You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net> on 2006/12/15 18:07:16 UTC
[VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hi everyone,
You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
time they join the club completely.
[+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
[-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
The vote will be open for a week.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/15/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de> wrote:
> Hm,
>
> does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from
> Andy?
As long as we're not soliciting trade secrets - tis good. I suspect
this is a case of Andy's lawyer back in the day either having a
different opinion or it being a different scenario/context.
> I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to
> remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise,
> this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart.
>
> Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-)
Nick's been doing lots of work over there :)
I'm +1 for opening, unless it's decided that POI does need to add
extra process to protect from trade secrets. Currently the view is
that it doesn't - however chatting with Harmony to find out how things
worked for them would be of value.
On TLP - the main worry is that POI lacks overlap with the rest of the
ASF - more like an Incubator project than a normal TLP [maybe that's
too harsh]. My thinking is that we (Jakarta PMC) need to bring them up
to speed and then decide whether things are fitting or not.
Apart from the legal issue and the insularity - I'm +1 for POI
becoming a healthy happy part of Jakarta.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Danny Angus <Da...@slc.co.uk>.
> I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to
> remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise,
> this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart.
Same here, as no-one has ack#ed my resignation I'm going to vote +0 for
this.
I think that if POI believe that they are in anyway different from the
rest of jakarta, and are capable of making these judgements by themselves
then they should seriously be thinking about becoming a TLP.
I think POI should have another look at the questionnaire:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/JakartaPMCRequestTLPBenchmark
d.
*******************************************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Hm,
does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from
Andy?
I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to
remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise,
this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart.
Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-)
Best regards
Henning
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:07 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
> time they join the club completely.
>
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> The vote will be open for a week.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hello Henri,
> I bet a lot of Jakarta does not conform - it's only when a release
> happens that we think about bringing it up to date. This is not a
> problem of the POI community but a problem of the Jakarta community
> structure and for the PMC. It's the PMC's responsibility to make sure
> these releases are right and not the POI community.
OK.
> A plus point of POI as a TLP is that then it becomes the POI
> community's responsibility far more (as I imagine there would be far
> more of 1:1 ratio of committers to PMC there).
You see a chance to move POI to TLP in the current situation?
I've always see "going TLP" as a way to gain visibility, and
would have expected the board to make sure that projects doing
that step are working well. You've definitely more insight here.
> Let's not go over the top here - the release itself isn't that bad and
> it's got the important things right (license, notice). Having gone and
> looked at them, I'm not overly worried about the two particular
> releases themselves, just that it's clear that information is not
> getting out to POI and that it urgently needs to somehow.
OK again. Thanks for putting that into perspective.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> Hello Avik,
>
> > I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
> > comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
> > think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
> > dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
>
> I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any
> difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and
> after Andy's first responses I also thought "hey, let's get them
> promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in
> Jakarta". I've since had time to reconsider and realize that
> this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is
> even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting
> it to TLP or "hiding" it in commons will not change anything.
> If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions
> directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly
> on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we
> made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
> to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you
> promote it to TLP".
I can't speak for the others - but that's what I was saying in the
email I was writing at the same time as you :)
> A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by
> the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of
> things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or
> missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements
> on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around
> since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write
> a build process that generates release jars conforming to
> Apache standards?
I bet a lot of Jakarta does not conform - it's only when a release
happens that we think about bringing it up to date. This is not a
problem of the POI community but a problem of the Jakarta community
structure and for the PMC. It's the PMC's responsibility to make sure
these releases are right and not the POI community.
A plus point of POI as a TLP is that then it becomes the POI
community's responsibility far more (as I imagine there would be far
more of 1:1 ratio of committers to PMC there).
Let's not go over the top here - the release itself isn't that bad and
it's got the important things right (license, notice). Having gone and
looked at them, I'm not overly worried about the two particular
releases themselves, just that it's clear that information is not
getting out to POI and that it urgently needs to somehow.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hello Avik,
Avik Sengupta wrote:
> This is completely out of line (to say the least).
Yes it was. Henri already pointed out my error, and I apologize for
mixing things up and thereby offending the POI community. The problem
was not in the release files, it was with the procedure used for
publishing it. The responsibility for that is with the PMC and not
the developer community.
My thoughts started spinning around this vote thread over the week-end,
they spun too far from what was actually happening, and I failed to
re-read the mails on the PMC list. Again: I apologize. I'll do my best
to avoid misinterpretations in the future.
> Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the POI
> developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous!
I did not presume that POI developers want to become a commons
subproject. It was you who mentioned becoming a commons subproject,
and you clearly stated that you did not want that to happen. I just
pointed out that neither promoting up to TLP (to make a clean split
between POI and Jakarta) nor promoting down to a commons subproject
(to somehow cover up the existing community split) would address
the problem at hand. I was not suggesting nor considering moving POI
to a commons subproject at any time, and I am sorry if I phrased
that ambiguously.
As for helping the (POI) list, I'm afraid that I don't have time left
for that. HttpComponents is taking up the time I have available. I am
trying to help the Jakarta community - including POI - by participating
in this discussion on general@. I share my views and current understanding
of the discussion's subject, however wrong they may be at times, and hope
to get new information and to be corrected where I am wrong before
I cast my vote. If I should vote at all, since there are only +1 and -1
to choose from.
> As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it
> mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely
> consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major releases
> earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a reason [yes i
> know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to bash four years
> of existence on a project.
For the latter, I apologize once more. But I also ask you to take
note that I phrased that part of my mail as a question. Provocative,
yes, but still a question. Thank you (and Henri) for answering it.
For the future, I'll try to avoid writing such mails late at night
when I am tired and my thoughts have spun around for too long.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@itellix.com>.
Quoting Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>:
> Hello Avik,
>
>> I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
>> comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
>> think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
>> dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
>
> I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any
> difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and
> after Andy's first responses I also thought "hey, let's get them
> promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in
> Jakarta". I've since had time to reconsider and realize that
> this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is
> even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting
> it to TLP or "hiding" it in commons will not change anything.
> If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions
> directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly
> on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we
> made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
> to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you
> promote it to TLP".
>
> A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by
> the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of
> things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or
> missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements
> on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around
> since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write
> a build process that generates release jars conforming to
> Apache standards?
