hard as it seems, it's just *a lot*
> different that what you're used to, which is people telling you how it
should
> be done. From my experence, this has been my understanding of how open
source
> works.
>
> That's my $0.02 added on to your $0.02 which makes $0.04 :)
>
> Tim Urberg
> OpenEJB Developer
>
> --- Michael Portnoy <ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, so I'm new to open-source projects. While I have
> > plenty of software engineering experience It has all
> > been embedded, C,C++ Assembly.
> >
> > I think a seperate e-mail list should be created for
> > newbies or people who want to contribute. So we
> > can ask the "stupid" questions. and possible get
> > somebody who could "mentor" us, if you will. Just
> > so we could get enough hand-holding to get us over
> > the rough-spots.
> >
> > Of course that means that some of you "old-timers"
> > must
> > be willing to monitor the list and contribute. I know
> > most of you old-timers didn't have anybody to hold
> > your hand, but I do think it will be helpful to the
> > people and the project.
> >
> > Michael "my $.02" Portnoy
>
Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Tim Urberg <ti...@yahoo.com>.
I can remember when I was fairly new to open source (which wasn't that long
ago). I'm not sure any hand holding is required. The way it works is you just
grab the code base, get to know it, find something that is broken, announce to
everyone that you're going to fix it, and how (to make sure that no one else is
doing the same thing) and then fix it. Then either commit if (if you have
rights) or send it to the list for someone else to commit it. The same goes for
new fuctionality. It's really not as hard as it seems, it's just *a lot*
different that what you're used to, which is people telling you how it should
be done. From my experence, this has been my understanding of how open source
works.
That's my $0.02 added on to your $0.02 which makes $0.04 :)
Tim Urberg
OpenEJB Developer
--- Michael Portnoy <ma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, so I'm new to open-source projects. While I have
> plenty of software engineering experience It has all
> been embedded, C,C++ Assembly.
>
> I think a seperate e-mail list should be created for
> newbies or people who want to contribute. So we
> can ask the "stupid" questions. and possible get
> somebody who could "mentor" us, if you will. Just
> so we could get enough hand-holding to get us over
> the rough-spots.
>
> Of course that means that some of you "old-timers"
> must
> be willing to monitor the list and contribute. I know
> most of you old-timers didn't have anybody to hold
> your hand, but I do think it will be helpful to the
> people and the project.
>
> Michael "my $.02" Portnoy
RE: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
> From: Michael Portnoy [mailto:maportnoy@yahoo.com]
> I think a seperate e-mail list should be created for
> newbies or people who want to contribute. So we
> can ask the "stupid" questions. and possible get
> somebody who could "mentor" us, if you will. Just
> so we could get enough hand-holding to get us over
> the rough-spots.
>
> Of course that means that some of you "old-timers"
> must
> be willing to monitor the list and contribute. I know
> most of you old-timers didn't have anybody to hold
> your hand, but I do think it will be helpful to the
> people and the project.
When a project is a little more mature it is common to have both -user
and -dev lists, for former for discussions related to use of the project,
the latter related to the development of the project. The developers are
expected to hang out on both.
At this stage we have not reached even alpha stage for the code and so
virtually all the discussion is targeted at the development of the project.
We will probably add a -user list in the future.
As for asking "stupid" questions - go ahead. But if you're new to open
source, then I'd suggest reading ESR's guide to asking smart ones first.
--
Jeremy
Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Michael Portnoy <ma...@yahoo.com>.
Okay, so I'm new to open-source projects. While I have
plenty of software engineering experience It has all
been embedded, C,C++ Assembly.
I think a seperate e-mail list should be created for
newbies or people who want to contribute. So we
can ask the "stupid" questions. and possible get
somebody who could "mentor" us, if you will. Just
so we could get enough hand-holding to get us over
the rough-spots.
Of course that means that some of you "old-timers"
must
be willing to monitor the list and contribute. I know
most of you old-timers didn't have anybody to hold
your hand, but I do think it will be helpful to the
people and the project.
Michael "my $.02" Portnoy
=====
_______________________________________________________
The messages and documents transmitted with this notice contain
confidential information belonging to the sender. If you are
the intended recipient of this information, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately.
http://home.austin.rr.com/michaelportnoy/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 01:44 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> How about a plan of action?
>
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can nominate new
> committers by sending a note
> to the dev mailing list.
> Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list of nominations
> and starts a VOTE on the dev
> mailing list. VOTE is open for 1 week. Existing committers can use
> +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate their
> preference in an email to the dev mailing list.
> Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of the VOTE to the incubator
> PMC and asks for permission
> to add the new committers.
>
>
+1 (as a starting point for discussion). The main goal, and the
above accomplishes that, is some sort of organized method to
add committers without undue delay or confusion :)
RE: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
Jeremy,
Typically the committer who proposes a new person checks with him/her first privately to see if
they have the bandwidth/interest in being a committer.
-- dims
--- Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
> > How about a plan of action?
> >
> > Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can
> > nominate new committers by sending a note to the dev mailing
> > list. Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list
> > of nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev mailing list.
> > VOTE is open for 1 week. Existing committers can use
> > +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate their preference in an email to the
> > dev mailing list. Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of
> > the VOTE to the incubator PMC and asks for permission to add
> > the new committers.
> >
>
> How does this handle the situation where someone does not get voted in -
> the last thing I want to do is put people off from contributing because
> they risk a negative public vote?
>
> An option might be to ask a nominee in advance if they are interested,
> so that it is a risk they are aware of in advance. You could argue that
> by submitting patches they have opened themselves up for it, but I would
> prefer it was explicit.
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
RE: Plan of Action (RE: committers (again))
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>.
> How about a plan of action?
>
> Step #1: 1 week of Nominations. Existing committers can
> nominate new committers by sending a note to the dev mailing
> list. Step #2: One of the ASF sponsors consolidates the list
> of nominations and starts a VOTE on the dev mailing list.
> VOTE is open for 1 week. Existing committers can use
> +1/+0/-0/-1 to indicate their preference in an email to the
> dev mailing list. Step #3: ASF sponsor conveys the result of
> the VOTE to the incubator PMC and asks for permission to add
> the new committers.
>
How does this handle the situation where someone does not get voted in -
the last thing I want to do is put people off from contributing because
they risk a negative public vote?
An option might be to ask a nominee in advance if they are interested,
so that it is a risk they are aware of in advance. You could argue that
by submitting patches they have opened themselves up for it, but I would
prefer it was explicit.
--
Jeremy