You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> on 2019/06/18 01:21:42 UTC
[VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Hi
This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
`org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
[ ] +1 Agree
[ ] +0 No opinion.
[ ] -1 Do not agree because
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
+1 Agree. Best of luck to the OpenZipkin community going forward.
(Please make sure that RO clones of the repositories are kept by Infra for the record.)
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:17 PM Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, only the best to the team and the community
>
> SW> Hi
>
> SW> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> SW> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> Jiang
>
> SW> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to
> still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> SW> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> SW> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin -->> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> SW> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> SW> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> SW> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> SW> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> SW> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> SW> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> SW> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> SW> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> SW> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72
> hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> SW> [ ] +1 Agree
> SW> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> SW> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> SW> [1]
> SW>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> SW> <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> >
>
>
>
> SW> Sheng Wu
> SW> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Andriy Redko <dr...@gmail.com>.
+1, only the best to the team and the community
SW> Hi
SW> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
SW> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
SW> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
SW> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
SW> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
incubator-zipkin -->> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
SW> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
SW> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
SW> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
SW> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
SW> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
SW> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
SW> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
SW> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
SW> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
SW> [ ] +1 Agree
SW> [ ] +0 No opinion.
SW> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
SW> [1]
SW> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
SW> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
SW> Sheng Wu
SW> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Furkan KAMACI <fu...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
+1
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:37 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 19.06.2019, 11:11 -0400 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:21 PM, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return
> > > back to OpenZipkin.
> > >
> > > PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> Jiang
> > >
> > > There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to
> still
> > > use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> > > `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> > > All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> > > org(GitHub).
> > > incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> > > ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> > > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> > > incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> > > incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> > > https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> > > incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> > > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> > > incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> > > incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> > > https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> > > incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> > > incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> > > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
> > >
> > > Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72
> hours
> > > only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> > > [ ] +1 Agree
> > > [ ] +0 No opinion.
> > > [ ] -1 Do not agree because
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > > <
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sheng Wu
> > > Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+1 (binding)
LieGrue,
strub
Am Mittwoch, den 19.06.2019, 11:11 -0400 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> +1 (binding)
>
> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:21 PM, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return
> > back to OpenZipkin.
> >
> > PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
> >
> > There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
> > use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> > `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> > All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> > org(GitHub).
> > incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> > ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> > incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> > incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> > incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> > incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> > incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> > incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> > incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
> >
> > Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours
> > only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> > [ ] +1 Agree
> > [ ] +0 No opinion.
> > [ ] -1 Do not agree because
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sheng Wu
> > Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1 (binding)
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:21 PM, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
This is the mail officially saying the Incubator are aware(not approve) of the Zipkin community has left to their OpenZipkin org.
The repositories have been transferred back to OpenZipkin.
We have official consensus now.
I am not going to check binding or not, because like we have talked much in other threads.
+1 from
Sheng Wu
Willem Jiang
Dave Fisher
Andriy Redko
Ted Dunning
Greg Stein
Bertrand Delacretaz
Myrle Krantz
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Tomaz Muraus
P. Taylor Goetz
David Nalley
Justin Mclean
Romain Manni-Bucau
Lars Francke
Jim Jagielski
Mark Struberg
Furkan KAMACI
Thanks for everyone’s supports.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> 在 2019年6月18日，上午9:21，Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin>
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies>
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api>
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation <https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation>
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java>
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave <https://github.com/openzipkin/brave>
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra <https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra>
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf <https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf>
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory <https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory>
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
-Taylor
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:21 PM, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation --> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:21:42 +0800, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and return back to OpenZipkin.
+1 (binding)
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:22 AM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
> use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours
> only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> >
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Tomaz Muraus <to...@apache.org>.
[+1] Agree
And best of luck in the future.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:22 AM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
> use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours
> only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> >
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1
Le mer. 19 juin 2019 à 02:42, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> a écrit :
> Hi David and Greg,
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I hope the podling has better success outside the ASF.
> >
> > BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was
> taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases
> this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation
> not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same.
