You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2015/10/22 11:29:09 UTC
Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy from
the incubator)
Hi,
Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it
in this thread.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ,...to enable
> the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the
> realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,..
That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis?
> ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is responsible for
> the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and be it
> further..
"the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first
paragraph probably.
> ...As well as the following committers...
Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to
make those folks committers on the new TLP right away.
-Bertrand
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
We should be good now, resolutions updated in the initial thread.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
> > language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as
> an
> > alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
> > Java platform....
>
> Works but maybe "charged with the evolution and maintenance of the
> Groovy programming language" would be good enough?
>
> >... There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers
> which
> > aren't PMC members.
> > So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
> > Should I remove them?..
>
> I think so, such board resolutions only include PMC members.
>
> > ...Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we
> proceed
> > with the changes?
> > Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?..
>
> Yes that's fine, I just wanted to avoid polluting that thread with
> discussions.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 22/10/15 13:45, Emmanuel Lécharny a écrit :
> Le 22/10/15 12:23, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
>>> language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as an
>>> alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
>>> Java platform....
>> Works but maybe "charged with the evolution and maintenance of the
>> Groovy programming language" would be good enough?
>>
>>> ... There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers which
>>> aren't PMC members.
>>> So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
>>> Should I remove them?..
>> I think so, such board resolutions only include PMC members.
>>
>>> ...Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we proceed
>>> with the changes?
>>> Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?..
>> Yes that's fine, I just wanted to avoid polluting that thread with discussions.
> I was wondering if it would not have been a good idea to ask mentors if
> they want to be part of the PMC. I would decline the offer, but some
> other might want to be part of the game. Of course, the PMC can vote in
> some of the mentors later on if needed. It's just a question...
>
Ah, seems like Cedric asked the mentors in another trhead : all is good
then ;-)
Thanks !
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 22/10/15 12:23, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
>> language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as an
>> alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
>> Java platform....
> Works but maybe "charged with the evolution and maintenance of the
> Groovy programming language" would be good enough?
>
>> ... There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers which
>> aren't PMC members.
>> So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
>> Should I remove them?..
> I think so, such board resolutions only include PMC members.
>
>> ...Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we proceed
>> with the changes?
>> Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?..
> Yes that's fine, I just wanted to avoid polluting that thread with discussions.
I was wondering if it would not have been a good idea to ask mentors if
they want to be part of the PMC. I would decline the offer, but some
other might want to be part of the game. Of course, the PMC can vote in
some of the mentors later on if needed. It's just a question...
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
My bad on the committers - I misremembered how the board resolutions are
put together!
A.
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > ...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
> > language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as
> an
> > alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
> > Java platform....
>
> Works but maybe "charged with the evolution and maintenance of the
> Groovy programming language" would be good enough?
>
> >... There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers
> which
> > aren't PMC members.
> > So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
> > Should I remove them?..
>
> I think so, such board resolutions only include PMC members.
>
> > ...Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we
> proceed
> > with the changes?
> > Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?..
>
> Yes that's fine, I just wanted to avoid polluting that thread with
> discussions.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
> language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as an
> alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
> Java platform....
Works but maybe "charged with the evolution and maintenance of the
Groovy programming language" would be good enough?
>... There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers which
> aren't PMC members.
> So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
> Should I remove them?..
I think so, such board resolutions only include PMC members.
> ...Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we proceed
> with the changes?
> Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?..
Yes that's fine, I just wanted to avoid polluting that thread with discussions.
-Bertrand
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it
> in this thread.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ,...to enable
> > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the
> > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,..
>
> That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis?
>
Damn, I thought I had carefully changed all references and details...
grrr...
I'm almost certain I had changed that paragraph :-O
At least all those involved here know what Groovy is about... but still...
...charged with the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming
language project, to enable developers to develop programs in Groovy as an
alternative and complementary approach to using the Java language on the
Java platform.
Thoughts?
>
> > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is responsible
> for
> > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and be
> it
> > further..
>
> "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first
> paragraph probably.
>
Yup, see above where I've extended a bit the purpose of Groovy.
> > ...As well as the following committers...
>
> Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to
> make those folks committers on the new TLP right away.
