You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2005/07/12 22:01:25 UTC
Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
can place the code in our SVN.)
+1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
companies)
Why is this so difficult?
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
> provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
> this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
> not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
> couple of questions:
>
> 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
> as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
>
> 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
> the Incubator?
>
> One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
> why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
> people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
> rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
> with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
> and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:01 PM:
>+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
>paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
>can place the code in our SVN.)
>
>
Yes, that is the high-level plan.
>+1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
>can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
>companies)
>
>
-1 Being a regular committer is based on a proven track record.
>Why is this so difficult?
>
>
It's not but, starting a new thread on this doesn't help.
Regards,
Alan
RE: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Alan,
This is a great idea. I like the geronimo incubation ACL. +1 for this.
Jeff
________________________________
From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:06 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 4:50 PM:
Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan
doesn't
like that, so...
Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table
for
donated code are:
1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
number
of people) who have worked with the code before
2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to
some
number of people who have worked with the code before
3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
potentially
Geronimo people to form a new project team
It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of
these
is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
console vs the ORB.
Aaron
I like #2. To put a finer point to it, I think that we should have a single
simple process.
All vendors must propose the code donation to the community. Embarrassing
denials can be averted by creating a gmail account and asking if people are
interested in technology X going into Geronimo.
All code donations go into
/geronimo/incubator/donationx/*
The contributors would get restricted committer access to their project;
granting committer access gives us better visibility how well the person
works in a community setting. They and, hopefully Geronimo committers,
would whip it into shape. The community would provide guidance and,
hopefully, vote it into Geronimo once its ready and all the appropriate
paper work was obtained.
The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into Geronimo,
regardless of their projects status. I have never heard of a motivated
developer not getting committer access.
If the contribution was wildly popular it would graduate, as would any
Geronimo module, to be a sub-project where it would have its own release
cycles. If it became obscenely popular, it would become a TLP.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/12/2005 4:50 PM:
> Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
>like that, so...
>
> Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
>donated code are:
>
>1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some number
>of people) who have worked with the code before
>
>2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
>grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some
>number of people who have worked with the code before
>
>3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and potentially
>Geronimo people to form a new project team
>
> It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these
>is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
>console vs the ORB.
>
>Aaron
>
I like #2. To put a finer point to it, I think that we should have a
single simple process.
All vendors must propose the code donation to the community.
Embarrassing denials can be averted by creating a gmail account and
asking if people are interested in technology X going into Geronimo.
All code donations go into
/geronimo/incubator/donationx/*
The contributors would get restricted committer access to their project;
granting committer access gives us better visibility how well the person
works in a community setting. They and, hopefully Geronimo committers,
would whip it into shape. The community would provide guidance and,
hopefully, vote it into Geronimo once its ready and all the appropriate
paper work was obtained.
The "probationary" committers would, hopefully, get voted into Geronimo,
regardless of their projects status. I have never heard of a motivated
developer not getting committer access.
If the contribution was wildly popular it would graduate, as would any
Geronimo module, to be a sub-project where it would have its own release
cycles. If it became obscenely popular, it would become a TLP.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Close to completion? (acl policy questions)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I'll be a good little fishy, as I think this is important. I'm
keeping the following in mind from a recent post by David Jencks as I
go through the list :
"I'd like to reemphasize that bringing in new committers with their
code is going to be a lot of work for the existing community. If we
fail to integrate a donation a very large part of the responsibility
rests with us for not having good enough community skills to work
with the newcomers. It seems to me that discussions about limited
commit access/ acls/ etc are fundamentally discussions about what
happens if we fail. I wonder what would happen if we instead
discussed how we will provide superb support and mentoring for our
new members and left the questions of what to do if we fail to such
time as it might be needed."
On Jul 13, 2005, at 2:37 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> If you vote for this, no complaining later -- you eat your own dog
> food.
If you vote for anything, and we don't like it, we change it. We
aren't bending re-bar and pouring cement...
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: I apologize in advance for using the words
> "incubation", "incubating", "incubated", and finally
> "incubator".
Why didn't you just avoid using it then? We're not creating an
incubator. We're trying to bring in code, add committers and build
*our* community.
[SNIP]
>
> Do ACLs extend to things like:
> - websites
> - documentation (possibly donated as well)
> - QA
> - project management
>
If we want them to, and I think we want them to. The goal here is
Geronimo project participation, not "off in the corner" participation.
>
> What is the policy on how this affects voting?
> - Can a restricted committer -1 a change made by a non-restricted
> committer
In the code they are working on? Yes because the "non-restricted
committer" will have karma to the "restricted" svn repo.
> - Does a restricted committer get a binding vote on the code to
> which they have access?
yes
> - Does a restricted committer have a binding vote to code to which
> they do not have access?
No
> - Does a restricted committer have a binding vote on non-technical
> issues?
That's an interesting question to think about, and I think my answer
is yes, again because it's about growing project participation.
To explain, I want to object to the lingo of "restricted committer"
vs "non-restricted committer". I think of as "committer to Geronimo
main SVN" vs "committer to Geronimo $foo SVN"
So yes. And I think that for code being brought into Geronimo
project (even in a $foo SVN) would mean that all committers to
Geronimo main SVN have commit to $foo SVN so that
a) we have PMC oversight
b) we have full interaction and participation
>
>
For the following, I'll assume "incubating" means "code in Geronimo
$foo repository" where $foo != main
> New committers:
> - Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating
> code get restricted commit?
Like someone from httpd? No.
> - Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating
> code and some to other code get full commit?
No - I assume you mean some arbitrary committer from Jakarta or -ish?
> - Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating
> code get restricted commit?
Any arbitrary employee? of course not. I would assume we'd craft
some guideline asking the donor to list the humans that worked on the
code and wish to continue.
Note that "donor" isn't necessarily an entity with employees - for
example, if hypothetically something like MX4J decided to come to
Geronimo...
> - Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating
> code and some to other code get full commit?
do you mean "if a person that is working on the code in the Geronimo
$foo repository starts contributing to the Geronimo main repository,
do we offer them commit"? yes, at some point, which I assume is
going to be *way* accelerated because they've been working right in
the community all long on stuff that's part of the community.
> - Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating
> code get restricted commit?
> - Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating
> code and some to other code get full commit?
If someone starts posting patches to the Geronimo $foo repo, and we
feel that they meet our criterion for offered commit access,yes, lets
offer them commit access to the Geronimo $foo repository.
> - Will there be an advantage to *not* contributing to the
> incubating code as to avoid getting voted in as a restricted
> committer.
I don't get it.
When I think of "restricted ACL" I think of simply setting up another
repository with a different group of committers, that includes all
the committers from the main [current] repository, along with the
people that want to keep working on their donation with us.
If a "restricted ACL" repo is a place where someone wants to
contribute, lets let them earn commit status there if they didn't
come with the code...
>
>
> Releasing:
> - Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in our unstable
> builds?
> - Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in official
> releases?
> - Can code being Geronimo incubated be certified and distributed
> in a certified release?
Being there is no incubation, I'd say "yes" to all of these questions
- at all times the main repository committers are committers on the
$foo respoitory, the PMC has full responsibility and oversight, etc.
If there is no one but the donor committers working on the codebase
here, it shouldn't be here. Either this is stuff we work on with
them, or they can be elswhere. We're not an incubator.
>
>
> Management and dynamics:
> - Can we handle having 2 or 3 more donations in addition to the
> two we plan?
It certainly will be easier with more people. it's up to us to gauge
who and what we bring in. You have a good point here - we must
always consider the load on the existing committers for anything like
this that we do. Making commitments means making commitments - doing
it elsewhere just leaves less time for here.
> - Is is possible that the number of active restricted committers
> outnumbers the active fully privileged committers?
Anything is possible, and I think that would mean we weren't paying
attention to what you pointed out above. If we do this, it's our error.
And I think that it's not the end of the world if it happens, as if G
is the set of all committers in the main geronimo repo and C is the
new people that want to come and work on console then
C' is the set of commiters in the console repo
C' = G + C
assume the same for Trifork (see, got the case of the "F" right...
sorry about my previous errors...)
T' = G + T
> - How much time are you willing to dedicate in a week to managing
> issues, documenting guidelines and general Apache Way mentoring?
meaning, working with others in the community? I seem to put in a
bit of time now. I know if I didn't have to spend the time on this
subject, I'd have oodles of free hours :)
> - Will we be open to assistance from experienced ASF people
> willing to assist in managing issues, documenting guidelines and
> general Apache Way mentoring?
We always are. But we're not doing an incubator.
> - Would they get a binding vote?
No.
> - Would they get and be welcome to use commit privileges?
Interesting question :) In some places at the ASF, being an existing
ASF committer is a huge step towards commit if you are known, but
lets not go there in this thread.
>
>
> PMC:
> - Can a restricted committer join the Geronimo PMC?
I'd like to avoid this. If a person has been around such that we
believe they deserve to be on the PMC, we trust them with commit to
main repo, and if peeps like that have been around, we should be just
integrating the pile of people into the main tree anyway?
> - Can a person under a documentation ACL join the PMC?
> - Can a person under a management ACL join the PMC?
I don't know what a "management ACL" is, but for the same reasons as
above...
The model I'm worried about is the Jakarta model, which was having
committers from the various subprojects (a reasonable analogy -
different CVS roots with separate ACLs for each root) be on the PMC
in a limited way. That gave PMC oversight officially, as if there
were 3 committers from Jakarta Wombat that voted +1 on a release,
because they were on the PMC, that provided the necessary minimum
legal requirement.
We *may* be able to do this if we start from scratch with the goal
that *every* committer should be on the PMC, and that the "restricted
ACL" is just an internal management feature of code access.
I could easily talk myself into this, but we'd have to be very clear
from the get-go that we will work to have everyone on the PMC (which
is our goal now, btw) and people should have the good manners and
common sense to abstain from voting on things they aren't a part of.
>
>
> Moving Up:
> - What is the criteria for leaving the Geronimo incubator?
There is no Geronimo incubator.
I see it as the question of "when can and how do we combine these
repos"?
> - Is it acceptable to take half or less of the code?
Sure
> - How is this consensus reached, public vote or private vote?
public
> - How do restricted committers become full committers?
"How does someone w/o commit access to the main Geronimo repository
get commit access?" ? I don't see us having special rules - if we
believe the person does good work, is committed, etc, then we vote
that person in as committer.
Our guidelines for committer access apply to any repo. There are no
special "Geronimo incubator" rules.
> - If a donation moves to full status, are the restrictions of all
> committers working on that code removed?
Again, in my mental model, it's not about restriction but commit in
other parts of our multi-repo SVN.
> - Are these people free to vote on matters of other donated code?
I don't grok
>
>
> Moving Out:
> - Is it possible to remove a project from incubation and not
> accept it as a part of Geronimo?
There is no Geronimo incubation.
But yes, we've had sandbox code that we never used, and just threw it
out. Not a new issue.
> - How long will donors have to wait to get this answer?
Huh?
> - On what basis will the PMC vote on removing a project?
I assume that there's all sorts of factors that will come up.
>
> - Is that a public or private vote?
if it's technology, public. if there's people issues involved, private.
> - Is it possible to remove all commit access for a restricted
> committer.
of course. it's possible to remove all commit access for any committer
> - On what basis will the PMC vote on removing all commit access?
For the same reasons that I would now - gross breach of trust,
prolonged inactivity, etc
> - Is that a public or private vote?
Private. It's a person.
>
>
> Potential fairness issues:
> - Donor X gets in the incubator in March, donor Y gets in the
> incubator two months later. Sometime later, the PMC votes to
> graduate donor Y's code. Do we graduate X as well? If not, do we
> owe X and explanation of why they aren't being graduated?
Oh, I see. Because there is no Geronimo incubator... Let me rephrase :
Donor X gets a contribution accepted into repoX in March and begins
working. Donor Y gets a contribution accepted into repoY and begins
working. At some point, the community votes to combine the code from
repoY into repoMain. X and repoX keep doing their thing. They are
all independent.