>
> If anyone thinks a VOTE is not necessary then please discuss why on
> another thread.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Justin
> >
> > 1.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6afe3024bdbaf6e484ff376be0919ad6e6935b1688b08e7f8710542a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 2.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c386b985379c8b6b54d791c8eaa62e429987ffb651ffc753d6a69e43@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 3.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/658cba0894ba6d8884ee3900055eeea3053d6ba09d4be59a9603084a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 4.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aca69095d5b76b4acfe64a2dfe5989b82c6ed9d191499a41a005218c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 5.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7cd55f482d8842089ffdc6f13cd950f91ca3773eaf6d64dec7dfb65b@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 6,
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/52c09582d098f414a15b3a13e06bbb461b182a340635fd459ebdbbb9@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 7.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/728065ab61e74161c6d0851ada4cf254bd1e4535fcb75674fe478530@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 8.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/148f49f8d531629e8d39907447c1c65c611ac9fa37621a7ba36f1681@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 9.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dcc7974c132e9ae231f385f476e9023ccb161a65e902760793c0a076@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 10.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dc5b8252f42746475269260ff771a4f99dfa0a36bb4585eb358399ed@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 11.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6736822bbaee99dd4415ca79a37f76ccee65d384a6be57fbe1175b42@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 12.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5a7a9e021394e73cba153870f68f9b0a2b91f9489a9c7fbf6fc63006@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 13.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff6a3fbac0dbd14d4b44fb701d1974d78755b203c9734eb8e5de588a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 14.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ebb3d1fbce1ed53a74067ce210a90ee6dfd166341210abc7a04a5992@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> > 15.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/92c4ce80bb6fb4c4bd3b373acb2ef80b0c5129a6d3725e31de29e700@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:14 -0400, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> My only comment here is that the Incubator performed a legal action in
> accepting Zipkin; in doing so, Zipkin enjoyed some level of ASF
> services as well as legal protection.
> To dissolve that 'relationship', there should be a clear trail of
> intent and action in doing so, not only by Zipkin but also by the
> Incubator itself.
Agree - we only need to do the VOTE so there is sufficient oversight to
confirm the dissolvement; as the Incubator formally is the custardian.
If a podling is moving OUT of ASF then that indicates that the ASF Way
(or our attempt to implement that) was not right for them. That is a
fair position that would be true for many brilliant open source
projects.
Consequently, this means that additional oversight should be done by
IPMC and mentors to check that the decision to move out/retire was still
done with podling community consensus, and that it is not just a fork,
or done a whim.
Before I casted my vote on Zipkin I checked the relevant archives and
threads and made up my own mind.
Personalities have certainly played into this case on both sides, as
well as technical and bureaucratic hurdles. I think we have all learnt
from this.
I found Zipkin community has discussed this at large internally and with
the board, and there was also a consensus from active podling PMC
members - so in that case, yes we morally cannot stop them.
However IPMC members can't easily come to that conclusion collectively
without having a point of action (e.g. the VOTE).
It might be noisy and seem odd, but it is also our responsibility -
podlings join ASF incubator in good faith and are not autonomous from
day one.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
My only comment here is that the Incubator performed a legal action in accepting Zipkin; in doing so, Zipkin enjoyed some level of ASF services as well as legal protection.
To dissolve that 'relationship', there should be a clear trail of intent and action in doing so, not only by Zipkin but also by the Incubator itself.
What constitutes a "clear trail of intent and action" is another question. :)
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
I agree with Greg and Bertrand to focusing on the Incubator's service orientation. And have written in other threads that we should update our documentation.
A podling exit needs to be visible to the Incubator here on general@. (Jim’s clear trail)
(1) In order to maintain a record about the podling and where it went.
(2) To give visibility into how the podling code is moving. Suppose the podling codebase and community were donated by organization A and the community decided to move to organization B before all of the IP was properly transferred out of A?
I suggest that we use LAZY Consensus for podling retirement and an email from a mentor should be prefixed with “[EXIT]” (or ASFexit ….)
The email should explain the situation and provide the forwarding address for updating podlings.xml and if the podling's repositories and resources are to be marked (RO) and/or moved. Should the podling’s current releases remain and for how long?
We should rewrite the retirement guide so that it is clear that should a podling decide to return to where they were then we guarantee no issues from the Incubator. Generally we would support movement to another place, but we can’t answer for all possible hypotheticals.
Regards,
Dave
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 6:30 AM, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> An enthusiastic +1 from me, both for Bertrand's statement and Greg's
> characterization of it.
>
> : o),
> Myrle
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:55 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 help/mentor/service
>>
>> That is my only goal as mentor to ShardingSphere today. Provide
>> experiences and helps as much as I could.
>>
>> Sheng Wu
>> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>>
>>
>>
>>> 在 2019年6月19日，下午7:13，Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch <ma...@codeconsult.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
>>>>
>>>> IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal
>>>> is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF
>>>> Projects".
