Podling graduation rally on incubator list

[Ian Dunlop <ia...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the
incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We may
have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs done
to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already
released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really
need to keep? I can't see any that are essential.

Cheers,

Ian

Re: Podling graduation rally on incubator list

[Ian Dunlop <ia...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

I think we could release TavMob as it is. As long as the licences are
all ok. The infra folks set up a google play account as well so we could
push it to that. We could also just release the APK independently of
that. I'll investigate doing an APK release.

I think we have to be a bit ruthless with the codebases and prune
everything except the currently released repos, server and (maybe)
workbench. The rest can be moved somewhere else (tav-extras?) and can be
brought back in later

Cheers,

Ian


On 01/03/17 19:17, Gale Naylor wrote:
>> Decide which code is in/out: "... keep
> our future options open
>> to bring in the rest of the code later without a second software grant."
> That sounds like a good plan. What do we have to do to find out if we can
> bring the rest of the code in later without a new grant?
>
> A weekly status sounds like a good way to keep this moving.
>
> Gale
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 8:49 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the
>>>> incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We
>> may
>>>> have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs
>> done
>>>> to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already
>>>> released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really
>>>> need to keep? I can't see any that are essential.
>>> I think you've described the situation accurately.
>>>
>>> * Decide which code is in and which is not.
>> This is the tricky bit.. I guess we have been undecided, as there is
>> more we think "should" keep than we have been able to get ready.
>>
>> We have to be more realistic and cut our ambitions to align with the
>> actual effort we have available. It would be good if we can still keep
>> our future options open to bring in the rest of the code later without a
>> second software grant.
>>
>>
>>> * Release the "in" code.
>> Agreed. This should be not be too much work for taverna-server, and even
>> for taverna-workbench-* (although they might not be release-ready for
>> the public).
>>
>>
>>> * Don't stall :-)
>> Let's start a weekly status roll to avoid stalling. We can do it
>>
>>
>>> Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation.
>> Technically we've got higher diversity now that Ian no longer
>> works at The University of Manchester, Christian and Donal are in a
>> different group and Gale got a new job :-) - but I see your point -
>> particularly in consideration of what is effectively the *active* PPMC.
>>
>>> Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's
>>> Tavernas main item in my view.  A release does that best.
>> I suggest we do a source code release of what we have, and don't promote
>> too much on the website anything that is not at user-ready.
>>
>> Taverna Mobile would be interesting to release as well - as there's
>> never been an Android release through the incubator before, and those
>> have their own (it turns out) proprietary build chains.
>>
>>
>>> Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied.  The other
>>> podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself.
>> Agree on this ; while we're pretty much ready to graduate, for the IPMC
>> to evaluate that this is the case would take a bit longer than in the
>> projects in the rally.
>>
>> I think Ian has done well on our license review under
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-09+License+review
>> and sub pages, which fits into
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Taverna+Graduation+Maturity+Assessment
>>
>> However the above still needs filling in for the remaining parts, from
>> RE40 and below.
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> The University of Manchester
>> http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>>

Re: Podling graduation rally on incubator list

[Gale Naylor <Ga...@noventussolutions.com>]

>Decide which code is in/out: "... keep
our future options open
>to bring in the rest of the code later without a second software grant."

That sounds like a good plan. What do we have to do to find out if we can
bring the rest of the code in later without a new grant?

A weekly status sounds like a good way to keep this moving.

