You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> on 2006/04/10 12:11:38 UTC
Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
On 4/10/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> > Just a reminder to the Incubator-PMC - could you please vote to
> > approve this release. We had 5 votes from the Geronimo PMC within 24
> > hours of calling the vote and so far after 4 days we've just had one
> > vote from the Incubator PMC (excluding myself who's in all camps).
> >
> > Given the inactivity of the Incubator-PMC on the ActiveMQ project
> > (previous releases were met with similar levels vigourous support ;-)
>
> The apparent inability of the incubator PMC to vote sucks and is a further
> indicator something is wrong
Agreed
> but nevertheless I'm not going to +1 (or -1)
> releases I haven't investigated in detail myself, so +0 from me.
At least you voted - many thanks :)
> > and given the activity of the Geronimo PMC in the project, maybe its
> > time to consider graduating ActiveMQ?
>
> I think the inability of the incubator PMC to fulfill its duties should
> not be an argument for or against graduation of a project under
> incubation. Some problems should not be routed around. They should be
> fixed.
OK.
So how about we broaden membership of the Incubator PMC to include
anyone interested from another PMC (rather than just Apache Members
only)? Or that members of the sponsoring PMC can be included as
binding voters in the approval process of podling releases from the
incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get
involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on
their behalf.
Either way the effect would be the same; allowing folks who are
actually interested in a podling being able to approve its releases;
with the Incubator PMC members still having a -1 if there is anything
about the release they are unhappy with.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Congrats on that 1.0, btw...
geir
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Umm, releases are packages that are supplied to the public.
> I don't vote on release candidates that are not in final bit form.
> Unless the exact names and bits are used that are expected
> to be placed on dist once it is approved, my vote will not
> be given. If I were responsible for the project, then my vote
> would be -1 because the package is not ready for release.
>
> For a long time I thought that this was some weird habit of adding
> rcN to version numbers, as if the whole Java world had no clue why
> there are three version numbers on a product, but Jukka just produced
> a nice 1.0 release package of Jackrabbit after several rcN test packages.
> I still see that as a waste of time, but it doesn't bother me so long as
> we only vote on releases once they are in final form.
>
> ....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: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
Umm, releases are packages that are supplied to the public.
I don't vote on release candidates that are not in final bit form.
Unless the exact names and bits are used that are expected
to be placed on dist once it is approved, my vote will not
be given. If I were responsible for the project, then my vote
would be -1 because the package is not ready for release.
For a long time I thought that this was some weird habit of adding
rcN to version numbers, as if the whole Java world had no clue why
there are three version numbers on a product, but Jukka just produced
a nice 1.0 release package of Jackrabbit after several rcN test
packages.
I still see that as a waste of time, but it doesn't bother me so long as
we only vote on releases once they are in final form.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 08:20:00PM +0800, Gav.... wrote:
> > I know *I* decided a few weeks ago not to spend any more time at any
> > intersection between the wider geronimo community and the incubation stuff
> > because its become obvious that my opinion on a variety of stuff doesn't
> > mesh well with the apparent consensus within that community. I haven't
> > gone so far as to set up an actual ignore filter on
> > (activemq|wadi|servicemix|...) but I might as well have. I read your
> > message
> > sort-of by accident.
>
> Your opinion may not mesh well at the moment, but it needs to be continued
> to be heard I would have thought.
Why? Endless discussions just annoy everyone...the ASF is a big place, and
there is plenty of room for disagreement.
> And your vote is valued as is everyone elses.
I don't have a vote on the direction of geronimo or the organisation of its
community and I shouldn't have.
> If someone raises a vote should it not be compulsory to vote on it in
> some kind of way?
Most certainly not.
> > Maybe other incubator pmc members have a similar mail-reading behaviour.
>
> This surely is unacceptable behaviour.
Excuse me? That's a rather bold statement...
> Why else is the Incubator PMC here
> but to sort out EVERY Incubator related Issue.
The incubator PMC is for oversight of the incubator. PMCs are not there to
do work. That's what we have volunteers for (committers and contributors
and mentors and more).
> Blocking some issues whilst
> being active in only what you find interesting is not good is it.