>
This is completely out of line (to say the least). It isn't as if the
release contained encumbered code, or didn't include source. If I were
to use your level of rhetoric, I'd say this sounds like a witch hunt.
Maybe you want to help out on the list, rather than presume that the
POI developers want to become a commons subproject. How presumptuous!
Way back when the POI committers were among the first to conduct an
audit of its dependencies. The results were on the old wiki....
As to voting on files, I'm yet to see a board resolution that makes it
mandatory. So yes, that's a suggestion that the POI team will surely
consider (read the dev list archives, we've done that for major
releases earlier... the current release is considered alpha for a
reason [yes i know, its still a legal release] ), but is not reason to
bash four years of existence on a project.
Regards
-
Avik
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
> made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
> to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you
> promote it to TLP".
That is was my feeling as well, but I understood from the board that they rather prefer that things
are not hidden in subprojects, which is something that can easily happen with big projects like
Jakarta (and I can imagine that no one actually had any real idea of the number of projects over
here). Based on that I started with this report giving information about all projects, so they still
have the opportunity to intervene. This also means that board reports should be more open and
preferably identify issues and problems, as well as the positive things happening. We should make
the job easier for the board to determine if Jakarta is healthy.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hello Avik,
> I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
> comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
> think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
> dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
I don't think that the level at which POI resides will make any
difference. I admit that at the beginning of this thread and
after Andy's first responses I also thought "hey, let's get them
promoted to TLP and we're finally rid of these discussions in
Jakarta". I've since had time to reconsider and realize that
this is not a solution. And actually I don't think that it is
even an option. POI is not running the Apache way. Promoting
it to TLP or "hiding" it in commons will not change anything.
If it were a TLP, you'd be having basically the same discussions
directly with the board. Do you think they'll look more kindly
on failure to follow the established Apache procedures? If we
made a proposal to promote POI now, I would expect the board
to reject it and tell us "make POI work in Jakarta before you
promote it to TLP".
A release can go wrong all right. That this wasn't detected by
the POI community itself is reason for worry. But the kind of
things that went wrong, like files being in the wrong place or
missing is even more reason for worry. The copyright statements
on the POI web site indicate that the project has been around
since 2002. Does that mean that in 4 years nobody cared to write
a build process that generates release jars conforming to
Apache standards?
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@itellix.com>.
Quoting Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>:
>
> So.. I think we need to:
>
> 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the
> files etc.
>
> 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and
> organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing
> when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for
> Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the
> points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta
> PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so.
> Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a
> policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy.
>
> 3) Work on a TLP proposal.
>
+1 on all three.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
> So.. I think we need to:
>
> 1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the
> files etc.
>
> 2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and
> organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing
> when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for
> Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the
> points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta
> PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so.
> Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a
> policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy.
We definitely need to do something with that, but just solving it at the PMC level, doesn't help.
I am not in favor of gathering useless documents, so if we come up with something it actually has to
*mean* something legally, else we are just keeping books to keep books (even though I am from the
Netherlands, where we like bureaucracy, doesn't mean that I like it).
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/17/06, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
>
> Avik Sengupta wrote:
> > I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
> > comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
> > think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
> > dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
>
> Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough sub sub projects. The total
> projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and projects without sub projects are
> counted).
My previous pro for POI as a TLP is that it would give the POI
community more independence and would allow Jakarta to move in the
direction of having an identity rather than being the "what's left". I
know I come across strongly as thinking that identity is commons-like,
but I'll welcome any workable solution. The other option I could think
of is for Jakarta to be a Java federation (as per XML), but I don't
get the feeling that the federation ideas have had much success. I'd
love to hear other ideas.
[Short aside: Federation idea is for Jakarta to be a place where Java
projects come together - basically the old Jakarta with each
subproject being a TLP and yet still part of the same community. I
think it's 4 years too late to try that :( ]
My current con for POI as a TLP is that I think we shouldn't be going
"the release was wrong, send them TLP"; we should be ensuring that
things are good (source headers, releases, voting, all that
junk^Wjazz) first as that's the Jakarta PMC's responsibility. A
previous con I had was that it seemed to be going inactive, but
activity seems to be happily up.
So.. I think we need to:
1) Get the fixed POI release out. Fixed source headers, vote on the files etc.
2) Sort out the legal statement so that it's more official and
organized (copying Harmony seems good). While everything I'm hearing
when I ask legal-internal, legal vp, secretary etc (and same for
Martin afaik) says we don't _have_ to do anything; I can see the
points of the arguments for playing it safe. Effectively it's Jakarta
PMC policy rather than legal requirement so we need to make it so.
Apologies again to Andy for suggesting the legal statement was a
policy he initiated rather than ancient and lost Jakarta PMC policy.
3) Work on a TLP proposal.
-----
On subproject subsuming. My basic premise is that a Jakarta subproject
can only be healthy within Jakarta currently if it is also viable as a
TLP (where healthy => fits into the current ASF structure). An
umbrella without large internal overlap is too weak unless we create
our own internal sub-PMC system and reporting structure and that's one
of the things that lead to splitting Jakarta up in the first place (as
far as I recall).
I'd personally much rather see POI as an active TLP than being
squashed into a flattened umbrella, but I definitely don't want to see
it being stuck in the old subproject structure.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@itellix.com>.
> eg the legal issue, which still
> remains partially unanswered.
>
Andy has already replied that this was done in the early days of POI's entry
into Apache under discussion with POI's then mentor and the board. It was
also done as a consequence of a specific issue that had arisen.
Short of not believing him, what do you propose are the next steps to resolve
this?
Regards
-
Avik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
If you are lost in bad sentences let me know :)
Forgot to proof read :(
Mvgr,
Martin
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>
> Avik Sengupta wrote:
>> I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I
>> do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on
>> less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.
>
> As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things.
>
>> The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a
>> FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
>> JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
>> requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
>> than attack it.
>
> See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh).
>
>> All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of
>> contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily.
>> (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or
>> Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky
>> enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most
>> open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their
>> commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this
>> phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis.
>
> Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in other mails that POI is
> pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of POI, I cannot judge it
> technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was technically bad).
>
>> The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV
>> access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this
>> thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the
>> poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so
>> lets not go down that path.
>
> There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking of taking a different
> approach, which I described in the board report too.
