You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@attic.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2018/07/19 12:43:05 UTC
Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Hi Attic team,
I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
clarify this and here looks like the best place.
IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
between "project" and "codebase".
IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
codebases which are currently in the Attic.
1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
feels easy to handle using existing processes.
4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
not been adopted by a different PMC so far
b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
actions
d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
How does this sound?
Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
I think that's not good as per d) above.
-Bertrand
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
Attic
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Mark Murphy wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:55:51 +0200
> From: Mark Murphy <jm...@gmail.com>
> To: general@attic.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
>
> I don't know why you are trying so hard to keep XMLBeans dead. XMLBeans has
> been revived by the POI PMC, not just for benefit of POI, but for whomever
> needs updates. The updates benefit everyone, but keeping it in the attic
> makes it look dead. This will be confusing to everyone who wants to use it.
> There should be no website that says XMLBeans is retired. That will cause
> confusion, and makes it look like ASF's left hand doesn't know what he
> right hand is doing. I see no difference functionally between XMLBeans
> being revived and the codebase being adopted. And there should be no
> difference to the Jira or the website. This is being made far too difficult
> with no benefit to Apache, but with serious negative repercussions to the
> community.
I agree ; what has actually happened is that project XMLbeans moved
from : pmc XMLbeans ; state : active
via : pmc Attic ; state : retired
to : pmc Poi ; state : active
The fact that project XMLbeans was, for a while, "retired"
is just an not-too-important, historic fact.
For the future : if/when a PMC wants to take over an atticked
codebase, a board resolution is required (in my view ; this is
still being discussed), simply because a board resolution
tasked Attic with management of the codebase, and only another
board resolution can undo that.
The point is that in the XMLbeans case, Poi wanted more than
just the codebase ; it wanted everything ; fine.
Since the board has to pass a resolution for the codebase-ownership,
it might as well approve the revival of the /project/ (and all
resources associated with it), and task the TO-PMC with managing
the revived project.
Apart from the (hopefully coming soon) board resolution,
this was effectively done ; and everybody is happy, I think.
I think that a PMC can't just take over just the codebase (without
the responsibilities that come with running a project).
They can fork, but the official codebase remains frozen ;
this is just my opinion ; it is unexplored teritory.
Regards,
Henk Penning
> In my mind step d) above is just wrong. Here is why. If I am trying to use
> FROM, and looking for information on it, I will likely find FROM.apache.org.
> Which will tell me it is dead, but maybe I will find another site under
> TO.apache.org that looks almost entirely the same except it claims to be
> alive. Now we have competing websites, with no benefit, only confusion. I
> don see why that would be put forth as a good idea. F) is a bad idea
> because there is no continuity in the Maven repository, and requires
> massive refactoring for anyone who uses FROM. I still don't understand the
> need to differentiate modules from the original. We don't rename modules
> for anything else when the PMC changes. Just pretend the PMC changed for
> XMLBeans, and it is revived.
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Attic team,
>>
>> I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
>> Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
>> clarify this and here looks like the best place.
>>
>> IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>>
>> I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
>> have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
>> between "project" and "codebase".
>>
>> IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
>> project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
>> helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
>>
>> So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
>> codebases which are currently in the Attic.
>>
>> 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
>> means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
>>
>> 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
>> the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
>> provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
>>
>> 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
>> recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
>> top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
>> feels easy to handle using existing processes.
>>
>> 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
>> again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>>
>> If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
>> rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
>> FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
>>
>> a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
>> not been adopted by a different PMC so far
>>
>> b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
>>
>> c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
>> on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
>> actions
>>
>> d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
>> adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
>> the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
>> have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
>> frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
>> their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
>> content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
>>
>> e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
>>
>> f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
>> TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
>> ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
>> for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
>>
>> g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>> Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
>> http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
>> understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
>> IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
>>
>> Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
>> I think that's not good as per d) above.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Posted by Mark Murphy <jm...@gmail.com>.
I don't know why you are trying so hard to keep XMLBeans dead. XMLBeans has
been revived by the POI PMC, not just for benefit of POI, but for whomever
needs updates. The updates benefit everyone, but keeping it in the attic
makes it look dead. This will be confusing to everyone who wants to use it.
There should be no website that says XMLBeans is retired. That will cause
confusion, and makes it look like ASF's left hand doesn't know what he
right hand is doing. I see no difference functionally between XMLBeans
being revived and the codebase being adopted. And there should be no
difference to the Jira or the website. This is being made far too difficult
with no benefit to Apache, but with serious negative repercussions to the
community.