There is a difference between what a PMC has to do and what individuals on
that PMC have to do. There is also a difference between having no spare time
and blocking something. Blocking is when you vote -1, and even then it often
isn't blocking. When you're a volunteer, doing what interests you (or what
other motiviation you might have) is a perfectly healthy thing.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Gav.... wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leo Simons [mailto:mail@leosimons.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 10 April 2006 9:54 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
>>
>> Still thinking about this...
>>
>> ...just wanted to note that the incubator PMC is responsive for some stuff
>> but not for other stuff. For example
>>
>> * when you raise a generic issue like this you get an answer
>> or some kind of feedback within a few hours or at most a few days.
>>
>> * simpler questions of a FAQ level or the like are usually also answered
>> and usually also answered quickly
>>
>> * for some votes, responses are swift, in abundance, and quite positive
>> (consider the recent vote to graduate jackrabbit)
>>
>> But apparently this is the second time that a
>> please-approve-release-for-activemq vote is left dangling. I don't know
>> exactly what is going on, but its different from "general
>> unresponsiveness".
>>
>> I know *I* decided a few weeks ago not to spend any more time at any
>> intersection between the wider geronimo community and the incubation stuff
>> because its become obvious that my opinion on a variety of stuff doesn't
>> mesh well with the apparent consensus within that community. I haven't
>> gone so far as to set up an actual ignore filter on
>> (activemq|wadi|servicemix|...) but I might as well have. I read your
>> message
>> sort-of by accident.
>
> Your opinion may not mesh well at the moment, but it needs to be continued
> to be heard I would have thought. And your vote is valued as is everyone
> elses. If someone raises a vote should it not be compulsory to vote on it in
> some kind of way?
Well, do that and watch the entire PMC unsubscribe.
>> Maybe other incubator pmc members have a similar mail-reading behaviour.
>
> This surely is unacceptable behaviour. Why else is the Incubator PMC here
> but to sort out EVERY Incubator related Issue. Blocking some issues whilst
> being active in only what you find interesting is not good is it.
It is perfectly acceptable behaviour in a volunteer organisation. I
would not commit to read everything on the Incubator General list. I
simply cannot, and certainly cannot engage with or understand the wide
range of projects that are currently under incubation.
The ActiveMQ project could try to understand more what Leo's issues are,
or could try to seek additional PMC members' interest in the ActiveMQ
project, as onlookers or mentors. If they had three mentors, it would be
relatively easy to get the required three +1 votes from PMC members.
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Simons [mailto:mail@leosimons.com]
> Sent: Monday, 10 April 2006 9:54 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
>
> Still thinking about this...
>
> ...just wanted to note that the incubator PMC is responsive for some stuff
> but not for other stuff. For example
>
> * when you raise a generic issue like this you get an answer
> or some kind of feedback within a few hours or at most a few days.
>
> * simpler questions of a FAQ level or the like are usually also answered
> and usually also answered quickly
>
> * for some votes, responses are swift, in abundance, and quite positive
> (consider the recent vote to graduate jackrabbit)
>
> But apparently this is the second time that a
> please-approve-release-for-activemq vote is left dangling. I don't know
> exactly what is going on, but its different from "general
> unresponsiveness".
>
> I know *I* decided a few weeks ago not to spend any more time at any
> intersection between the wider geronimo community and the incubation stuff
> because its become obvious that my opinion on a variety of stuff doesn't
> mesh well with the apparent consensus within that community. I haven't
> gone so far as to set up an actual ignore filter on
> (activemq|wadi|servicemix|...) but I might as well have. I read your
> message
> sort-of by accident.
Your opinion may not mesh well at the moment, but it needs to be continued
to be heard I would have thought. And your vote is valued as is everyone
elses. If someone raises a vote should it not be compulsory to vote on it in
some kind of way?
>
> Maybe other incubator pmc members have a similar mail-reading behaviour.
This surely is unacceptable behaviour. Why else is the Incubator PMC here
but to sort out EVERY Incubator related Issue. Blocking some issues whilst
being active in only what you find interesting is not good is it.
Gav...
>
> LSD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Still thinking about this...
...just wanted to note that the incubator PMC is responsive for some stuff
but not for other stuff. For example
* when you raise a generic issue like this you get an answer
or some kind of feedback within a few hours or at most a few days.
* simpler questions of a FAQ level or the like are usually also answered
and usually also answered quickly
* for some votes, responses are swift, in abundance, and quite positive
(consider the recent vote to graduate jackrabbit)
But apparently this is the second time that a
please-approve-release-for-activemq vote is left dangling. I don't know
exactly what is going on, but its different from "general unresponsiveness".