>
>> So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
>> understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor'
>> before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ...
>> he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where
>
> I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote thread isn't finished
> yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that offer you could have asked
> for help (which was offered) and state "we are on it" or something (about the release itself not
> being checked).
>
>> we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all
>> jakarta committers for only asking.
>
> If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy to me (although I
> could have misread him).
>
>> Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
>> few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
>> we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile,
>> he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very
>> gratefully accepted.
>
> I read the thread.
>
>> This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
>> bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
>> proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.
>
> Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first step to improve
> things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there was asked about the
> reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the mail about the release
> (about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball back to the project to get
> some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered.
>
> If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the thread, the negativity
> comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive attitude, so let's focus on
> that :)
>
>> Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
>> contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a
>> whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
>> POI is in active development, used by thousands ,
>
> Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I wanted to make clear
> with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is doing more than well
> (which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing that in the responses
> from, in this case, you.
>
> it doesn't need a
>> mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?
>
> It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am trying to solve here,
> that most requests/vote announcements don't get a response is because the vote and release is
> because we have lazy consensus. Some do get a response (eg not the needed 3 +1 votes from PMC
> members. So if you don't have the mandate to do a release from the PMC you are going to have a hard
> time being successful.
>
>
>> I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong.
>
> You are not wrong, hope I didn't undo the positive part though (was at least not my intention)
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Avik Sengupta wrote:
> I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I
> do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on
> less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.
As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things.
>
> The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a
> FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
> JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
> requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
> than attack it.
See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh).
>
> All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of
> contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily.
> (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or
> Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky
> enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most
> open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their
> commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this
> phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis.
Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in other mails that POI is
pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of POI, I cannot judge it
technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was technically bad).
>
> The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV
> access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this
> thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the
> poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so
> lets not go down that path.
There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking of taking a different
approach, which I described in the board report too.
>
> So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
> understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor'
> before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing' ...
> he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where
I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote thread isn't finished
yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that offer you could have asked
for help (which was offered) and state "we are on it" or something (about the release itself not
being checked).
> we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all
> jakarta committers for only asking.
If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy to me (although I
could have misread him).
>
> Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
> few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
> we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile,
> he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very
> gratefully accepted.
I read the thread.
>
> This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
> bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
> proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.
Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first step to improve
things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there was asked about the
reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the mail about the release
(about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball back to the project to get
some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered.
If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the thread, the negativity
comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive attitude, so let's focus on
that :)
>
> Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
> contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a
> whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
> POI is in active development, used by thousands ,
Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I wanted to make clear
with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is doing more than well
(which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing that in the responses
from, in this case, you.
it doesn't need a
> mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?
It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am trying to solve here,
that most requests/vote announcements don't get a response is because the vote and release is
because we have lazy consensus. Some do get a response (eg not the needed 3 +1 votes from PMC
members. So if you don't have the mandate to do a release from the PMC you are going to have a hard
time being successful.
>
> I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong.
You are not wrong, hope I didn't undo the positive part though (was at least not my intention)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@itellix.com>.
I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI.
I do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption
on less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.
The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is
a FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
than attack it.
All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows
of contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some
temporarily. (I recall reading a well written account of this from
either Brian or Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At
POI, we're lucky enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular
intevals (as with most open source projects, usually from nowhere,
surprising you with their commitment and great code..). Once again, we
need to work with this phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole
project on that basis.
The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about
SNV access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on
this thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right
on the poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us
anywhere, so lets not go down that path.
So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
understand, why do people want to be an officially anointed 'mentor'
before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about the 'doing'
... he who does ... etc. Please join the POI dev lists, and show us
where we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn
access to all jakarta committers for only asking.
Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the
meanwhile, he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's
been very gratefully accepted.
This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.
Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as
a whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm
misunderstanding. POI is in active development, used by thousands , it
doesn't need a mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?
I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong.
Regards.
-
Avik
Quoting Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>:
> Hi Avik,
>
> Avik Sengupta wrote:
>> Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)
>
> I know what you mean :)
>
>>
>> Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
>> thread till this point.
>>
>> Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
>> seems seems quite painful.
>>
>> At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about
>> communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of
>> destroying a community, what's the use?
>>
>> I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I
>> don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not
>> understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not
>> seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been
>> promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either.
>
> I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already
> been said (and despite of what is
> said below here)
> How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't
> speak up ?
>
>>
>> However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish
>> to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more'
>
> If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can
> think of a couple : A lot of
> development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to
> invest energy in.
>
> The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI
> doesn't seem to realize that or to
> misuse your words "don't care about that". Everything that affects
> POI actually affects Jakarta.
> I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never
> had the feeling that POI was part
> of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what
> happens at POI. With the releases
> going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the
> ultimate trigger for this vote
> as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next
> steps (I summed them up already).
> So your remark about don't care anymore is not making me very happy,
> since I hoped you would start
> caring, although I hope I misinterpreted that remark and making
> assumptions that are wrong. The big
> problem is that no one from POI is actually making any effort to
> clear any misinterpretations and
> assumptions.
>
> Hope you understand what I am trying to say.
>
>>
>> I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
>> comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
>> think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
>> dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
>
> Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough
> sub sub projects. The total
> projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and
> projects without sub projects are
> counted).
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Hi Avik,
Avik Sengupta wrote:
> Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)
I know what you mean :)
>
> Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
> thread till this point.
>
> Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
> seems seems quite painful.
>
> At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about
> communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of
> destroying a community, what's the use?
>
> I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I
> don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not
> understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not
> seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been
> promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either.
I like to know your reason of the -1, despite of what has already been said (and despite of what is
said below here)
How can we determine what the next appropriate step is if you don't speak up ?
>
> However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not wish
> to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care any more'
If you have anything positive to contribute, let me know. I can think of a couple : A lot of
development is being done, user list are healthy, so enough to invest energy in.
The simple fact is that you are currently part of Jakarta and POI doesn't seem to realize that or to
misuse your words "don't care about that". Everything that affects POI actually affects Jakarta.
I've been a VP Jakarta for about 6 months now and I actually never had the feeling that POI was part
of that, even though I am the one who his held accountable of what happens at POI. With the releases
going bad, even though there is PMC representation for POI, was the ultimate trigger for this vote
as an initial start to improve things and after that taking the next steps (I summed them up already).