In my mind step d) above is just wrong. Here is why. If I am trying to use
FROM, and looking for information on it, I will likely find FROM.apache.org.
Which will tell me it is dead, but maybe I will find another site under
TO.apache.org that looks almost entirely the same except it claims to be
alive. Now we have competing websites, with no benefit, only confusion. I
don see why that would be put forth as a good idea. F) is a bad idea
because there is no continuity in the Maven repository, and requires
massive refactoring for anyone who uses FROM. I still don't understand the
need to differentiate modules from the original. We don't rename modules
for anything else when the PMC changes. Just pretend the PMC changed for
XMLBeans, and it is revived.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Attic team,
>
> I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
> Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
> clarify this and here looks like the best place.
>
> IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>
> I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
> have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
> between "project" and "codebase".
>
> IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
> project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
> helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
>
> So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
> codebases which are currently in the Attic.
>
> 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
> means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
>
> 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
> the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
> provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
>
> 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
> recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
> top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
> feels easy to handle using existing processes.
>
> 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
> again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>
> If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
> rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
> FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
>
> a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
> not been adopted by a different PMC so far
>
> b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
>
> c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
> on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
> actions
>
> d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
> adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
> the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
> have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
> frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
> their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
> content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
>
> e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
>
> f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
> TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
> ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
> for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
>
> g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
>
> How does this sound?
>
> Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
> http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
> understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
> IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
>
> Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
> I think that's not good as per d) above.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
Attic
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:47:59 +0200
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: general@attic.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Hi Bertrand,
thanks for the notes.
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:40 AM Henk P. Penning <pe...@uu.nl> wrote:
>> ... This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ;
>> XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change.
>> The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be
>> visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal
>> thing...
>
> Ok, I think this is where we see things from a different angle.
>
> I agree with you from the user's perspective, a seamless change is useful.
>
> From the Foundation's governance point of view however, by default a
> project found at foo.apache.org is governed by the foo PMC. If that's
> not the case, like here, I think there should be a clear note like
> "XMLBeans is managed by the Apache POI PMC" on all pages of
> http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ . A small thing in the site's footer is
> good enough IMO.
Fine ; maintaining xmlbeans.apache.org is the receiving PMC's
(POI)'s business, but we can add it to the list, of course.
It looks like "the codebase" and the (Maven-name-space) 'GroupId'
are very closely related. Whoever 'owns' "the codebase",
has the right to publish releases using the GroupId.
Is this something that is always true ?
> The Board has to manage about 180 PMC and 300 projects if i remember
> correctly, so it's important to have clarity there. It's a small thing
> that can be added to the Attic's documentation on how to revive
> codebases.
Clarity is vitally important ; and it is lacking in spades.
> As for having a Board decision when reviving a project, that probably
> makes sense for symmetry with the Board resolution that moved the
> project to the Attic. But I don't think the Board necessarily needs to
> be involved in the discussions that lead to that resolution, I think
> the Attic PMC can simply add a resolution to the Board agenda as
> needed, and the Board just ratifies it.
Attic implements board resolutions ; I think it is as simple as that.
Before the move, Attic is not involved. In Attic, there is nothing
to discuss, or vote upon. It is upto the board to decide if the
move is ok ; that's not Attic's business.
> -Bertrand
Groeten,
HPP
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
Attic
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:24:58 +0200
> From: Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> To: general@attic.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
>
>
>
>> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> As for having a Board decision when reviving a project, that probably
>> makes sense for symmetry with the Board resolution that moved the
>> project to the Attic. But I don't think the Board necessarily needs to
>> be involved in the discussions that lead to that resolution, I think
>> the Attic PMC can simply add a resolution to the Board agenda as
>> needed, and the Board just ratifies it.
>
> There is no symmetry. The board terminated the PMC and gave its
> assets to the attic to manage.
The board passed a resolution saying :
RESOLVED, that the Attic PMC be and hereby is tasked with
oversight over the software developed by the Apache XXXXX
Project; and
My question is : can Attic 'un-task' itself, or is a board
resolution required ?
If a resolution is required, board might as well (symmetry)
task the new PMC with "oversight over ...".
Since you (rightly, in my view) broaden "the software"
to "all assets", the resolution would effectively
move the PROJECT (== all assets) to another PMC.
> The board is NOT reinstating a PMC or
> creating a new one.
True.
> Once the attic owns the assets it should be free to assign those
> assets to any PMC willing to manage them.