Because there is no Geronimo incubator, there is nothing to
"graduate" from. If it makes technological or other sense to move
things around, we do it.
> - Adam and Jack are restricted committers from donor ABC. Jack is
> voted in as a full committer. Do we vote in Adam as well? If not,
> do we owe Adam an explanation of why?
I assume that Jack was contributing to mainRepo and it was time to
give him access? Or do you mean that repoABC is combined with
repoMain? In the latter case, I think that not taking all the people
would be an extreme corner case and would have to deal with
individually.
(Note - there's a similar problem if we went and sponsored something
in the Apache Incubator to incorporate into Geronimo - at that point,
each committer would have to earn commit status independently, so you
could have the situation where we fractured that community ... :/ )
> - Bill and Ben are restricted committers from donor QRS. Bill and
> Ben are having a hard time getting really involved. Eric is an
> Apache committer from another project who started working with the
> donated code and was made a restricted committer. The PMC decides
> to vote Eric in as a full Geronimo committer. Do we make Bill and
> Ben full committers as well? If no, how do we handle Bill and
> Ben's expectations?
Be honest and up front with them? I think that this is a corner
case, and self-solving. If they aren't involved, why would they care?
Whew! Happy to get through that before my meeting starts.
Just to recap the model I'm thinking of is a set of additional repos
besides the "main" Geronimo repo that has the committer set denoted
as G. Each non-main repo has a committer set that is G + additions
that either came with a donation (if that's how it started) or people
that wanted to participate in that part of our world and earned commit.
There is no "graduation" - there is combining technology when and if
it makes sense, and granting further commit when and if it makes
sense for a person.
The key is that all would be part of the same community, working
together. I expect that if we did something like this, a trusted
person X with commit rights to repoX that wanted to work on repoY
would be subject to a quick vote and given access.
My only concern is how to really ensure that we have no balkanization
of the community. I think we saw it happen in Jakarta as it really
grew, and the things to avoid are partitioned dev lists, for one, and
not working as hard as possible to get all committers on the PMC from
day 0. (I'm not criticizing Jakarta - I think it has been
phenomenally successful in many ways, and we just need to learn from
their groundbreaking efforts.)
Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Close to completion? (acl policy questions)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
If you vote for this, no complaining later -- you eat your own dog food.
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: I apologize in advance for using the words
"incubation", "incubating", "incubated", and finally
"incubator". The word "sandbox" is not a verb and really
hard to use as one, nor could I think of another verb.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Please, please, please try and focus
on the content in the questions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do ACLs extend to things like:
- websites
- documentation (possibly donated as well)
- QA
- project management
What is the policy on how this affects voting?
- Can a restricted committer -1 a change made by a non-restricted committer
- Does a restricted committer get a binding vote on the code to which they have access?
- Does a restricted committer have a binding vote to code to which they do not have access?
- Does a restricted committer have a binding vote on non-technical issues?
New committers:
- Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating code get restricted commit?
- Does an existing ASF committer contributing to the incubating code and some to other code get full commit?
- Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating code get restricted commit?
- Does an employee of the donor contributing to the incubating code and some to other code get full commit?
- Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating code get restricted commit?
- Does an unknown community member contributing to the incubating code and some to other code get full commit?
- Will there be an advantage to *not* contributing to the incubating code as to avoid getting voted in as a restricted committer.
Releasing:
- Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in our unstable builds?
- Can code being Geronimo incubated be distributed in official releases?
- Can code being Geronimo incubated be certified and distributed in a certified release?
Management and dynamics:
- Can we handle having 2 or 3 more donations in addition to the two we plan?
- Is is possible that the number of active restricted committers outnumbers the active fully privileged committers?
- How much time are you willing to dedicate in a week to managing issues, documenting guidelines and general Apache Way mentoring?
- Will we be open to assistance from experienced ASF people willing to assist in managing issues, documenting guidelines and general Apache Way mentoring?
- Would they get a binding vote?
- Would they get and be welcome to use commit privileges?
PMC:
- Can a restricted committer join the Geronimo PMC?
- Can a person under a documentation ACL join the PMC?
- Can a person under a management ACL join the PMC?
Moving Up:
- What is the criteria for leaving the Geronimo incubator?
- Is it acceptable to take half or less of the code?
- How is this consensus reached, public vote or private vote?
- How do restricted committers become full committers?
- If a donation moves to full status, are the restrictions of all committers working on that code removed?
- Are these people free to vote on matters of other donated code?
Moving Out:
- Is it possible to remove a project from incubation and not accept it as a part of Geronimo?
- How long will donors have to wait to get this answer?
- On what basis will the PMC vote on removing a project?
- Is that a public or private vote?
- Is it possible to remove all commit access for a restricted committer.
- On what basis will the PMC vote on removing all commit access?
- Is that a public or private vote?
Potential fairness issues:
- Donor X gets in the incubator in March, donor Y gets in the incubator two months later. Sometime later, the PMC votes to graduate donor Y's code. Do we graduate X as well? If not, do we owe X and explanation of why they aren't being graduated?
- Adam and Jack are restricted committers from donor ABC. Jack is voted in as a full committer. Do we vote in Adam as well? If not, do we owe Adam an explanation of why?
- Bill and Ben are restricted committers from donor QRS. Bill and Ben are having a hard time getting really involved. Eric is an Apache committer from another project who started working with the donated code and was made a restricted committer. The PMC decides to vote Eric in as a full Geronimo committer. Do we make Bill and Ben full committers as well? If no, how do we handle Bill and Ben's expectations?
Re: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:58 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well, can we have a separate vote for what to do with the web
> console? I thought it was ready (or nearly so) and I don't want to
> hold
> up the contribution for some of the unrelated items on your list.
I was hoping that we could just define the guidelines first, and then
apply it to the web console as our first use.
>
> (break)
>
> As for your list, are you saying that a vote for new code going to
> the incubator must necessarily be cast as a "we don't need a
> policy" vote
> for 1 (since "it's a tool we already have now - we can always do
> that")?