So your remark about don't care anymore is not making me very happy, since I hoped you would start
caring, although I hope I misinterpreted that remark and making assumptions that are wrong. The big
problem is that no one from POI is actually making any effort to clear any misinterpretations and
assumptions.
Hope you understand what I am trying to say.
>
> I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
> comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
> think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
> dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
Subsuming is not something I see happening, we already have enough sub sub projects. The total
projects in Jakarta is currently at 109 (only sub projects and projects without sub projects are
counted).
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@itellix.com>.
Wow! The one weekend I decide not to check mail!! :)
Am replying to the original message for convenience, but have read the
thread till this point.
Basically, the amount of negativity towards POI project in the thread
seems seems quite painful.
At the end of the day, I believe we keep saying 'Apache is about
communities'. Legal oversight is important, but if its at the cost of
destroying a community, what's the use?
I would have voted -1 on this, not because of legal reasons (which I
don't have too strong a view on any more) but because I do not
understand the need for this current intervention. 'Majority' does not
seem to be a good enough reason. Errors in build which have been
promised a fix does not seem a big enuf reason either.
However, given the strongly negative tone of this thread, I do not
wish to debate this further. Therefore count me in as a 'don't care
any more'
I'd have been happy seeing POI move to a TLP. However, some of the
comments in this thread seem to preclude that possibility either. I
think his leaves the community between a rock and a hard place ... I
dont want us to be subsumed as a commons project
Regards
-
Avik
Quoting Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri
> on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to
> what it Jakarta once was and it is
> time they join the club completely.
>
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> The vote will be open for a week.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> -1.
>
> You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also
> because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good
> faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work
> on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to
> be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been
> bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats.
I am not making assumptions and if you can point to me to something, please do, since I don't see
any records anywhere (good place would eg be /private/pmc/jakarta, since I think you cannot expect
me to wade through all archives if this is according to you so important).
>
> what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do?
My interest here is the fact that I am legally responsible for what happens here. The fact that POI
is running on it's own, doing what it wants, not according to ASF and Jakarta policy and therefor in
fact is trying to act as a TLP/ separate entity, which it is not, is a big issue for me.
So the first step in the process is actually making you (the POI project) part of the Jakarta
community by removing all exceptions that seem to apply to POI (which in this case is SVN karma).
The other part that worries me is the POI PMC members, since they are the once that should provide
oversight (that is what being on the PMC is all about!) and they simply didn't mentor Nick on how to
do releases.
To make it personal for you Andy : Where were you with helping Nick out with the releases ? You are
the first to complain on any changes in Jakarta when POI is involved, but you are pretty silent for
the rest. Voting +1 for a release is a bit more than just sending a reply with +1, but I think you
probably already know that..
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:25 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[...]
> what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do?
You *might* (at some point) read up what part of Apache the POI project
is in and who is currently legally responsible for it.
This is not your small, private show on sf.net as you seem to think. You
are, as a part of the ASF, bound to our legal structure, our rules and
our community. Get used to it. If you don't want to be a part of
Jakarta, apply for TLP.
Best regards
Henning
>
> -Andy
>
> Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> > was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
> >
> > The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
> > time they join the club completely.
> >
> > [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> > [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
> >
> > The vote will be open for a week.
> >
> > Mvgr,
> > Martin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1.
>
> You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also
> because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good
> faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work
> on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to
> be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been
> bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats.
>
> what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do?
It should be pretty obvious what Martin's interest is - making sure
Jakarta is running correctly.
Your request that a committer state that they have/are not bound by a
microsoft NDA is ignorable as you're just speaking for yourself
personally and not for the ASF or Jakarta. It's meaningless and a sign
that things are not correct in POI.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
-1.
You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also
because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good
faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work
on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to
be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been
bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats.
what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do?
-Andy
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
> time they join the club completely.
>
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> The vote will be open for a week.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
>> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an "WILL" to protect
> and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues,
> I am willing to put +1 to this vote.
The biggest problem is that if we need protection, there is currently nothing in place (even though
you need to swear something). There are no records, no signed documents and such thing needs to be
organised at a PMC / Apache level.
>
> -- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully
> in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land).
+1 to that ;)
>
> -- Tetsuya <te...@apache.org>
>
> P.S.
> Mvgr> Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1
> Mvgr> except the POI committers.
> Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in general@j.a.o. / March)
> at that time. Sorry.
>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-general&m=114344584424864&w=2 is the start of the thread / vote.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
As long as the ASF (entity)/ Jakarta PMC have an "WILL" to protect
and can protect the developers from the Legal Issues,
I am willing to put +1 to this vote.
-- I, personally, hope I can live happily and peacefully
in this wonderful jakarta land (and the apache land).
-- Tetsuya <te...@apache.org>
P.S.
Mvgr> Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1
Mvgr> except the POI committers.
Seems that I could not catch up this thread (in general@j.a.o. / March)
at that time. Sorry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Danny Angus <Da...@slc.co.uk>.
> I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the
> significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the
> flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the
> new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
> cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
> big impact for many subprojects.
Its about reaching the end of a process which was intended to stop jakarta
being too big and containing insular sub-projects, a situation which was
felt to be a threat to the nature of the ASF, the rest of Jakarta has
pretty much accomodated this change POI have made no moves, it isn't going
to go away until either POI becomes part of the flat jakarta or leaves to
become a TLP, there isn't really any way that POI could be a "special
case" when Ant, Avalon, Gump, James, Logging, Lucene, Maven, Jetspeed,
Struts, Tapestry, Tomcat, Watchdog, and others, have had to face the same
decision, and in many cases had similar reservations about both opening up
and leaving.
Jakarta is part of the ASF, it isn't an alternative entity. There isn't
and should not be a hierarchy of management and oversight, it should be
Board->PMC and no deeper than that. That means participate in flat jakarta
or move up to TLP.
d.
*******************************************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
> POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
> participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
> been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently.
>
> I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the
> significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the
> flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the
> new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
> cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
> big impact for many subprojects.
It's the special position I have problems with.
>
> So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a
> pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being
> submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta,
> make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that
> we should discuss publically?
See my reply to Andy for this. (if you cannot find it i'll try to find a link).
>
> There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of
> POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of
> voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue.