>
There was a remark asking about committers, since we have committers which
aren't PMC members.
So I figured I could just name them for reference and recognition.
Should I remove them?
Going forward (once we're happy with the wording), how should we proceed
with the changes?
Is it just about mentioning that in the voting thread?
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC member
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 07:30AM, Paul King wrote:
> Yes it was that discussion which led me to add "should the need arise". But
> happy to remove it altogether. I assume it's implicit that the PMC could
> enact project specific bylaws if the need arose?
Yup. Although tasking a PMC with mandatory creation of the bylaws is bogus
thing. I believe it crept into one of the earlier drafts and they just spread
around like wild-fire ;)
Cos
> On 23 Oct 2015 4:30 am, "Konstantin Boudnik" <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Ah, I didn't see this thread on time, so here's copy-paste of my comment
> > from
> > the vote thread:
> >
> > Let's get rid of
> >
> > "RESOLVED, that should the need arise for project-specific bylaws, that the
> > Apache Groovy PMC be tasked with the creation of such bylaws intended to
> > encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Groovy
> > Project; and be it further"
> >
> > as creating project-special bylaws shouldn't be a requirement for a new
> > PMC.
> > ASF bylaws are fine for pretty much all of them. There was a lengthy
> > discussion
> > about it on comdev the other day.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it
> > > in this thread.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > ,...to enable
> > > > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the
> > > > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,..
> > >
> > > That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis?
> > >
> > > > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is
> > responsible for
> > > > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and
> > be it
> > > > further..
> > >
> > > "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first
> > > paragraph probably.
> > >
> > > > ...As well as the following committers...
> > >
> > > Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to
> > > make those folks committers on the new TLP right away.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> >
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Yes it was that discussion which led me to add "should the need arise". But
happy to remove it altogether. I assume it's implicit that the PMC could
enact project specific bylaws if the need arose?
On 23 Oct 2015 4:30 am, "Konstantin Boudnik" <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, I didn't see this thread on time, so here's copy-paste of my comment
> from
> the vote thread:
>
> Let's get rid of
>
> "RESOLVED, that should the need arise for project-specific bylaws, that the
> Apache Groovy PMC be tasked with the creation of such bylaws intended to
> encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Groovy
> Project; and be it further"
>
> as creating project-special bylaws shouldn't be a requirement for a new
> PMC.
> ASF bylaws are fine for pretty much all of them. There was a lengthy
> discussion
> about it on comdev the other day.
>
> Thanks,
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it
> > in this thread.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > ,...to enable
> > > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the
> > > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,..
> >
> > That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis?
> >
> > > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is
> responsible for
> > > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and
> be it
> > > further..
> >
> > "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first
> > paragraph probably.
> >
> > > ...As well as the following committers...
> >
> > Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to
> > make those folks committers on the new TLP right away.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
Re: Graduation resolution (was: [VOTE] Graduation of Apache Groovy
from the incubator)
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Ah, I didn't see this thread on time, so here's copy-paste of my comment from
the vote thread:
Let's get rid of
"RESOLVED, that should the need arise for project-specific bylaws, that the
Apache Groovy PMC be tasked with the creation of such bylaws intended to
encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Groovy
Project; and be it further"
as creating project-special bylaws shouldn't be a requirement for a new PMC.
ASF bylaws are fine for pretty much all of them. There was a lengthy discussion
about it on comdev the other day.
Thanks,
Cos
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:29AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here are my comments about the proposed board resolution, let's fix it
> in this thread.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ,...to enable
> > the creation of software using domain-driven design principles, and the
> > realization of this through the naked objects architectural pattern,..
>
> That's not Groovy, probably a copy/paste from Isis?
>
> > ...RESOLVED, that the Apache Groovy Project be and hereby is responsible for
> > the evolution and maintenance of the Groovy programming language; and be it
> > further..
>
> "the evolution and maintenance..." is what you want in that first
> paragraph probably.
>
> > ...As well as the following committers...
>
> Board resolutions don't list committers. The PMC is of course free to
> make those folks committers on the new TLP right away.
>
> -Bertrand