>
> Ralph
Thanks ; regards,
Henk Penning
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> As for having a Board decision when reviving a project, that probably
> makes sense for symmetry with the Board resolution that moved the
> project to the Attic. But I don't think the Board necessarily needs to
> be involved in the discussions that lead to that resolution, I think
> the Attic PMC can simply add a resolution to the Board agenda as
> needed, and the Board just ratifies it.
There is no symmetry. The board terminated the PMC and gave its assets to the attic to manage. The board is NOT reinstating a PMC or creating a new one.
Once the attic owns the assets it should be free to assign those assets to any PMC willing to manage them.
Ralph
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:40 AM Henk P. Penning <pe...@uu.nl> wrote:
> ... This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ;
> XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change.
> The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be
> visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal
> thing...
Ok, I think this is where we see things from a different angle.
I agree with you from the user's perspective, a seamless change is useful.
From the Foundation's governance point of view however, by default a
project found at foo.apache.org is governed by the foo PMC. If that's
not the case, like here, I think there should be a clear note like
"XMLBeans is managed by the Apache POI PMC" on all pages of
http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ . A small thing in the site's footer is
good enough IMO.
The Board has to manage about 180 PMC and 300 projects if i remember
correctly, so it's important to have clarity there. It's a small thing
that can be added to the Attic's documentation on how to revive
codebases.
As for having a Board decision when reviving a project, that probably
makes sense for symmetry with the Board resolution that moved the
project to the Attic. But I don't think the Board necessarily needs to
be involved in the discussions that lead to that resolution, I think
the Attic PMC can simply add a resolution to the Board agenda as
needed, and the Board just ratifies it.
HTH,
-Bertrand
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
+1 to most parts
the only part that I'd prefer to keep simple is the Board vote vs Attic vote:
this is exactly the type of vote we tried to get from Board when digging into
XMLBeans details and got as answer "just do it"
Which is sufficient to me: we don't create any new project (= a new community
and a new PMC), but merge a disappeared community into a live community
IMHO, project = codebase + community + PMC
a board vote is useful for a new project because it represents a new community
then a new PMC
When a community and its PMC create a new "internal" project, also called sub-
project, the PMC does not ask any vote from board.
notice: I won't fight against a Board vote: the next time, since Board will
better know what it votes about, the vote will just be a formal approval "from
the top of ASF"
I like Bertrands's summary start: once consensus on the end is ok and process
(board vote or not), this is exactly what we could keep in Attic site to
document this scenario
Regards,
Hervé
Le vendredi 20 juillet 2018, 13:50:38 CEST Mark Murphy a écrit :
> Thanks Henk, this covers all of my concerns very well.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:40 AM Henk P. Penning <pe...@uu.nl> wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:43:05 +0200
> > > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> > > To: general@attic.apache.org
> > > Subject: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
> >
> > Attic
> >
> > Hi Bertrand,
> >
> > thanks for your help ; appreciated.
> > >
> > > I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
> > > Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
> > > clarify this and here looks like the best place.
> > >
> > > IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
> > >
> > > I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
> > > have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
> > > between "project" and "codebase".
> > >
> > > IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
> > > project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
> > > helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
> > >
> > > So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
> > > codebases which are currently in the Attic.
> > >
> > > 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
> > > means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
> > >
> > > 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
> > > the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
> > > provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
> > >
> > > 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
> > > recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
> > > top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
> > > feels easy to handle using existing processes.
> > >
> > > 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
> > > again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
> > >
> > > If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
> > > rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
> > > FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
> > >
> > > a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
> > > not been adopted by a different PMC so far
> > >
> > > b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
> > >
> > Re a) and b) ; splitting the codebase complicates matters a lot ;
> > it is not "on the [attic] menu" ; it is not the current 'problem'.
> > For now, let's not go there.
> > Below I assume (regarding codebase) it is "all or nothing".
> >
> > [ Note that many other PMCs have split the codebase ;
> >
> > for example Hadoop is a split-of of Lucune ;
> >
> > ]
> >
> > [ Note that Attic is very reluctant to change the FROM website
> > ; we've worked hard at not having to touch it
> > ; The "this project is in the attic" notices on every html pages
> >
> > are generated /outside/ the FROM website (by a lua filter)
> >
> > ]
> > >
> > > c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
> > > on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
> > > actions
> > >
> > I don't think a possitive Attic vote is sufficient or even required.
> >
> > As Jim pointed out, the board resolution that terminated FROM,
> > also tasked Attic with "oversight over the software [of FROM]" ;
> > that is, to freeze it.
