VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>]

I am calling off the old vote, and it has been vetoed by Dan.

This is a completely new vote.

The official revision link for this vote is at

http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SharedComponentVersioningGuidelines?action=recall&rev=27

Regardless of additional changes I may make to the page, this vote is
for the specified revision number.

Thanks,

David

Re: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[Francois Orsini <fr...@gmail.com>]

I think Dan is basically saying that the same form of recording media
(mailing-list) is usually used to publish content to be voted on as well as
the recorded votes (ASF trend I guess)- By using WIKI along with a
mailing-list, you end-up with content and votes being recorded on 2
different types of media. Not saying it's bad since you have versioning in
WIKI but some folks might be relunctant because you end-up with 2 different
medias.

I find this tool (Nabble) to be fairly good at searching through a
mailing-list (including Derby's).
http://www.nabble.com/Apache-Database-f105.html

--francois

Link/Quote for e-mai is official medium - WAS lRe: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>]

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

> David Van Couvering wrote:

>>The quote "communication is done through mailing lists" -- I think the
>>intent is more about the spirit of communication through Internet
>>mechanisms than a strict rule about a particular Internet tool, IMHO.  I
>>don't know if it's right to be exclusive when other and perhaps better
>>communication Internet communication mechanisms can be used to improve
>>the quality of communication.  I thought the main point was that
>>communications are recorded and public, vs. private and not recorded.
>>If we have a voting page, the policy is stored on the Wiki, pointing a
>>page with a specific version number, and the vote discussion happens on
>>email, what is missing?
> 
> 
> I think the intent is mailing-lists, and there is some project that
> explicitly states this (can't find it though), and states it in an
> apache-wide way, not specific to that project.

Just to follow up, I found the source for e-mail being the official
medium, from the Apache James project.

http://james.apache.org/mail.html

<quote>

The Apache Software Foundation has well established reasons for using
email and not other types of forum.
We are not interested in hearing proposals to use NNTP (news groups) or
web forums or any other medium.
You may use a mail-news gateway, gmail or anything else you like but
email will remain the official medium.

</quote>

Dan.

Re: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>]

David Van Couvering wrote:

> Hm, I was assuming the Wiki would be around and data isn't lost; any
> revision is available through the Info link on a page, and I think even
> deleted pages remain in the system.  How is the Wiki less "durable" than
> an email archive?  Is it not being backed up?  I would actually think
> it's a better repository because you can actually find stuff much easier
> than having to trawl through email lists, and it can be formatted so
> that it's easier to read and follow.  Also, other Apache sites have
> policies on their web pages, which I'm sure were voted on (see for
> example the link I have to the Jakarta Commons versioning policy).  Do
> our policies have to be in email form only?

I'm not being clear. Let me try to be explicit.

- A proposal can be discussed on the lists and summarized in a wiki, or
even developed on a wiki along with the e-mail discussion.

- I believe the vote e-mail for the policy must include, in-line, the
text of the policy that we are voting on.

- If the policy passes then it can be reflected on a web-site, in a
wiki, in a blog, wherever.

- However, the official record of what was voted on, in case there are
any questions later on, is the e-mail thread in the archives.


> I'd like to challenge that the Wiki site can not be part of the official
> repository for an Apache project.  We have email archives, we have SVN,
>  we have our web site, those are all official.  What is it about the
> Wiki that makes it different?   I agree with you that pointing to a
> mutable page for a vote doesn't work, but if I can point to a specific
> version, I'm not sure what is missing.

What makes it different is that e-mail communication and e-mail archives
are the way that decisions are made and archived on Apache projects.
That's clearly understood and is a common trait for all Apache projects,
and covered in the "how it works" section of apache.org. I'm 100% sure
that the ASF makes sure it's e-mail archives are secure and recoverable.

Wiki's are a new feature,  I have no idea how the ASF infrastructure
views them, it's interesting to note I can't find any mention of them in
any of the apache.org 'how it works' pages.