> I don't think that's entirely reasonable. A policy of sending
> donations
> to the incubator is still a policy. Whatever, I guess I'm OK voting
> against policy.
Ok - I see. I think of it as something we have always had the
ability to do, so it's not a decision on what we do *here*. So if we
choose to always send to the incubator, we haven't actually done
anything, and leave open the question of what to do when it comes out
of incubator :)
>
> Also, I thought we were going to try to avoid votes on things that
> haven't been discussed. Where did the metrics for accepting a
> committer
> topic come from?
That's why I left it open and didn't call for a vote, and I thought
posed them as suggestions - starters for a conversation. I think we
need a good rule of thumb "guideline" for potential committers so
they know what to expect.
No worries.
geir
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
>> that all that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
>>
>> I suspect we need to decide :
>>
>> 1) do we need to have any policy?
>>
>> 2) If so, decide the
>>
>> a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
>> sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
>> such as
>> - how long a person must commit patches
>> - how long participate on the mailing lists
>>
>> b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing
>> here)
>> where the options include
>> - bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
>> - bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
>> - bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
>> - none of the above
>>
>> I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
>> it's a tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
>> sponsor or just participate, but at the end of that process, then the
>> code contribution b) rules should apply.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan
>>> doesn't
>>> like that, so...
>>>
>>> Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
>>> donated code are:
>>>
>>> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
>>> number
>>> of people) who have worked with the code before
>>>
>>> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
>>> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to
>>> some
>>> number of people who have worked with the code before
>>>
>>> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
>>> potentially
>>> Geronimo people to form a new project team
>>>
>>> It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of
>>> these
>>> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
>>> console vs the ORB.
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If
>>>>> you
>>>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
>>>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
>>>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>> seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB
>>>>>> aren't we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of
Admin Console- request for help))
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Well, can we have a separate vote for what to do with the web
console? I thought it was ready (or nearly so) and I don't want to hold
up the contribution for some of the unrelated items on your list.
(break)
As for your list, are you saying that a vote for new code going to
the incubator must necessarily be cast as a "we don't need a policy" vote
for 1 (since "it's a tool we already have now - we can always do that")?
I don't think that's entirely reasonable. A policy of sending donations
to the incubator is still a policy. Whatever, I guess I'm OK voting
against policy.
Also, I thought we were going to try to avoid votes on things that
haven't been discussed. Where did the metrics for accepting a committer
topic come from?
Aaron
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
> that all that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
>
> I suspect we need to decide :
>
> 1) do we need to have any policy?
>
> 2) If so, decide the
>
> a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
> sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
> such as
> - how long a person must commit patches
> - how long participate on the mailing lists
>
> b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing here)
> where the options include
> - bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
> - bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
> - bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
> - none of the above
>
> I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
> it's a tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
> sponsor or just participate, but at the end of that process, then the
> code contribution b) rules should apply.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
> > like that, so...
> >
> > Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
> > donated code are:
> >
> > 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
> > number
> > of people) who have worked with the code before
> >
> > 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
> > grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some
> > number of people who have worked with the code before
> >
> > 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
> > potentially
> > Geronimo people to form a new project team
> >
> > It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these
> > is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
> > console vs the ORB.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
> >>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
> >> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
> >> exactly the same deal as a web console.
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
> >>>>> cases,
> >>>>> seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB
> >>>> aren't we?
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:52 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 1) -1. Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.
yes - guidelines captures what I meant. (I think of policy being the
same, but I can see how others don't...)
> 2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics. This is
> subjective...since I think quality of participation plays to a certain
> degree. Is this necessary? Can't we continue as we have (or has this
> proven to be negative)?
I'd prefer to have a set of guidelines to make it clear to everyone
how we operate, and limit the chance that either we play favorites,
or are accused of doing so.
>
> 2b) +1 for "bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of
> people"
> because obviously it needs to be worked on by the authors to a certain
> degree.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:42 PM
> To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation
> of Admin
> Console- request for help))
>
> Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
> that all
> that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
>
> I suspect we need to decide :
>
> 1) do we need to have any policy?
>
> 2) If so, decide the
>
> a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
> sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
> such as
> - how long a person must commit patches
> - how long participate on the mailing lists
>
> b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing
> here)
> where the options include
> - bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
> - bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
> - bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
> - none of the above
>
> I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
> it's a
> tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
> sponsor or
> just participate, but at the end of that process, then the code
> contribution
> b) rules should apply.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan
>> doesn't
>> like that, so...
>>
>> Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
>> donated code are:
>>
>> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
>> number of people) who have worked with the code before
>>
>> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
>> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to
>> some
>> number of people who have worked with the code before
>>
>> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
>> potentially Geronimo people to form a new project team
>>
>> It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of
>> these
>> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
>> console vs the ORB.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
>>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
>>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
>>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
>>>>>> cases, seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't
>>>>> we?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
RE: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
1) -1. Guidelines are good, policy can be bad.
2a) IMHO...This will be hard to guage and form metrics. This is
subjective...since I think quality of participation plays to a certain
degree. Is this necessary? Can't we continue as we have (or has this
proven to be negative)?
2b) +1 for "bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people"
because obviously it needs to be worked on by the authors to a certain
degree.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:42 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin
Console- request for help))
Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect that all
that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
I suspect we need to decide :
1) do we need to have any policy?
2) If so, decide the
a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
such as
- how long a person must commit patches
- how long participate on the mailing lists
b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing here)
where the options include
- bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
- none of the above
I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as it's a
tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to sponsor or
just participate, but at the end of that process, then the code contribution
b) rules should apply.
geir
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
> like that, so...
>
> Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
> donated code are:
>
> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
> number of people) who have worked with the code before
>
> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some
> number of people who have worked with the code before
>
> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
> potentially Geronimo people to form a new project team
>
> It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these
> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
> console vs the ORB.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
>>>>> cases, seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't
>>>> we?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Close to completion? (Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help))
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Lets start a new thread tomorrow, finish discussion since I suspect
that all that will say their peace have done so, and work out a vote?