> > Only another board resolution can relieve Attic of that task,
> > and responsibility.
> > So, Attic does nothing until Board formally decides.
> > If/when Board passes a resolution that moves oversight of the
> > codebase from Attic to TO, Attic unatticks FROM.
> > >
> > > d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
> > > adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
> > > the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
> > > have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
> > > frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
> > > their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
> > > content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
> > >
> > Not applicable if TO "takes all".
> > >
> > > e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
> > >
> > > f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
> > > TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
> > > ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
> > > for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
> > >
> > This is a key-point :
> >
> > This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ;
> > XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change.
> > The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be
> > visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal
> > thing.
> >
> > This is the 'Project' vs 'Product' discusion. The ASF presents
> > its products divided by organisation-lines (PMCs) ; in general,
> > that is bad idea. It is hard to fix, because of the way the ASF
> > is managed (strongly independent PMC's).
> > >
> > > g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
> > >
> > Not applicable if TO "takes all".
> > >
> > > How does this sound?
> > >
> > I think the "TO takes all" (as was done in the POI/XMLbeans case)
> > works well ; I see no problems in the future, should it happen again.
> > >
> > > Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
> > > http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
> > > understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
> > > IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
> > >
> > > Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
> > > I think that's not good as per d) above.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> > >
> > Thanks ; regards,
> >
> > Henk Penning
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ _
> > Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
> > Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
> > Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
> > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Posted by Mark Murphy <jm...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Henk, this covers all of my concerns very well.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:40 AM Henk P. Penning <pe...@uu.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:43:05 +0200
> > From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> > To: general@attic.apache.org
> > Subject: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
> Attic
>
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> thanks for your help ; appreciated.
>
> > I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
> > Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
> > clarify this and here looks like the best place.
> >
> > IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
> >
> > I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
> > have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
> > between "project" and "codebase".
> >
> > IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
> > project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
> > helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
> >
> > So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
> > codebases which are currently in the Attic.
> >
> > 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
> > means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
> >
> > 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
> > the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
> > provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
> >
> > 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
> > recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
> > top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
> > feels easy to handle using existing processes.
> >
> > 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
> > again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
> >
> > If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
> > rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
> > FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
> >
> > a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
> > not been adopted by a different PMC so far
> >
> > b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
>
> Re a) and b) ; splitting the codebase complicates matters a lot ;
> it is not "on the [attic] menu" ; it is not the current 'problem'.
> For now, let's not go there.
> Below I assume (regarding codebase) it is "all or nothing".
>
> [ Note that many other PMCs have split the codebase ;
> for example Hadoop is a split-of of Lucune ;
> ]
>
> [ Note that Attic is very reluctant to change the FROM website
> ; we've worked hard at not having to touch it
> ; The "this project is in the attic" notices on every html pages
> are generated /outside/ the FROM website (by a lua filter)
> ]
>
> > c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
> > on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
> > actions
>
> I don't think a possitive Attic vote is sufficient or even required.
>
> As Jim pointed out, the board resolution that terminated FROM,
> also tasked Attic with "oversight over the software [of FROM]" ;
> that is, to freeze it.
> Only another board resolution can relieve Attic of that task,
> and responsibility.
> So, Attic does nothing until Board formally decides.
> If/when Board passes a resolution that moves oversight of the
> codebase from Attic to TO, Attic unatticks FROM.
>
> > d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
> > adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
> > the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
> > have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
> > frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
> > their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
> > content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
>
> Not applicable if TO "takes all".
>
> > e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
> >
> > f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
> > TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
> > ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
> > for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
>
> This is a key-point :
>
> This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ;
> XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change.
> The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be
> visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal
> thing.
>
> This is the 'Project' vs 'Product' discusion. The ASF presents
> its products divided by organisation-lines (PMCs) ; in general,
> that is bad idea. It is hard to fix, because of the way the ASF
> is managed (strongly independent PMC's).
>
> > g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
>
> Not applicable if TO "takes all".
>
> > How does this sound?
>
> I think the "TO takes all" (as was done in the POI/XMLbeans case)
> works well ; I see no problems in the future, should it happen again.
>
> > Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
> > http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
> > understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
> > IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
> >
> > Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
> > I think that's not good as per d) above.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
> Thanks ; regards,
>
> Henk Penning
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ _
> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
> Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
>
Re: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the
Attic
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:43:05 +0200
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: general@attic.apache.org
> Subject: Clarifying the process for PMCs adopting codebases from the Attic
Hi Bertrand,
thanks for your help ; appreciated.