> The quote "communication is done through mailing lists" -- I think the
> intent is more about the spirit of communication through Internet
> mechanisms than a strict rule about a particular Internet tool, IMHO.  I
> don't know if it's right to be exclusive when other and perhaps better
> communication Internet communication mechanisms can be used to improve
> the quality of communication.  I thought the main point was that
> communications are recorded and public, vs. private and not recorded.
> If we have a voting page, the policy is stored on the Wiki, pointing a
> page with a specific version number, and the vote discussion happens on
> email, what is missing?

I think the intent is mailing-lists, and there is some project that
explicitly states this (can't find it though), and states it in an
apache-wide way, not specific to that project.

I think it's good to ask if the wiki is an approved archive for an
apache project, I'm just not sure it is seen that way by the ASF in general.
Dan.

Re: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>]

Hm, I was assuming the Wiki would be around and data isn't lost; any
revision is available through the Info link on a page, and I think even
deleted pages remain in the system.  How is the Wiki less "durable" than
an email archive?  Is it not being backed up?  I would actually think
it's a better repository because you can actually find stuff much easier
than having to trawl through email lists, and it can be formatted so
that it's easier to read and follow.  Also, other Apache sites have
policies on their web pages, which I'm sure were voted on (see for
example the link I have to the Jakarta Commons versioning policy).  Do
our policies have to be in email form only?

I'd like to challenge that the Wiki site can not be part of the official
repository for an Apache project.  We have email archives, we have SVN,
 we have our web site, those are all official.  What is it about the
Wiki that makes it different?   I agree with you that pointing to a
mutable page for a vote doesn't work, but if I can point to a specific
version, I'm not sure what is missing.

The quote "communication is done through mailing lists" -- I think the
intent is more about the spirit of communication through Internet
mechanisms than a strict rule about a particular Internet tool, IMHO.  I
don't know if it's right to be exclusive when other and perhaps better
communication Internet communication mechanisms can be used to improve
the quality of communication.  I thought the main point was that
communications are recorded and public, vs. private and not recorded.
If we have a voting page, the policy is stored on the Wiki, pointing a
page with a specific version number, and the vote discussion happens on
email, what is missing?

All that said, if this isn't working, I'm happy to adjust -- I'm not
willing to lie down on the tracks for this one.  If the Wiki site just
isn't working, I'll put the policy in an email.

David

Daniel John Debrunner wrote On 10/21/05 10:45,:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
> 
> 
>>I am calling off the old vote, and it has been vetoed by Dan.
>>
>>This is a completely new vote.
>>
>>The official revision link for this vote is at
>>
>>http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SharedComponentVersioningGuidelines?action=recall&rev=27
>>
>>Regardless of additional changes I may make to the page, this vote is
>>for the specified revision number.
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the point, I don't think the wiki is an official
> repository of an Apache project. What happens if that page is deleted
> tomorrow, is the above link still valid? To repeat, through a quote
> "Communication is done via mailing lists. ".
> 
> I want to be able to look at the mail archives in three years time and
> see exactly what was agreed to with any vote.
> 
> We may need Jean's input since she has dabbled in infrastructure.
> 
> Dan.
> 

Re: VOTE: Shared Components Guidelines, Version 27 of the page

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>]

David Van Couvering wrote:

> I am calling off the old vote, and it has been vetoed by Dan.
> 
> This is a completely new vote.
> 
> The official revision link for this vote is at
> 
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SharedComponentVersioningGuidelines?action=recall&rev=27
> 
> Regardless of additional changes I may make to the page, this vote is
> for the specified revision number.

I think you are missing the point, I don't think the wiki is an official
repository of an Apache project. What happens if that page is deleted
tomorrow, is the above link still valid? To repeat, through a quote
"Communication is done via mailing lists. ".

I want to be able to look at the mail archives in three years time and
see exactly what was agreed to with any vote.

We may need Jean's input since she has dabbled in infrastructure.

Dan.