I suspect we need to decide :
1) do we need to have any policy?
2) If so, decide the
a) general committer acceptance policy/guidelines to define some
sensible, fair, transparent metrics for accepting a committer
such as
- how long a person must commit patches
- how long participate on the mailing lists
b) general code acceptance policy (what we have been discussing here)
where the options include
- bring into SVN, grant committer status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, grant restricted status to some # of people
- bring into SVN, follow a) above for people
- none of the above
I think that "bring to incubator" is not in scope for this vote, as
it's a tool we already have now - we can always do that and decide to
sponsor or just participate, but at the end of that process, then the
code contribution b) rules should apply.
geir
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
> like that, so...
>
> Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
> donated code are:
>
> 1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some
> number
> of people) who have worked with the code before
>
> 2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
> grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some
> number of people who have worked with the code before
>
> 3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and
> potentially
> Geronimo people to form a new project team
>
> It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these
> is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
> console vs the ORB.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
>>> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
>> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
>> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
>>>>> cases,
>>>>> seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB
>>>> aren't we?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Well, I was going to start a new thread, but it seems Alan doesn't
like that, so...
Would it be accurate to say that the options on the table for
donated code are:
1) Bring (project X) to geronimo, grant full commit status to (some number
of people) who have worked with the code before
2) Bring project X to geronimo, put in a clearly separate SVN area,
grant restricted commit status (via ACL or explicit direction) to some
number of people who have worked with the code before
3) Bring project X to the incubator, mix outside people and potentially
Geronimo people to form a new project team
It's clear that there's a variety of opinions as to which of these
is preferable, and potentially which is most preferable for the web
console vs the ORB.
Aaron
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
> > guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
> >
>
> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
> exactly the same deal as a web console.
>
> -David
>
> > On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both cases,
> > > > seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
> > >
> > > Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't we?
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by si...@insession.com.
David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote on 13/07/2005 09:38:36 AM:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
> > guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
> >
>
> I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
> more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
> exactly the same deal as a web console.
My concern is that if we start out with its own eco-system then the
project may try to do more than what is initially needed by Geronimo and
therefore take longer to satisfy Geronimo's needs. Should we be trying to
ensure that we start out with the most productive project setup to get it
integrated with Geronimo as quick as possible and later consider moving he
ORB to its own eco-system.
John
>
> -David
>
> > On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both
cases,
> > > > seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
> > >
> > > Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't
we?
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:17:44PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
> guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
>
I don't know yet, myself. But certainly one cannot deny there are
more CORBA specs than Web Services specs (for a while anyway); not
exactly the same deal as a web console.
-David
> On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both cases,
> > > seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
> >
> > Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't we?
> >
> > -David
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
It's a judgement call i guess. i have not been on the calls. If you
guys feel that it can support its own eco-system. then thats fine.
-- dims
On 7/12/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both cases,
> > seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
>
> Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't we?
>
> -David
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:58:20PM -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> It's just that the piece of code we are talking about in both cases,
> seem un-usable w/o geronimo.
Is that really true? We are talking about a compliant ORB aren't we?
-David
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Dain,
No, i did not say we should avoid the incubator. It's just that the
piece of code we are talking about in both cases, seem un-usable w/o
geronimo. so a standalone project with its own infrastructure
(svn/committers/wiki/mailinglists etc) seems unnecessary. since most
of the work in those 2 will impact geronimo and changes to geronimo
will impact those 2. it just seems natural to share the mailing list
and svn notifications and not have a separate infrastructure. so that
leaves us with just the ACL.....
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> Can you be more specific? I don't want to put words in your mouth,
> but it seems like you are suggesting we should avoid the incubator.
> Is that what you are saying? If so, why? I am under the impression
> that this is exactly what the incubator is designed to do.
>
> I'm really interested in everyone's opinion, which is why I'm trying
> to stay out of the discussion for a while. I have seen a few
> comments like this in this discussion, but no one is being specific.
>
> TIA
>
> -dain
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Aaron,
> >
> > I have gotten quite a few projects processed thru incubator...so
> > please follow my advice :)
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>> PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
> >>> become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to
> >>> work.
> >>> Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
> >>> ready (each person on their merit).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, I must have misunderstood your previous line '+1 to
> >> accept
> >> new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers' -- I thought by
> >> "regular" you meant "completely unrestricted".
> >>
> >> I am OK with what you state above, though I still prefer the
> >> incubator.
> >>
> >> Aaroon
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should
> >>>> entitle a
> >>>> company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of
> >>>> donating
> >>>> code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them,
> >>>> aren't
> >>>> familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to
> >>>> convince me
> >>>> otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can
> >>>> all get to
> >>>> know each other there, the people who know the code can have
> >>>> immediate
> >>>> commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
> >>>> working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
> >>>> long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to
> >>>> integrate with
> >>>> Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with
> >>>> OpenEJB and
> >>>> TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some
> >>>> kind of
> >>>> Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
> >>>> general rule.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
> >>>> extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I
> >>>> used to
> >>>> think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the
> >>>> last month,
> >>>> I'm not so sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
> >>>> principles and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry
> >>>>> about
> >>>>> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such
> >>>>> that we
> >>>>> can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>>>> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular"
> >>>>> committers (we
> >>>>> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >>>>> companies)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is this so difficult?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- dims
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure
> >>>>>> that we've
> >>>>>> provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that
> >>>>>> started
> >>>>>> this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken
> >>>>>> place, I'm
> >>>>>> not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So
> >>>>>> I've got a
> >>>>>> couple of questions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from
> >>>>>> Gluecode
> >>>>>> as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go
> >>>>>> through
> >>>>>> the Incubator?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> >>>>>> establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not
> >>>>>> clear on
> >>>>>> why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things?
> >>>>>> IMO,
> >>>>>> rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test
> >>>>>> the waters
> >>>>>> with some code donations before we go so far as to establish
> >>>>>> policies
> >>>>>> and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bruce
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-
> >>>>>> N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> >>>>>> );'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Castor Project
> >>>>>> http://www.castor.org/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apache Geronimo
> >>>>>> http://geronimo.apache.org/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Dims,
Can you be more specific? I don't want to put words in your mouth,
but it seems like you are suggesting we should avoid the incubator.