I know *I* decided a few weeks ago not to spend any more time at any
intersection between the wider geronimo community and the incubation stuff
because its become obvious that my opinion on a variety of stuff doesn't
mesh well with the apparent consensus within that community. I haven't
gone so far as to set up an actual ignore filter on
(activemq|wadi|servicemix|...) but I might as well have. I read your message
sort-of by accident.
Maybe other incubator pmc members have a similar mail-reading behaviour.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 4/10/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/10/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get
> > > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on
> > > their behalf.
> >
> > I would think that to be contrary to the incubators intentions. In
> > effect, it would lead to a situation where the incubating PMC would in
> > fact do the incubation. If that would work, then I'd believe that the
> > Incubator would never have been invented.
>
> Note I'm only talking about getting releases out here; the Incubator
> PMC members would still have their veto on any release vote and carry
> out the same duties they do during the incubation process.
IMO we should be convinced that the current system cannot be fixed before
adding new rules.
Maybe this new rule should only apply once one release of the podling
> has been performed? e.g. in ActiveMQ's case we had lots of Incubator
> PMC involvement during the first release, then there's been a natural
> tail-off of Incubator PMC interest since.
perhaps the move to increase the number of mentors should help. three
mentors should give enough +1's to proceed in the absence of any -1's. not
that this solves the current issues :-/
Anyone got any better ideas for how to increase the involvement of the
> Incubator PMC in the release process? The offer of free beer maybe? :
> )
i'm out of no silver bullets, i'm afraid :)
are the podling and incubator pmc votes run concurrently ATM?
FWIW I personally like projects to release early and release often, so
> I can see this problem getting worse soon.
+1
if i'm going to rigourously check a release for quality then it'll take at
least an hour and much longer for an unfamilar code base. this time adds up.
but is this really what the incubator PMC should be doing when checking a
release?
it takes me around 15 minutes to check that a release satisfies the minimum
standards for apache releases: licenses, notices, signatures, MD5s and so
on.
is it clear what standards the vote should be applying and what a +1 from
the PMC means?
- robert
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 4/10/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get
> > involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on
> > their behalf.
>
> I would think that to be contrary to the incubators intentions. In
> effect, it would lead to a situation where the incubating PMC would in
> fact do the incubation. If that would work, then I'd believe that the
> Incubator would never have been invented.
Note I'm only talking about getting releases out here; the Incubator
PMC members would still have their veto on any release vote and carry
out the same duties they do during the incubation process.
Maybe this new rule should only apply once one release of the podling
has been performed? e.g. in ActiveMQ's case we had lots of Incubator
PMC involvement during the first release, then there's been a natural
tail-off of Incubator PMC interest since.
Anyone got any better ideas for how to increase the involvement of the
Incubator PMC in the release process? The offer of free beer maybe? :
)
FWIW I personally like projects to release early and release often, so
I can see this problem getting worse soon.
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 4/10/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> incubator? Then at least if the Incubator PMC are too busy to get
> involved on a particular project, folks from the sponsoring PMC can on
> their behalf.
I would think that to be contrary to the incubators intentions. In
effect, it would lead to a situation where the incubating PMC would in
fact do the incubation. If that would work, then I'd believe that the
Incubator would never have been invented.
Jochen
--
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the
majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
(Mark Twain)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Getting the Incubator PMC to be more responsive (Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 4.0-RC2 release of ActiveMQ)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
James Strachan wrote:
> so far after 4 days we've just had one vote from the Incubator PMC
> So how about we broaden membership of the Incubator PMC to include
> anyone interested from another PMC (rather than just Apache Members
> only)? [The] effect would be [allowing] folks who are actually
> interested in a podling being able to approve its releases;
If we can't find enough interested Members or other PMC members, then we
shouldn't be Incubating it. Besides, I can't speak for anyone else, but you
posted on Thursday and complained on Monday. Weekends happen, as Geir
noted. And in my case, Friday was spent flying to Ireland for the ApacheCon
planning meeting, so today was the first I had to look at anything.
Tommorrow is my return flight, so I won't be online at all until late
evening EDT. By then, I expect that you'll have ensured that the two issues
I noted are fixed.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org