That is what I planned after this vote, based on the result. This vote gives a nice view on the fact
if they even want to be part of Jakarta. Andy doesn't looking at his reply of going TLP, Incubator
(?) or moving out of Apache. The part that sparked this vote, is the releases that were made (not
blaming Nick here, I think he is definitely an asset to Jakarta!) and it was made very clearly that
POI needs mentoring from other Jakarta people, which cannot happen if they want to keep the gates
closed. Opening the gates is a first step in the right direction.
Hope that answers your question / concerns.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Will Glass-Husain wrote:
> Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
> POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
> participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
> been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently.
Okay. It just didn't LOOk that way.
>
> I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the
> significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the
> flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the
> new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
> cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
> big impact for many subprojects.
+1
> So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a
> pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being
> submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta,
> make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that
> we should discuss publically?
>
+1
> There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of
> POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of
> voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue.
+1
I'd like to see a TLP. Or baring that an exit.
> WILL
>
> On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
>> vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
>> members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
>>
>> -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
>> backstory for me)
>>
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> > On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> >> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
>> >> >
>> >> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
>> >> suggested the
>> >> > requirement.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
>> >> details?
>> >>
>> >> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
>> >> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>> >>
>> >> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or
>> in a
>> >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as
>> quickly
>> >> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
>> >> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
>> >> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
>> >> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
>> >> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
>> >> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
>> >> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would
>> hold
>> >> for any of our mailing lists.
>> >>
>> >> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
>> >> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
>> >> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
>> >
>> > Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
>> > sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
>> > to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
>> > [Geir?].
>> >
>> > Hen
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Will Glass-Husain <wg...@forio.com>.
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from
POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI
participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had
been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently.
I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the
significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the
flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the
new structure, I see individual cases where committers have
cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a
big impact for many subprojects.
So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a
pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being
submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta,
make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that
we should discuss publically?
There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of
POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of
voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue.
WILL
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
> vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
> members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
>
> -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
> backstory for me)
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> >> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
> >> >
> >> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
> >> suggested the
> >> > requirement.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
> >> details?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
> >> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
> >>
> >> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
> >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
> >> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
> >> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
> >> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
> >> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
> >> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
> >> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
> >> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
> >> for any of our mailing lists.
> >>
> >> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
> >> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
> >> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
> >
> > Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
> > sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
> > to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
> > [Geir?].
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Forio Business Simulations
Will Glass-Husain
wglass@forio.com
www.forio.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
Is it necessary to resort to sarcasm and personalise this? Henri
Yandell's a good guy in my book and this only reflects badly on you.
Niall
On 12/16/06, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
> vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
> members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
>
> -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
> backstory for me)
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> >> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
> >> >
> >> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
> >> suggested the
> >> > requirement.
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
> >> details?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
> >> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
> >>
> >> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
> >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
> >> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
> >> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
> >> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
> >> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
> >> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
> >> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
> >> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
> >> for any of our mailing lists.
> >>
> >> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
> >> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
> >> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
> >
> > Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
> > sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
> > to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
> > [Geir?].
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
> vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
> members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
This is a different vote. This one is specific about POI. The previous vote was about opening the
whole of Jakarta and if certain projects had objections they could state that.
And when I do things is up to me, you don't own my time, as much as I don't own your time. The main
problem here is that (correcting you here) Jakarta PMC Members that represent POI are not around
when they need to do their job of giving oversight.
Stop blaming others (in this case me and Henri) and start looking in the right direction.
My intentions here are good, hence the reason why the vote was so "generic" (just opening up svn
karma), so POI can leave the Island and is willing to accept help from our other Jakarta folks. That
opposed to state to the board that I cannot be responsible for POI anymore.
Currently I just see you screaming and shouting, instead of giving useful feedback. And pointing to
the legal issues that you think merits the svn karma limitation : Since you are not appointed by the
board to handle POI's legal issues (if they even are there), you should send and inform the PMC of
the history, reasoning and records that you have, so the proper person (in this case I was appointed
for Jakarta) can take that info to the board and discuss the situation and get an official position
on that.
>
> -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
> backstory for me)
Your because isn't much of a reason, since your vote was counted and as you can see in this vote:
SVN permission stayed closed. The problem here is that the reasons that were given at that time,
don't seem to apply (which is something I learned at Apachecon), hence the new vote.
What you mean by Henri making up backstory for you, I don't know exactly, but he just states the way
he knows / heard, so if he is wrong, please share the truth with us.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Every legal document has to be on file and known to the secretary and he has no knowledge of such
documents, so from an ASF point of view, this is non existing. If there is something on file I would
love to hear where.
Mvgr,
Martin
Roland Weber wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked
>> legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to
>> be legally special and they don't.
>
> Then either the ASF legal team wasn't involved in the discussion
> Andy mentioned, or the current staff doesn't remember it, or their
> assessment of the situation is different from Andy's.
> Who can shed some light on this?
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked
> legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to
> be legally special and they don't.
Then either the ASF legal team wasn't involved in the discussion
Andy mentioned, or the current staff doesn't remember it, or their
assessment of the situation is different from Andy's.
Who can shed some light on this?
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
> vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
> members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
Reasoning being that Martin has done the same thing I did - asked
legal vp and secretary if they know anything about the need for POI to
be legally special and they don't.
The Harmony case is very cool to see - I suggest we copy what they're
doing (questionnaire that is then stored in the private pmc
directory).
> -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
> backstory for me)
Your vote definitely counts - which one did I ignore?
My apologies if I've screwed the backstory up - I'd very much like to
know which parts.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another
vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC
members are around... Then 3 months later do it again.
-1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up
backstory for me)
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
>> >
>> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
>> suggested the
>> > requirement.
>> >
>> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
>> details?
>>
>> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
>> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>>
>> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
>> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
>> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
>> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
>> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
>> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
>> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
>> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
>> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
>> for any of our mailing lists.
>>
>> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
>> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
>> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
>
> Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
> sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
> to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
> [Geir?].
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
> >
> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
> > requirement.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
>
> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>
> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
> for any of our mailing lists.
>
> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making
sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets
to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them
[Geir?].
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Will Glass-Husain <wg...@forio.com>.
If anyone comments or votes who is from the POI community, could you
please identify yourself?