Is that what you are saying? If so, why? I am under the impression
that this is exactly what the incubator is designed to do.
I'm really interested in everyone's opinion, which is why I'm trying
to stay out of the discussion for a while. I have seen a few
comments like this in this discussion, but no one is being specific.
TIA
-dain
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> I have gotten quite a few projects processed thru incubator...so
> please follow my advice :)
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
>>> become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to
>>> work.
>>> Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
>>> ready (each person on their merit).
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I must have misunderstood your previous line '+1 to
>> accept
>> new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers' -- I thought by
>> "regular" you meant "completely unrestricted".
>>
>> I am OK with what you state above, though I still prefer the
>> incubator.
>>
>> Aaroon
>>
>>
>>> On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should
>>>> entitle a
>>>> company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of
>>>> donating
>>>> code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them,
>>>> aren't
>>>> familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to
>>>> convince me
>>>> otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
>>>>
>>>> Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can
>>>> all get to
>>>> know each other there, the people who know the code can have
>>>> immediate
>>>> commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
>>>> working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
>>>> long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to
>>>> integrate with
>>>> Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with
>>>> OpenEJB and
>>>> TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some
>>>> kind of
>>>> Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
>>>> general rule.
>>>>
>>>> As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
>>>> extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I
>>>> used to
>>>> think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the
>>>> last month,
>>>> I'm not so sure.
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
>>>> principles and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry
>>>>> about
>>>>> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such
>>>>> that we
>>>>> can place the code in our SVN.)
>>>>> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular"
>>>>> committers (we
>>>>> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
>>>>> companies)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this so difficult?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- dims
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure
>>>>>> that we've
>>>>>> provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that
>>>>>> started
>>>>>> this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken
>>>>>> place, I'm
>>>>>> not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So
>>>>>> I've got a
>>>>>> couple of questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from
>>>>>> Gluecode
>>>>>> as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the Incubator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
>>>>>> establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not
>>>>>> clear on
>>>>>> why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things?
>>>>>> IMO,
>>>>>> rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test
>>>>>> the waters
>>>>>> with some code donations before we go so far as to establish
>>>>>> policies
>>>>>> and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-
>>>>>> N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>>>> );'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Castor Project
>>>>>> http://www.castor.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apache Geronimo
>>>>>> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Aaron,
I have gotten quite a few projects processed thru incubator...so
please follow my advice :)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
> > become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to work.
> > Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
> > ready (each person on their merit).
>
> Sorry, I must have misunderstood your previous line '+1 to accept
> new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers' -- I thought by
> "regular" you meant "completely unrestricted".
>
> I am OK with what you state above, though I still prefer the
> incubator.
>
> Aaroon
>
> > On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should entitle a
> > > company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of donating
> > > code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them, aren't
> > > familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to convince me
> > > otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
> > >
> > > Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can all get to
> > > know each other there, the people who know the code can have immediate
> > > commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
> > > working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
> > > long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to integrate with
> > > Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with OpenEJB and
> > > TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some kind of
> > > Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
> > > general rule.
> > >
> > > As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
> > > extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I used to
> > > think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the last month,
> > > I'm not so sure.
> > >
> > > And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
> > > principles and so on.
> > >
> > > Aaron
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > > +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> > > > paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> > > > can place the code in our SVN.)
> > > > +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> > > > can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> > > > companies)
> > > >
> > > > Why is this so difficult?
> > > >
> > > > -- dims
> > > >
> > > > On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
> > > > > provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
> > > > > this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
> > > > > not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
> > > > > couple of questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
> > > > > as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
> > > > > the Incubator?
> > > > >
> > > > > One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> > > > > establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
> > > > > why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
> > > > > people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
> > > > > rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
> > > > > with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
> > > > > and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > > --
> > > > > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > > );'
> > > > >
> > > > > The Castor Project
> > > > > http://www.castor.org/
> > > > >
> > > > > Apache Geronimo
> > > > > http://geronimo.apache.org/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
> become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to work.
> Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
> ready (each person on their merit).
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your previous line '+1 to accept
new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers' -- I thought by
"regular" you meant "completely unrestricted".
I am OK with what you state above, though I still prefer the
incubator.
Aaroon
> On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should entitle a
> > company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of donating
> > code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them, aren't
> > familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to convince me
> > otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
> >
> > Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can all get to
> > know each other there, the people who know the code can have immediate
> > commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
> > working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
> > long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to integrate with
> > Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with OpenEJB and
> > TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some kind of
> > Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
> > general rule.
> >
> > As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
> > extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I used to
> > think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the last month,
> > I'm not so sure.
> >
> > And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
> > principles and so on.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> > > paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> > > can place the code in our SVN.)
> > > +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> > > can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> > > companies)
> > >
> > > Why is this so difficult?
> > >
> > > -- dims
> > >
> > > On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
> > > > provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
> > > > this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
> > > > not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
> > > > couple of questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
> > > > as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> > > >
> > > > 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
> > > > the Incubator?
> > > >
> > > > One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> > > > establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
> > > > why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
> > > > people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
> > > > rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
> > > > with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
> > > > and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > > --
> > > > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > > );'
> > > >
> > > > The Castor Project
> > > > http://www.castor.org/
> > > >
> > > > Apache Geronimo
> > > > http://geronimo.apache.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Yes, that was already discussed. But, given your previous statement, I
can see how he misunderstood.
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 7/12/2005 1:59 PM:
>PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
>become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to work.
>Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
>ready (each person on their merit).
>
>-- dims
>
>On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should entitle a
>>company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of donating
>>code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them, aren't
>>familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to convince me
>>otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
>>
>> Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can all get to
>>know each other there, the people who know the code can have immediate
>>commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
>>working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
>>long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to integrate with
>>Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with OpenEJB and
>>TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some kind of
>>Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
>>general rule.
