[PMC] FAO PMC re: JavaMail and Alex Blewitt

[Alex Blewitt <Al...@ioshq.com>]

I have a couple of questions for Geronimo's PMC:

1) What is the official Geronimo decision regarding a clean-room 
implementation of JavaMail's API? Are we happy to invest the time in 
(a) building, and (b) maintaining such a product to avoid licensing 
issues with (re)distribution of Sun's API reference code? As well as 
licensing, ease-of-use should come into consideration as well; a J2EE 
server that requires you to download extra components whilst installing 
may not be seen as user-friendly as one that comes all-in.

2) On Saturday, Jason Dillon proposed a [Vote] to allow me commit 
rights to the repository [1]. (I'm guessing that this means a +1 :-). 
However, the only person who responded was Greg Wilkins [2] who 
abstained from that vote, given that I am not an existing ASF member. 
Did people not respond to the [Vote] on the grounds that it got buried 
in all the weekend's mail, or is such a non-response automatically 
counted as an abstention? And how long a timescale is it before the 
[Vote] is considered closed (and thus everyone who has not yet 
responded is automatically abstained)? FWIW I have signed the ASF2 
agreement, but failed succesfully to scan it since the fax number rang 
out when I called it. (I have it as a PDF anyway, so can always e-mail 
it if that is acceptable).

I hope that you can answer these questions and give me guidance 
regarding the recent [JavaMail] discussions regarding whether to 
continue re-implementing the API or to junk it in favour of using the 
binary build downloaded from Sun.

Thanks,

Alex.

[1] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=140&msgNo=1775
[2] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=140&msgNo=1851

Re: [PMC] FAO PMC re: JavaMail and Alex Blewitt

[Mark Mahieu <ma...@twistedbanana.demon.co.uk>]

>Personally, I think Jason jumped the gun here. Geronimo is only a couple of
>weeks old and the community is still settling down. Becoming a committer at
>Apache requires a commitment (sorry, bad pun) to the community over and
>above the code; from what I have heard, it typically takes six months or so
>before a vote (e.g. Paul Hammant's mail [3]). This is different to other
>communities where gaining commit may be easier but it carries little
>influence.
>
>So at this time I would probably vote -1 on any proposal for a new committer
>purely to let the community settle down. The exception to this would be for
>someone with a proven track record either at ASF or on one of the affiliated
>projects such as OpenEJB.
>
>Having said that, the JavaMail implementation could be considered a isolated
>effort under the 'specs' sub-module, so if the proposal was to allow Alex
>commit in that area it might be different. However, I am not sure that the
>process for this type of sub-sub-project in the incubator is well defined
>and we're breaking enough new ground as it is.
>
>--
>Jeremy
>
>[3] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=&msgId=1004954
>
>  
>

Hmm, personally I see Alex as one of the most active and /committed/ 
people on this list at the moment.  (Think about that word for a 
moment).  I've read a ridiculous number of emails from people offering 
their help, most of whom, so far at least, have not been heard from 
again. I've also read almost as many from people complaining about the 
lack of direction and communication about what this project is.  Correct 
me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Alex has contributed something 
which has been, at the very least, worth responding to, to many many 
conversations on this list.

I don't necessarily agree with everything Alex has said, but does that 
matter?  Not in my opinion.  He's taken the time and effort to try to 
pull this project forward and challenge opinions regardless of the 
nay-sayers. I agree that this project is very young, but personally I 
think that kind of active (I'll emphasise the word again here...) 
/commitment/ is exactly what this project needs at this stage.

As far as the 6 month thing is concerned, are you suggesting that 
nobody, regardless of the amount of effort they put in, is able to 
become a committer until this project is at least 6 months old?  Apart 
from (as you appear to be suggesting) those who are already 'part of the 
inner circle' on certain 'already blessed' projects.  If so, that's very 
discouraging.

Regards,

Mark

Re: [PMC] FAO PMC re: JavaMail and Alex Blewitt

[Jason Dillon <ja...@coredevelopers.net>]

> Personally, I think Jason jumped the gun here. Geronimo is only a 
> couple of
> weeks old and the community is still settling down. Becoming a 
> committer at
> Apache requires a commitment (sorry, bad pun) to the community over and
> above the code; from what I have heard, it typically takes six months 
> or so
> before a vote (e.g. Paul Hammant's mail [3]). This is different to 
> other
> communities where gaining commit may be easier but it carries little
> influence.

Agreed, I was getting jumpy.  My apologies.

--jason

RE: [PMC] FAO PMC re: JavaMail and Alex Blewitt

[Jeremy Boynes <je...@coredevelopers.net>]

> From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:Alex.Blewitt@ioshq.com]
> I have a couple of questions for Geronimo's PMC:

At this time Geronimo falls under the Incubator PMC.

>
> 1) What is the official Geronimo decision regarding a clean-room
> implementation of JavaMail's API? Are we happy to invest the time in
> (a) building, and (b) maintaining such a product to avoid licensing
> issues with (re)distribution of Sun's API reference code? As well as
> licensing, ease-of-use should come into consideration as well; a J2EE
> server that requires you to download extra components whilst installing
> may not be seen as user-friendly as one that comes all-in.
>

In my opinion, I think this is a worthwhile endeavour for precisely the
reason you describe - having a independently distributable version of this
API. I am concerned about the amount of effort required given the amount of
concrete code in the spec, and that it may be wasted if negotiations allow
free redistribution of Sun's version in the future. However, that is not as
yet on the radar.

So, given you are willing to step up and complete this work, I would vote +1
to continue.

> 2) On Saturday, Jason Dillon proposed a [Vote] to allow me commit
> rights to the repository [1]. (I'm guessing that this means a +1 :-).
> However, the only person who responded was Greg Wilkins [2] who
> abstained from that vote, given that I am not an existing ASF member.
> Did people not respond to the [Vote] on the grounds that it got buried
> in all the weekend's mail, or is such a non-response automatically
> counted as an abstention? And how long a timescale is it before the
> [Vote] is considered closed (and thus everyone who has not yet
> responded is automatically abstained)? FWIW I have signed the ASF2
> agreement, but failed succesfully to scan it since the fax number rang
> out when I called it. (I have it as a PDF anyway, so can always e-mail
> it if that is acceptable).

Personally, I think Jason jumped the gun here. Geronimo is only a couple of
weeks old and the community is still settling down. Becoming a committer at
Apache requires a commitment (sorry, bad pun) to the community over and
above the code; from what I have heard, it typically takes six months or so
before a vote (e.g. Paul Hammant's mail [3]). This is different to other
communities where gaining commit may be easier but it carries little
influence.

So at this time I would probably vote -1 on any proposal for a new committer
purely to let the community settle down. The exception to this would be for
someone with a proven track record either at ASF or on one of the affiliated
projects such as OpenEJB.

Having said that, the JavaMail implementation could be considered a isolated
effort under the 'specs' sub-module, so if the proposal was to allow Alex
commit in that area it might be different. However, I am not sure that the
process for this type of sub-sub-project in the incubator is well defined
and we're breaking enough new ground as it is.

--
Jeremy

[3] http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=&msgId=1004954