>>>>
>>>> Currently, many things in the Incubator make it appear more like a
>>>> *stern gatekeeper for entry to the ASF" - like this overzealous
>>>> bureaucracy that you mention and that is often perceptible.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is subtle but it can influence the IPMC's culture.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you, Bertrand! ... as always, you have a knack for looking at
>> culture.
>>>
>>> My commentary is usually rather ham-handed, but yes: what you describe is
>>> where I'd like to see the Incubator head. Stop the gatekeeping/rules, and
>>> focus on help/mentor/service.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -g
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
An enthusiastic +1 from me, both for Bertrand's statement and Greg's
characterization of it.
: o),
Myrle
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:55 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 help/mentor/service
>
> That is my only goal as mentor to ShardingSphere today. Provide
> experiences and helps as much as I could.
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
> > 在 2019年6月19日，下午7:13，Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch <ma...@codeconsult.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
> >>
> >> IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal
> >> is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF
> >> Projects".
> >>
> >> Currently, many things in the Incubator make it appear more like a
> >> *stern gatekeeper for entry to the ASF" - like this overzealous
> >> bureaucracy that you mention and that is often perceptible.
> >>
> >> The difference is subtle but it can influence the IPMC's culture.
> >>
> >
> > Thank you, Bertrand! ... as always, you have a knack for looking at
> culture.
> >
> > My commentary is usually rather ham-handed, but yes: what you describe is
> > where I'd like to see the Incubator head. Stop the gatekeeping/rules, and
> > focus on help/mentor/service.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -g
>
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
+1 help/mentor/service
That is my only goal as mentor to ShardingSphere today. Provide experiences and helps as much as I could.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> 在 2019年6月19日，下午7:13，Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch <ma...@codeconsult.ch>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
>>
>> IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal
>> is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF
>> Projects".
>>
>> Currently, many things in the Incubator make it appear more like a
>> *stern gatekeeper for entry to the ASF" - like this overzealous
>> bureaucracy that you mention and that is often perceptible.
>>
>> The difference is subtle but it can influence the IPMC's culture.
>>
>
> Thank you, Bertrand! ... as always, you have a knack for looking at culture.
>
> My commentary is usually rather ham-handed, but yes: what you describe is
> where I'd like to see the Incubator head. Stop the gatekeeping/rules, and
> focus on help/mentor/service.
>
> Thanks,
> -g
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:14 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
>
> IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal
> is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF
> Projects".
>
> Currently, many things in the Incubator make it appear more like a
> *stern gatekeeper for entry to the ASF" - like this overzealous
> bureaucracy that you mention and that is often perceptible.
>
> The difference is subtle but it can influence the IPMC's culture.
>
Thank you, Bertrand! ... as always, you have a knack for looking at culture.
My commentary is usually rather ham-handed, but yes: what you describe is
where I'd like to see the Incubator head. Stop the gatekeeping/rules, and
focus on help/mentor/service.
Thanks,
-g
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings (was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
+1
Regards
JB
Le 19 juil. 2019 à 14:42, à 14:42, Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> a écrit:
>+1 and I do like the new text.
>
>On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:43 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>> --
>> Kevin A. McGrail
>> Member, Apache Software Foundation
>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> > Agreed. I think some of the conversation on that thread was likely
>> > polarizing and heated and my hope is that it isn't continued in
>this
>> thread
>> > (whether it was self-justified as being "ham-handed" or not).
>> >
>> > > On Jul 18, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
>> > > changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
>> > > present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
>> > >
>> > > I think the current description can be understood as the
>Incubator
>> > > being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
>> > >
>> > > Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a
>documented
>> > > basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice
>that
>> > > we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the
>past.
>> > >
>> > > If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details
>of
>> > > the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if
>needed.
>> > >
>> > > I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully
>approve ;-)
>> > > the general idea of this change.
>> > >
>> > > I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone
>from the
>> > > Incubator PMC objects.
>> > >
>> > > -Bertrand
>> > >
>> > >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings
(was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>.
+1 and I do like the new text.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:43 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
wrote:
> +1
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. I think some of the conversation on that thread was likely
> > polarizing and heated and my hope is that it isn't continued in this
> thread
> > (whether it was self-justified as being "ham-handed" or not).
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
> > > changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
> > > present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
> > >
> > > I think the current description can be understood as the Incubator
> > > being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
> > >
> > > Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a documented
> > > basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice that
> > > we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the past.
> > >
> > > If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details of
> > > the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if needed.
> > >
> > > I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully approve ;-)
> > > the general idea of this change.