We need to be sure there is representation in this vote.
I'm abstaining till I see more debate. I see the implication of
Martin's point -- POI is pretty insular in Jakarta. But where would
POI go if not for Jakarta?
WILL
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
> >
> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
> > requirement.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
>
> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>
> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
> for any of our mailing lists.
>
> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Forio Business Simulations
Will Glass-Husain
wglass@forio.com
www.forio.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
The alias is immaterial to me
-Andy
Roland Weber wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
>> Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more.
>>
>
> That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from
> formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER.
> How about "compound documents" -> compdocs or compdogs?
> That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff
> (Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-)
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> [...]
> I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
> Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more.
That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from
formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER.
How about "compound documents" -> compdocs or compdogs?
That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff
(Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-)
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Danny Angus <Da...@slc.co.uk>.
> I still have no personal desire to have the same people who brought me
> commons automatically in POI.
> I do however welcome constructive
> good-intentioned dialog
Take POI out of Jakarta, seriously.
The problems seem to be really around "POI vs Jakarta" the PMC are uneasy
at POI's insularity, POI are uneasy at the PMC's interest in their thing.
Kill two birds with one stone by applying for propomotion to TLP and
answer only the Members and the Board.
d.
*******************************************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
********************************************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 20:30 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
[...]
> I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
We do know that you are not serious here.
[...]
> With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes
Domain Name:BUNI.ORG
Created On:06-Oct-2006 13:29:38 UTC
Last Updated On:14-Dec-2006 19:11:28 UTC
Expiration Date:06-Oct-2007 13:29:38 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:4754392604712011
Registrant Name:Andrew Oliver
Registrant Organization:Bunisoft, Inc.
Registrant Street1:5426 Lake Vista Dr.
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Durham
Registrant State/Province:NC
Registrant Postal Code:27712
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9193218856
So what is the point? Just rebranding POI under another name? Why do you
care if you have so much better stuff to do?
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
I feel a bit attacked for no reason really (regarding the barbs thrown
in my direction). It has been some time since I have not been rather
civil on this list and I would expect the return courtesy. I've always
tried to make a good faith effort with regards to POI. I have never
supported (and voted against) the other jakarta flattening thing and at
the time it was disingenuously provided (I never reversed my -1 vote you
just ignored it). Originally if memory serves (like 5 yrs ago) the
legal issue came from our mentor into Jakarta (Stefano Mazzocchi) and
following that based on some early issues with legal stuff that was a
real thread and some real concerns and scenarios (some of which has to
do with an individual that did become a very spirited contributor
elsewhere). That stuff should not be vetted publicly and probably not
on the PMC list.
We very nearly did have a REAL problem in the past that would have put
the project and the ASF in jeopardy and steps were taken to require a
personal assurance.
I still have no personal desire to have the same people who brought me
commons automatically in POI.
I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to
Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. However I
don't wish to be chair. I would support nick as chair though and lend
him what assistance I can.
With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes
every few months because you're a sore looser while throwing barbs at me
is seriously limited. I do however welcome constructive
good-intentioned dialog
-Andy
Nick Burch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had
>>> suggested the
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original
>>> details?
>>
>> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
>> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>
> OK, I'm happy to be corrected :)
>
>
> Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the
> requirement (which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I
> don't see why we couldn't drop the restriction.
>
> I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI
> participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for
> Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1
>
> Nick
> (I am from POI)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com>.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
>> requirement.
>>
>> Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
>
> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many
> moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
OK, I'm happy to be corrected :)
Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the requirement
(which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I don't see why we
couldn't drop the restriction.
I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI
participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for
Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1
Nick
(I am from POI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
> >
> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
> > requirement.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
>
> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
I've sat and re-read all email I've ever received from Andy and I
can't find anything to this effect - so it's no longer my
understanding. Apologies for misleading everyone.
Hen
> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
> for any of our mailing lists.
>
> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
> hold any weight or value to the ASF.
>
> Hen
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
>
> Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
> requirement.
>
> Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer
many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF.
>From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a
commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly
as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to
that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking
the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd
legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP
(copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between
two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am
not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold
for any of our mailing lists.
Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive
of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they
hold any weight or value to the ASF.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com>.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the
requirement.
Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details?
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Which legal team ?
Apache legal doesn't know anything about this..
Mvgr,
Martin
Nick Burch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what
>> it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely.
>
> I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have
> always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that
> they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or
> similar.
>
> So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let
> people commit without having made such a public statement.
>
> Nick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com>.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what
> it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely.
I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have
always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that
they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or
similar.
So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let
people commit without having made such a public statement.
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
ehh +1 :)
Mvgr,
Martin
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
> time they join the club completely.
>
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> The vote will be open for a week.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
I'm not sure whether this vote will be cancelled or not, so...
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
-1 because POI will make a move to spin off from Jakarta early
next year. There is no point in force-merging at this time.
If POI should decide not to leave Jakarta, we will reconsider.
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Rainer Klute <kl...@rainer-klute.de>.
Rainer Klute schrieb:
> Martin van den Bemt schrieb:
>
>> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
>> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>>
>>
>
> [0] I don't care.
>
Having read all the contribution <http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=contribution>s on this thread, I revoke my vote quoted above and instead vote as follows:
[+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
Please read my vote not just as referring to a technical issue concerning commit access or not. My vote is a clear statement to
* keep POI under the Jakarta hood,
* stick to the ASF rules, and
* do everything that is needed to straighten things out.
I am a POI committer.
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
Dipl.-Inform.
Rainer Klute E-Mail: klute@rainer-klute.de
Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824
D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423
OpenPGP fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Rainer Klute <kl...@rainer-klute.de>.
Martin van den Bemt schrieb:
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
[0] I don't care.
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
Dipl.-Inform.
Rainer Klute E-Mail: klute@rainer-klute.de
Körner Grund 24 Telefon: +49 172 2324824
D-44143 Dortmund Telefax: +49 231 5349423
OpenPGP fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 12/17/06, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI, without any guidance from the
> > people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my first goal is helping
> > out Nick so he can continue the good work he is doing over there.
>
> A mentor (or similar) has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
> If POI would like my help then I am happy to assist.
>
> For those of you who don't know me, I have been lurking in Jakarta
> since Tomcat moved to a TLP and am currently release manager for Tomcat 4.