>>
>> As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
>>extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I used to
>>think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the last month,
>>I'm not so sure.
>>
>> And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
>>principles and so on.
>>
>>Aaron
>>
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
>>>paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
>>>can place the code in our SVN.)
>>>+1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
>>>can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
>>>companies)
>>>
>>>Why is this so difficult?
>>>
>>>-- dims
>>>
>>>On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
>>>>provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
>>>>this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
>>>>not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
>>>>couple of questions:
>>>>
>>>>1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
>>>>as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
>>>>
>>>>2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
>>>>the Incubator?
>>>>
>>>>One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
>>>>establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
>>>>why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
>>>>people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
>>>>rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
>>>>with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
>>>>and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
>>>>
>>>>Bruce
>>>>--
>>>>perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>>);'
>>>>
>>>>The Castor Project
>>>>http://www.castor.org/
>>>>
>>>>Apache Geronimo
>>>>http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
PMC's can maintain separate ACL's for each svn thingy. Get them to
become Apache committers, setup a separate svn area for them to work.
Then VOTE them into regular geronimo project when you think they are
ready (each person on their merit).
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should entitle a
> company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of donating
> code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them, aren't
> familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to convince me
> otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
>
> Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can all get to
> know each other there, the people who know the code can have immediate
> commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
> working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
> long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to integrate with
> Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with OpenEJB and
> TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some kind of
> Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
> general rule.
>
> As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
> extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I used to
> think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the last month,
> I'm not so sure.
>
> And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
> principles and so on.
>
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> > paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> > can place the code in our SVN.)
> > +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> > can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> > companies)
> >
> > Why is this so difficult?
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
> > > provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
> > > this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
> > > not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
> > > couple of questions:
> > >
> > > 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
> > > as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> > >
> > > 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
> > > the Incubator?
> > >
> > > One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> > > establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
> > > why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
> > > people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
> > > rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
> > > with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
> > > and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > );'
> > >
> > > The Castor Project
> > > http://www.castor.org/
> > >
> > > Apache Geronimo
> > > http://geronimo.apache.org/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I'm sorry, I don't agree that donating code should entitle a
company to nominate committers. Even separating the issue of donating
code, I don't like adding committers when we don't know them, aren't
familiar with their work, etc. I think it will be hard to convince me
otherwise, but I am known to be conservative in this regard. :)
Given the above, I prefer the incubator because we can all get to
know each other there, the people who know the code can have immediate
commit on the code (as can interested Geronimo folks), we can start
working and evaluate the donation before deciding where it belongs
long-term, etc. It would be slightly more difficult to integrate with
Geronimo for testing purposes, but we face similar issues with OpenEJB and
TranQL already. On this, I am willing to be convinced that some kind of
Geronimo sub-area is best, but I think the incubator is better as a
general rule.
As for why we need general rules, I don't fancy having this
extended dialogue every time there's a donation on the table. I used to
think we wouldn't have that many donations, but after 2 in the last month,
I'm not so sure.
And, of course, I support David J's statement of mentoring
principles and so on.
Aaron
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> can place the code in our SVN.)
> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> companies)
>
> Why is this so difficult?
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
> > provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
> > this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
> > not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
> > couple of questions:
> >
> > 1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
> > as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
> >
> > 2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
> > the Incubator?
> >
> > One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
> > establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
> > why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
> > people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
> > rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
> > with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
> > and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
> >
> > Bruce
> > --
> > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> >
> > The Castor Project
> > http://www.castor.org/
> >
> > Apache Geronimo
> > http://geronimo.apache.org/
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by si...@insession.com.
Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote on 13/07/2005 06:01:25 AM:
> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> can place the code in our SVN.)
+1
I feel we should be focusing on getting the Trifork code integrated with
Geronimo initially and worry about a standalone ORB project later. My
concern is if it goes to incubator is that it will introduce more
management overhead (setting up svn, mailing lists, committers, more build
complexities) and if it has separate mailing lists the Geronimo community
may not get as involved, which sounds important in the first year or two
of the project. Does going to incubator imply it will be developed as a
standalone project? Once the trifork code is integrated with Geronimo and
has stabilised then we could look at moving it to a standalone project
(with its own mailing lists etc).
> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> companies)
-1
Have an ACL to give the donors commit access to just the area the donation
has been placed. Full commit access should only be granted by following
the normal procedures.
John
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
that was i think meant for Jeff and Aaron (too many email to
remember!!!. we sure are burning more cycles on this than it's worth.)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even
> during the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse
> (anything that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc
> or not). remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!
>
> what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
> checkin would not handle?)
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> > >
> > > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> > >> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> > >> can place the code in our SVN.)
> > >>
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> > >> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> > >> companies)
> > >>
> > >
> > > -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
> > > prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
> > > car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
> > > their commitment to community.
> >
> > Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
> >
> > Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
> > project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to
> > the project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
> >
> > I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
> > throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
> > and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
> >
> > Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they
> > created, maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to
> > donate with no strings attached to the project for us to do with as
> > we wish, but also offered an even more precious commodity, interested
> > and dedicated people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
> >
> > geir
> >
> > --
> > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> > geirm@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/12/2005 7:28 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>Its not fear....
>
>Its fairness to the community...we have a lot of people who have contributed
>in one way or another and would like to be a committer, but are not. I
>think there is something to say not only for the contributions, but the
>commitment to the project. IMHO the "commit" of committer also means
>commitment. The last thing we want to do is offer full commitership to a
>couple of commercial entities out-of-the-box. I think that would give the
>wrong impressions to the community.
>
>In addition, I think its fair to say that we should get to know the team
>players before giving them the keys to the house.
>
>Given that this is an open source project, it should follow the unwritten
>rules of acquiring committership. IMHO, donating code does not guarantee
>commitment to the project.
>
>I really don't see an issue with ACLing off an area, be it the sandbox,
>sub-project, or incubation, with the aspect of stating that if they show the
>commitment, they will be granted karma. It's the way its mostly been done,
>and I see no reason this should change now.