> > >
> > > I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
> > > Incubator PMC objects.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings
(was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
+1
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Agreed. I think some of the conversation on that thread was likely
> polarizing and heated and my hope is that it isn't continued in this thread
> (whether it was self-justified as being "ham-handed" or not).
>
> > On Jul 18, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
> > changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
> > present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
> >
> > I think the current description can be understood as the Incubator
> > being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
> >
> > Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a documented
> > basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice that
> > we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the past.
> >
> > If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details of
> > the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if needed.
> >
> > I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully approve ;-)
> > the general idea of this change.
> >
> > I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
> > Incubator PMC objects.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings
(was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Agreed. I think some of the conversation on that thread was likely polarizing and heated and my hope is that it isn't continued in this thread (whether it was self-justified as being "ham-handed" or not).
> On Jul 18, 2019, at 4:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
> changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
> present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
>
> I think the current description can be understood as the Incubator
> being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
>
> Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a documented
> basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice that
> we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the past.
>
> If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details of
> the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if needed.
>
> I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully approve ;-)
> the general idea of this change.
>
> I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
> Incubator PMC objects.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings
(was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:12 AM Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
> Incubator PMC objects...
I have merged that now, thanks for the comments and contributions
there, the content is now live at http://incubator.apache.org/
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings
(was: overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
That sounds good to me (the general idea at least).
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:12 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
> changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
> present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
>
> I think the current description can be understood as the Incubator
> being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
>
> Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a documented
> basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice that
> we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the past.
>
> If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details of
> the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if needed.
>
> I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully approve ;-)
> the general idea of this change.
>
> I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
> Incubator PMC objects.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
[VOTE][LAZY] the Incubator as a service provider for podlings (was:
overzealous bureaucracy...)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
As discussed in the "overzealous bureaucracy" thread, I suggest
changing the text on the http://incubator.apache.org/ homepage to
present the Incubator as a service provider for podlings.
I think the current description can be understood as the Incubator
being a"stern gatekeeper to the ASF" and that's not good.
Defining the Incubator a service provider will give us a documented
basis to adapt our tone and processes if we (or podlings) notice that
we're being a stern gatekeeper again, as has happened in the past.
If people agree with the general idea we can discuss the details of
the new text at https://github.com/apache/incubator/pull/12 if needed.
I suggest using this thread more to discuss (and hopefully approve ;-)
the general idea of this change.
I'm planning to merge #12 in the next few days unless someone from the
Incubator PMC objects.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:13 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC...
IMO something that can help fix that is declaring that the IPMC's goal
is to *provide services to podlings so they can become top-level ASF
Projects".
Currently, many things in the Incubator make it appear more like a
*stern gatekeeper for entry to the ASF" - like this overzealous
bureaucracy that you mention and that is often perceptible.
The difference is subtle but it can influence the IPMC's culture.
I think the place where this declaration can be made is the first few
paragraphs at http://incubator.apache.org/ - currently IMHO they do
express the "stern gatekeeper" spirit, and changing that would be a
good starting point.
How about this to replace those first few paragraphs, up to the
"getting started.." heading.
The Incubator provides services to projects which want to enter the ASF.
It helps those incoming projects (called "podlings") adopt the Apache style
of governance and operation and guides them to the ASF services available
to our projects, so they can become top-level ASF projets ("TLPs").
The Incubator delegates 2-3 mentors for each podling, as "on the
ground" agents
to act as liaisons with the various ASF teams: Incubator PMC,
Infrastructure team,
etc. and facilitate the podling's growth and operations.
Our cookbook (link:http://incubator.apache.org/cookbook/)helps
potential podlings
decide whether the ASF might be a good fit for them and guides them
through the
steps required to become an Apache Software Foundation podling.
We don't need to discuss the details of this text now but I thought
providing a concrete example of what I'm thinking about might help
convince people.
Let's Make The Incubator Great Again!
#sorry #couldnresist #ducksandrun
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
Hi
> 在 2019年6月19日，下午2:12，Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi David and Greg,
>>
>
>>> On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
>>> BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was
>> taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases
>> this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation
>> not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same.
>>
>
> That doesn't justify requiring a [VOTE].
>
>
>> If anyone thinks a VOTE is not necessary then please discuss why on
>> another thread.
>>
>
> I merely added a parenthetical to my vote. As did David.
>
> But sure. Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC.
>
> Think about the result of this purported [VOTE]. Two answers:
>
> 1) yes, you are free to leave
> 2) no, you are NOT free to leave
>
> What does (2) mean? That we hold the community's repositories hostage? That
> we don't return them? On what right? On what *ethical* right?