That's an excellent idea and offer, +1!
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI, without any guidance from the
> people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my first goal is helping
> out Nick so he can continue the good work he is doing over there.
A mentor (or similar) has been mentioned a few times in this thread.
If POI would like my help then I am happy to assist.
For those of you who don't know me, I have been lurking in Jakarta
since Tomcat moved to a TLP and am currently release manager for Tomcat 4.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
>> Hello Niall,
>>
>> > Why is it any different than Harmony?
>>
>> Harmony requires that an "Authorized Contributor Questionnaire"
>> be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
>> and signatures are legally significant.
>> http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
>>
>> The POI "Get Involved" page only mentions this:
>> > Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format
>> > may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or
>> > possibly sign an agreement.
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html
>>
>> "may be"? "possibly"? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a
>> document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be
>> linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required
>> to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state
>> or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements
>> or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously
>> are not aware of any such thing?
>>
>> If there is an established procedure addressing these questions,
>> it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the
>> statement quoted above is just idle.
>
> I agree there should be an established policy endorsed by the PMC. My
> fear is that Andy Oliver either won't have the patience to do what it
> takes or fail to get anywhere because he pi**es off too many people in
> the process. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong or someone else from POI
> will sort it out.
I simply don't care to be honest. Nick is doing lot's of work for POI, without any guidance from the
people you anticipate of giving guidance, which is what I care about. So my first goal is helping
out Nick so he can continue the good work he is doing over there.
>
>> > If someone has received
>> > knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that
>> > knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk?
>>
>> Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with
>> access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute.
>> As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy.
>> There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me
>> throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion:
>>
>> 1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible
>> developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers.
>>
>> 2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a
>> Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or
>> ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject.
>
> Generally this is true, although I have seen a couple of occasions
> where committers have made code changes on Commons components they had
> no prior involvement with without pinging the mailing list first.
And we educated those people.
>
>> 3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the
>> POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing
>> lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review.
>> There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy
>> and to question them about possible NDA contamination.
>>
>> 4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI
>> (directly without patch review!) that contribution would
>> immediately be detected from the commit message that is
>> automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone
>> by the regular committers to the subproject.
>>
>> This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN,
>> not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's
>> about running a community based on mutual trust and review
>> as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it.
>
> Personally I'm +/-0 on removing svn barriers anyway. I don't believe
> any exisiting committer that starts to contribute to a project in the
> normal way isn't going to get given commit access pretty quickly.
> Anyway generally I don't disagree with the sentiments/opinions you've
> expressed - but I do think POI has grounds for a slightly different
> policy than most of our code bases since what they deal with is the IP
> of a large company that if infringed could cause us problems in the
> same way as with Harmony and Sun's source code. IMO then the
> contrubuting policy for POI needs to be resolved/formally established
> first and svn access should be decided afterwards once we have a
> policy endorsed by the PMC.
The first problem we have to deal with is that releases aren't done the way the ASF wants them to be
done, which is currently the legal issue at hand. Part of the problem is that they (sorry bad word
choices coming here) don't trust the rest of Jakarta of doing the right thing and the rest of
Jakarta trusts them to do the right thing. They have proven they don't do the right thing atm (to be
clear : not blaming Nick here!), which hurts Jakarta as a whole.
Maybe repeating myself here :)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 12/17/06, Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> Hello Niall,
>
> > Why is it any different than Harmony?
>
> Harmony requires that an "Authorized Contributor Questionnaire"
> be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
> and signatures are legally significant.
> http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
>
> The POI "Get Involved" page only mentions this:
> > Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format
> > may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or
> > possibly sign an agreement.
> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html
>
> "may be"? "possibly"? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a
> document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be
> linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required
> to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state
> or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements
> or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously
> are not aware of any such thing?
>
> If there is an established procedure addressing these questions,
> it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the
> statement quoted above is just idle.
I agree there should be an established policy endorsed by the PMC. My
fear is that Andy Oliver either won't have the patience to do what it
takes or fail to get anywhere because he pi**es off too many people in
the process. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong or someone else from POI
will sort it out.
> > If someone has received
> > knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that
> > knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk?
>
> Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with
> access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute.
> As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy.
> There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me
> throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion:
>
> 1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible
> developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers.
>
> 2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a
> Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or
> ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject.
Generally this is true, although I have seen a couple of occasions
where committers have made code changes on Commons components they had
no prior involvement with without pinging the mailing list first.
> 3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the
> POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing
> lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review.
> There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy
> and to question them about possible NDA contamination.
>
> 4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI
> (directly without patch review!) that contribution would
> immediately be detected from the commit message that is
> automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone
> by the regular committers to the subproject.
>
> This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN,
> not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's
> about running a community based on mutual trust and review
> as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it.
Personally I'm +/-0 on removing svn barriers anyway. I don't believe
any exisiting committer that starts to contribute to a project in the
normal way isn't going to get given commit access pretty quickly.
Anyway generally I don't disagree with the sentiments/opinions you've
expressed - but I do think POI has grounds for a slightly different
policy than most of our code bases since what they deal with is the IP
of a large company that if infringed could cause us problems in the
same way as with Harmony and Sun's source code. IMO then the
contrubuting policy for POI needs to be resolved/formally established
first and svn access should be decided afterwards once we have a
policy endorsed by the PMC.
Niall
> > I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think
> > there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to
> > exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the
> > reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then
> > it would have been far better to start a discussion with them
> > regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd
> > have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going
> > straight for conflict.
>
> +1
>
> > Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and
> > therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to
> > resolve whatever the real issues people think there are.
>
> +1
>
> cheers,
> Roland
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Roland Weber <ht...@dubioso.net>.
Hello Niall,
> Why is it any different than Harmony?
Harmony requires that an "Authorized Contributor Questionnaire"
be signed. The ACQ surely has been reviewd by the ASF legal team,
and signatures are legally significant.
http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
The POI "Get Involved" page only mentions this:
> Those submitting patches that show insight into the file format
> may be asked to state explicitly that they are eligible or
> possibly sign an agreement.
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html
"may be"? "possibly"? Did the ASF legal team prepare such a
document for signing or not? If they did, shouldn't it be
linked on the web page? And why isn't every contributor required
to state or sign something? Who decides who will have to state
or sign? And who will process and keep track of the statements
or signed documents if not the ASF legal team, who obviously
are not aware of any such thing?