Gale

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 8:49 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the
> > > incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We
> may
> > > have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs
> done
> > > to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already
> > > released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really
> > > need to keep? I can't see any that are essential.
> >
> > I think you've described the situation accurately.
> >
> > * Decide which code is in and which is not.
>
> This is the tricky bit.. I guess we have been undecided, as there is
> more we think "should" keep than we have been able to get ready.
>
> We have to be more realistic and cut our ambitions to align with the
> actual effort we have available. It would be good if we can still keep
> our future options open to bring in the rest of the code later without a
> second software grant.
>
>
> > * Release the "in" code.
>
> Agreed. This should be not be too much work for taverna-server, and even
> for taverna-workbench-* (although they might not be release-ready for
> the public).
>
>
> > * Don't stall :-)
>
> Let's start a weekly status roll to avoid stalling. We can do it
>
>
> > Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation.
>
> Technically we've got higher diversity now that Ian no longer
> works at The University of Manchester, Christian and Donal are in a
> different group and Gale got a new job :-) - but I see your point -
> particularly in consideration of what is effectively the *active* PPMC.
>
> > Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's
> > Tavernas main item in my view.  A release does that best.
>
> I suggest we do a source code release of what we have, and don't promote
> too much on the website anything that is not at user-ready.
>
> Taverna Mobile would be interesting to release as well - as there's
> never been an Android release through the incubator before, and those
> have their own (it turns out) proprietary build chains.
>
>
> > Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied.  The other
> > podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself.
>
> Agree on this ; while we're pretty much ready to graduate, for the IPMC
> to evaluate that this is the case would take a bit longer than in the
> projects in the rally.
>
> I think Ian has done well on our license review under
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-09+License+review
> and sub pages, which fits into
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Taverna+Graduation+Maturity+Assessment
>
> However the above still needs filling in for the remaining parts, from
> RE40 and below.
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> The University of Manchester
> http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>

Re: Podling graduation rally on incubator list

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> > There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the
> > incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We may
> > have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs done
> > to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already
> > released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really
> > need to keep? I can't see any that are essential.
> 
> I think you've described the situation accurately.
> 
> * Decide which code is in and which is not.

This is the tricky bit.. I guess we have been undecided, as there is
more we think "should" keep than we have been able to get ready. 

We have to be more realistic and cut our ambitions to align with the
actual effort we have available. It would be good if we can still keep
our future options open to bring in the rest of the code later without a
second software grant.


> * Release the "in" code.

Agreed. This should be not be too much work for taverna-server, and even
for taverna-workbench-* (although they might not be release-ready for
the public). 


> * Don't stall :-)

Let's start a weekly status roll to avoid stalling. We can do it 

 
> Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation.

Technically we've got higher diversity now that Ian no longer
works at The University of Manchester, Christian and Donal are in a
different group and Gale got a new job :-) - but I see your point -
particularly in consideration of what is effectively the *active* PPMC.
 
> Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's 
> Tavernas main item in my view.  A release does that best.

I suggest we do a source code release of what we have, and don't promote
too much on the website anything that is not at user-ready.

Taverna Mobile would be interesting to release as well - as there's
never been an Android release through the incubator before, and those
have their own (it turns out) proprietary build chains.

 
> Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied.  The other 
> podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself.

Agree on this ; while we're pretty much ready to graduate, for the IPMC
to evaluate that this is the case would take a bit longer than in the
projects in the rally.

I think Ian has done well on our license review under
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-09+License+review
and sub pages, which fits into 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Taverna+Graduation+Maturity+Assessment

However the above still needs filling in for the remaining parts, from
RE40 and below.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

Re: Podling graduation rally on incubator list

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

On 16/02/17 14:06, Ian Dunlop wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a recent thread regarding getting podlings to graduate on the
> incubator mailing list. Perhaps we can add Taverna to their list. We may
> have stalled again. Any thoughts? What really, really, really needs done
> to graduate? Let's move out any non essential components. We've already
> released several so they are ready to go. Of the rest what do we really
> need to keep? I can't see any that are essential.

I think you've described the situation accurately.

* Decide which code is in and which is not.
* Release the "in" code.
* Don't stall :-)

Good would be to have more PPMC diversity of organisation.

Graduation needs the codebase to be ASF-clean and verified; that's 
Tavernas main item in my view.  A release does that best.

Maybe Taverna isn't quite at the point to be rallied.  The other 
podlings are mostly all done, just need to do the grdauation step itself.

A pass over the Apache Project Maturity Model [1] as a check would be no 
bad thing.

Other mentors' inputs?

     Andy

[1]
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html