>
>
This reflects my sentiments as well.
Regards,
Alan
RE: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Its not fear....
Its fairness to the community...we have a lot of people who have contributed
in one way or another and would like to be a committer, but are not. I
think there is something to say not only for the contributions, but the
commitment to the project. IMHO the "commit" of committer also means
commitment. The last thing we want to do is offer full commitership to a
couple of commercial entities out-of-the-box. I think that would give the
wrong impressions to the community.
In addition, I think its fair to say that we should get to know the team
players before giving them the keys to the house.
Given that this is an open source project, it should follow the unwritten
rules of acquiring committership. IMHO, donating code does not guarantee
commitment to the project.
I really don't see an issue with ACLing off an area, be it the sandbox,
sub-project, or incubation, with the aspect of stating that if they show the
commitment, they will be granted karma. It's the way its mostly been done,
and I see no reason this should change now.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:46 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even during
the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse (anything
that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc or not).
remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!
what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
checkin would not handle?)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry
> >> +about
> >> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that
> >> we can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers
> >> +(we
> >> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >> companies)
> >>
> >
> > -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
> > prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
> > car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
> > their commitment to community.
>
> Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
>
> Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
> project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to the
> project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
>
> I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
> throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
> and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
>
> Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they created,
> maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to donate with no
> strings attached to the project for us to do with as we wish, but also
> offered an even more precious commodity, interested and dedicated
> people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
RE: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Whoops I hit send too fast as I wanted to address one more issue in this...
This is truly not an issue of support. All of this donated code has not
only my full support, but I would like the opportunity to help out as
well...so support from my perspective is there at 150%.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:46 PM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even during
the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse (anything
that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc or not).
remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!
what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
checkin would not handle?)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry
> >> +about
> >> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that
> >> we can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers
> >> +(we
> >> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >> companies)
> >>
> >
> > -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
> > prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
> > car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
> > their commitment to community.
>
> Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
>
> Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
> project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to the
> project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
>
> I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
> throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
> and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
>
> Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they created,
> maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to donate with no
> strings attached to the project for us to do with as we wish, but also
> offered an even more precious commodity, interested and dedicated
> people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/12/2005 6:45 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even
>during the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse
>(anything that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc
>or not). remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!
>
>what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
>checkin would not handle?)
>
>
So if I came in with a donation and an offer to work on webservices,
would you grant me immediate commit privs?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I hardly knew any of you...yet i supported as much as i could even
during the early stages. same thing am doing with beehive/wsrp4j/muse
(anything that as a ws component whether they are destined for ws pmc
or not). remember, this is an open-source project!!!!!!!
what is it that you are afraid of? (that a few technical -1's on code
checkin would not handle?)
-- dims
On 7/12/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> >> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> >> can place the code in our SVN.)
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> >> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> >> companies)
> >>
> >
> > -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
> > prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
> > car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
> > their commitment to community.
>
> Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
>
> Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
> project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to
> the project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
>
> I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
> throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
> and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
>
> Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they
> created, maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to
> donate with no strings attached to the project for us to do with as
> we wish, but also offered an even more precious commodity, interested
> and dedicated people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/12/2005 6:38 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
>>> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
>>> companies)
>>>
>>
>> -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
>> prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
>> car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
>> their commitment to community.
>
>
> Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
>
> Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
> project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to
> the project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
>
> I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
> throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
> and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
>
> Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they
> created, maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to
> donate with no strings attached to the project for us to do with as
> we wish, but also offered an even more precious commodity, interested
> and dedicated people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
No, they need to follow through and show that they will be active and
can work well within the community. Showing up to the door with a
donation and good intentions is not enough.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
>> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
>> can place the code in our SVN.)
>>
>
> +1
>
>> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
>> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
>> companies)
>>
>
> -1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them
> prove themselves individually before being given the keys to the
> car. This is only fair to all the other folks who had to prove
> their commitment to community.
Let me ask a question - how do you define and measure commitment?
Clearly, we have traditionally used "demonstrated interest in the
project" as a yardstick, as well as "demonstrated contribution to
the project"? That's really what we're concerned about, right?
I think that people can do this in different ways. David Jencks
throws tons of time at code. I throw tons of time at less technical,
and more at community, administrative and legal issues.
Would it be sufficient for someone to take software that they
created, maybe even built a business on, and not only offered to
donate with no strings attached to the project for us to do with as
we wish, but also offered an even more precious commodity, interested
and dedicated people to work on it, to ask for a place at the table?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Is it a mountain? (Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for
help)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to accept both the console and trifork code. Let Geir worry about
> paperwork. (Ask for a software grant from both companies such that we
> can place the code in our SVN.)
+1
> +1 to accept new folks from these contrib as "regular" committers (we
> can have a public vote once we get list of people from these 2
> companies)
-1. Thats not fair to the community. I would ACL it...let them prove
themselves individually before being given the keys to the car. This is
only fair to all the other folks who had to prove their commitment to
community.
>
> Why is this so difficult?
>
> -- dims
>
> On 7/12/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>After rereading this entire discussion, I'm still not sure that we've
>>provided the requested guidance to the original reqeust that started
>>this thread. What's more, given the debate that has taken place, I'm
>>not sure that there's a consensus in any one direction. So I've got a
>>couple of questions:
>>
>>1) Is this the same management console that I downloaded from Gluecode
>>as the Joe evaluation licensed product?
>>
>>2) Will the management console come straight to Geronimo or go through
>>the Incubator?
>>
>>One additional suggestion on the table seemed to surround the
>>establishment of policies surrounding code donation. I'm not clear on
>>why some people feel that policies need to be established. Why are
>>people so hung up on establishing policies for so many things? IMO,
>>rules for rules sake is just silly. I think we need to test the waters
>>with some code donations before we go so far as to establish policies
>>and precedents. Let's please crawl before we walk.
>>
>>Bruce
>>--
>>perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>);'
>>
>>The Castor Project
>>http://www.castor.org/
>>
>>Apache Geronimo
>>http://geronimo.apache.org/
>>
>
>
>