> I just subscribed here - we had a discussion about this at yesterday's
> Board meeting (thanks Henk for joining that), I think it's good to
> clarify this and here looks like the best place.
>
> IIUC the first occurence that just happened is
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>
> I didn't have a good phone link for that meeting yesterday so might
> have missed some details but I felt like there was some confusion
> between "project" and "codebase".
>
> IMO, focusing on the adoption of the codebase, while keeping the
> project's state as "in the Attic" with as few changes as possible
> helps simplify and clarify what's happening.
>
> So here we go, here's a tentative set of principles for PMCs adopting
> codebases which are currently in the Attic.
>
> 1. When a project goes to the Attic, its PMC is terminated, which
> means that the Apache Project ceases to exist.
>
> 2. The project's codebase, on the other hand, continues to exist in
> the Attic. It's just frozen, so the ASF is not expected for example to
> provide security fixes for code that's in the Attic.
>
> 3. If there's renewed interest in the project, it might be revived by
> recreating a PMC, either via the Incubator or directly, as happens for
> top-level projects. I don't think this has happened so far but it
> feels easy to handle using existing processes.
>
> 4. Another option for the *codebase* (or part of it) to become active
> again is for an existing PMC to adopt it, which is what happened in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-169
>
> If the above makes sense, I suggest the following (also tentative)
> rules, assuming the codebase that's in the Attic belonged to project
> FROM and it's the TO PMC which adopts it.
>
> a) TO can adopt the FROM codebase that's in the attic, provided it's
> not been adopted by a different PMC so far
>
> b) Various modules of FROM might be adopted by different PMCs
Re a) and b) ; splitting the codebase complicates matters a lot ;
it is not "on the [attic] menu" ; it is not the current 'problem'.
For now, let's not go there.
Below I assume (regarding codebase) it is "all or nothing".
[ Note that many other PMCs have split the codebase ;
for example Hadoop is a split-of of Lucune ;
]
[ Note that Attic is very reluctant to change the FROM website
; we've worked hard at not having to touch it
; The "this project is in the attic" notices on every html pages
are generated /outside/ the FROM website (by a lua filter)
]
> c) For this to happen, a positive vote of the Attic PMC is sufficient,
> on this list, backed by a JIRA ticket to describe the details and
> actions
I don't think a possitive Attic vote is sufficient or even required.
As Jim pointed out, the board resolution that terminated FROM,
also tasked Attic with "oversight over the software [of FROM]" ;
that is, to freeze it.
Only another board resolution can relieve Attic of that task,
and responsibility.
So, Attic does nothing until Board formally decides.
If/when Board passes a resolution that moves oversight of the
codebase from Attic to TO, Attic unatticks FROM.
> d) When that happens, the FROM website is updated to indicate that TO
> adopted the code, saying something like "The TO PMC has now adopted
> the FROM codebase", indicating exactly which part(s) of the codebase
> have been adopted. No other change is made to that website, it remains
> frozen apart from that note. TO can copy the website content under
> their own to evolve it, but the original FROM.apache.org domain
> content must stay as it was when FROM moved to the Attic.
Not applicable if TO "takes all".
> e) The Attic website is updated with that same information
>
> f) TO can release the FROM modules that it adopted, using names like
> TOO-FROM-module-V1.2.3 to differentiate those artifacts from the older
> ones that FROM released - adding the TOO prefix to their names, both
> for release archives and things like Java jars, etc.
This is a key-point :
This name change is exactly what POI wanted to avoid ;
XMLbeans users want (maven-name-space) continuity ; not change.
The fact that XMLbeans is "under new management" should not be
visible to users ; project management stuff is an ASF-internal
thing.
This is the 'Project' vs 'Product' discusion. The ASF presents
its products divided by organisation-lines (PMCs) ; in general,
that is bad idea. It is hard to fix, because of the way the ASF
is managed (strongly independent PMC's).
> g) Java package names etc. can remain as they were, for convenience
Not applicable if TO "takes all".
> How does this sound?
I think the "TO takes all" (as was done in the POI/XMLbeans case)
works well ; I see no problems in the future, should it happen again.
> Maybe this is how ATTIC-169 has been handled, though the note at
> http://attic.apache.org/ saying that XMLBeans was "revived" can be
> understood as the project getting back to life which is not the case
> IMO - it's only the codebase that's been adopted.
>
> Also, I don't see an Attic mention at http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ and
> I think that's not good as per d) above.
>
> -Bertrand
Thanks ; regards,
Henk Penning
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/