If there is an established procedure addressing these questions,
it should be documented on the web page. If there is not, the
statement quoted above is just idle.
> If someone has received
> knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that
> knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk?
Yes it would. That's why the page mentions that people with
access to NDA'd information are not allowed to contribute.
As far as I can tell, there is no discussion about this policy.
There is a discussion about access restrictions in SVN. Let me
throw the following statements/opinions into this discussion:
1. Jakarta committers have proven that they are responsible
developers, otherwise they wouldn't have been voted committers.
2. No responsible developer would just commit some code to a
Jakarta subproject with which he/she is not familiar, or
ignore the rules and policies in place for that subproject.
3. If current committers show interest in contributing to the
POI subproject, they will make an appearance on the mailing
lists and submit patches to the bug tracking system for review.
There is plenty of opportunity to educate them about the policy
and to question them about possible NDA contamination.
4. If anyone would commit unwanted/dangerous code to POI
(directly without patch review!) that contribution would
immediately be detected from the commit message that is
automatically generated, and would be vetoed and undone
by the regular committers to the subproject.
This discussion is about removing technical barriers in SVN,
not about throwing random (barbed ;-) code into POI. It's
about running a community based on mutual trust and review
as opposed to walls and fences. At least that's how I see it.
> I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think
> there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to
> exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the
> reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then
> it would have been far better to start a discussion with them
> regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd
> have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going
> straight for conflict.
+1
> Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and
> therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to
> resolve whatever the real issues people think there are.
+1
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
>> > -1 from me.
>> >
>> > Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
>> > sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
>> > AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
>> > protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
>> > fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
>> > side of caution.
>>
>> Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help
>> anyone. We have the ICLA that
>> covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just
>> based on the assumption that it
>> means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind,
>> where are the records ?
>
> Why is it any different than Harmony? If someone has received
> knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that
> knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? If the
> ICLA means that legally from an ASF POV it doesn't matter since the
> responsibility/liability would be with the contributor then the same
> logic could be applied to harmony. Seems to me that even if the "ASF
> is covered" at the end of the day avoiding a legal issue with a big
> entity such as MS is far more desirable than getting into a "tangle"
> in the first place.
I am not saying the legal stuff would be bad, just that currently nothing is in place to have that
covered. With harmony this is a Harmony policy, which is handled by the PMC and there are records
and the board is aware of this. So effectively we don't have anything in place, just a statement on
the website, so if we needed any protection based on the NDA stuff, we don't have anything to show
for. I cannot start with getting the legal stuff figured out when POI is acting as it's own entity,
without even any oversight from the Jakarta PMC members representing POI. But I think I made that
point clear in some of the replies i've given.
>
> I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think
> there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to
> exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the
> reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then
> it would have been far better to start a discussion with them
> regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd
> have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going
> straight for conflict.
I could have started this in another way, although I doubt consensus would be reached if I did that
another way. POI is living in it's own universe currently (we are even talking about "them") and
since this issue concerns the whole of Jakarta and things need to happen now,because of the lack of
oversight given by the PMC members representing POI. Opening up POI is a first step in the right
direction, next steps would be mentoring the POI project, get the "legal issue" straightened out
(that is making an official Jakarta policy if that is needed and having official records).
Alternatives like POI going TLP (as was mentioned by a couple of people) would also be an option, so
that they deal with the board directly, but since the POI committers aren't ready for that (see the
mentoring part), that would be a hard case to sell.
>
> Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and
> therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to
> resolve whatever the real issues people think there are.
svn access is the first step towards improvement. Svn access for me *is* a real issue, I think the
vote made that clear. Don't forget the vote in March where everyone voted +1 except the POI
committers. Now we are 8 months further and it is time they join the majority in my opinion. If they
want to have separate svn access at this time, I think they are stating that they do not want to be
part of Jakarta.
Mvgr,
Martin
>
> Niall
>
>> Mvgr,
>> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 12/16/06, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
> > -1 from me.
> >
> > Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
> > sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
> > AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
> > protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
> > fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
> > side of caution.
>
> Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that
> covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it
> means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ?
Why is it any different than Harmony? If someone has received
knowledge of MS propriety formats under a NDA then wouldn't using that
knowledge to contribute to POI put the POI project at risk? If the
ICLA means that legally from an ASF POV it doesn't matter since the
responsibility/liability would be with the contributor then the same
logic could be applied to harmony. Seems to me that even if the "ASF
is covered" at the end of the day avoiding a legal issue with a big
entity such as MS is far more desirable than getting into a "tangle"
in the first place.
I also think its a mistake to deal with whatever issues people think
there are in POI via a vote. Back in March the POI devs voted to
exclude POI from this policy of opening SVN access. If we think the
reason underlying POI's exclusion from this policy is not valid then
it would have been far better to start a discussion with them
regarding this first - rather than launching straight into a vote. I'd
have rather seem an attempt at consensus first rather than going
straight for conflict.
Seems to me that svn access isn't the root of the issue here and
therefore a red herring, since changing that isn't IMO going to
resolve whatever the real issues people think there are.
Niall
> Mvgr,
> Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>> -1 from me.
>>
>> Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
>> sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
>> AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
>> protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
>> fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
>> side of caution.
>
> Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that
> covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it
> means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ?
Ouch rereading this I meant : The POI policy of course :) (in case it is misread)
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
> -1 from me.
>
> Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
> sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
> AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
> protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
> fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
> side of caution.
Just FYI, the policy doesn't mean anything legally, so it doesn't help anyone. We have the ICLA that
covers that. Keeping POI SVN closed, is as far as I could see, just based on the assumption that it
means something. Besides that if this is a policy of some kind, where are the records ?
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 12/15/06, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome
> was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers.
>
> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is
> time they join the club completely.
-1 from me.
Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they
sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1].
AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to
protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this
fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the
side of caution.
Niall
[1] http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html
[2] http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html
> [+1] Open up POI svn commit access.
> [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because...
>
> The vote will be open for a week.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Posted by ro...@yahoo.com.
hy im happy to join to ur party
--
This message was sent on behalf of rogeliotamonte@yahoo.com at openSubscriber.com
http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/general@jakarta.apache.org/5604698.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org