>
> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
Yes. +1
That is exact reason I agree the vote is necessary.
This is leave, rather than no community and retire to incubator `attic`.
Anyway, Thanks for providing helps on JIRA tickets, and the repositories have back to OpenZipkin.
>
> The *Zipkin community* owns those repositories. Not Apache or the IPMC. Let
> the community take them where they want.
>
> If a podling graduates, then the community and its resources are recognized
> by the Board as an official part of the Foundation. Unless/until then, we
> should be very careful about spurious claims of ownership.
>
> Years back, we talked about not wanting to accept "hostile forks" of other
> projects as podlings. We did not want to be party to such a calamity. By
> voting "no" in this case, the IPMC would be the one *creating* the hostile
> fork. Not merely accepting it as a podling. Talk about bad karma.
>
> Regards,
> -g
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
I don't think anyone here asked for a vote with ill-will; it was mostly a
matter of uncertainty (1). However, I do agree with Greg that only one
vote among the departing community, taken on their public list, should be
necessary when a community like Zipkin decides to leave.
Nonetheless, I did appreciate the opportunity the vote provided to wish
Zipkin well. I would hope that we can always find a way to wish
communities leaving the incubator all the best in their future undertakings.
Best Regards,
Myrle
1.) This is actually true for many of the instances in which the IPMC is
being characterized as overreaching; we should look for ways to decrease
this uncertainty.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:17 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
> >
> > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
>
>
> A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
>
>
> > But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record
> in
> > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
>
>
> That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> their vote to depart.
>
>
> > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a
> mentor
> > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
>
>
> Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
>
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
> That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect
> for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
> to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.
> It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
> "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
>
> I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public.
> -g
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:15 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This comment by Craig is the most important one in the discussion.
>
> When the first words that people pick when disagreeing are essentially
> personal insults, what is going on is better described as mud wrestling
> rather than discussion.
>
Personal insults? Euh. [citation needed]
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
This comment by Craig is the most important one in the discussion.
When the first words that people pick when disagreeing are essentially
personal insults, what is going on is better described as mud wrestling
rather than discussion.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:01 AM Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> Well, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the process as
> nonsensical.
>
> And I would like to suggest that words like these:
>
> Ridiculous
> Specious
> Bullied
> Foolish
> Nonsensical
>
> Do Not Help with civil discourse. I understand your passion on the subject
> but I'd like you to disagree without using such language.
>
> Craig
>
> > -g
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Greg,
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 12:17 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com <ma...@classsoftware.com>>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
>>
>> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
>
>
> A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
>
>
>> But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in
>> the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
>
>
> That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> their vote to depart.
>
>
>> Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a mentor
>> called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
>
>
> Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
>
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
As the author os that statement I stand by it.
> That is simply participating in IPMC overreach.
You may characterize the existing process as overreach. I characterize it as making sure that we have consensus before we take irreversible actions in the Apache realm (moving repositories, removing podling infrastructure, etc.)
> It is a sign of disrespect
> for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
> to (ahem) "allow them to leave".
The IPMC does have final say on the disposition of Apache assets related to the community's decision to leave.
> The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.
The vote is not in any sense trying to control communities. It is to formalize the decision to update Apache assets to reflect the community's decision.
> It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
> "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
>
> I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public.
Well, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the process as nonsensical.
And I would like to suggest that words like these:
Ridiculous
Specious
Bullied
Foolish
Nonsensical
Do Not Help with civil discourse. I understand your passion on the subject but I'd like you to disagree without using such language.
Craig
> -g
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
> On Jun 19, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...This vote is *confirming* that
>> nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
>> git repos being transferred...
>
> I agree and this means that in this case a [LAZY] vote would have been
> sufficient.
pages/guides/retirement.ad | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/pages/guides/retirement.ad b/pages/guides/retirement.ad
index 98d8acb..12427d4 100644
--- a/pages/guides/retirement.ad
+++ b/pages/guides/retirement.ad
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ ensures that all podling stakeholders are properly informed and
have the opportunity to participate in the decision.
The final decision to retire the podling takes the form of a
-vote by the IPMC on general@incubator.
+vote by the IPMC on general@incubator. The vote should be by LAZY consensus.
== Steps to retirement
@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ Once the IPMC vote to retire the podling has closed, a Mentor or other volunteer
status page been checked off? If not, try to resolve it.
If it cannot be resolved, the podling's source code must
be removed from version control.
+- It may be that the podling is moving or returning development elsewhere. If so, then modify the resolution attributes appropriately.
- Delete the podling's dist dir, so that its releases will no
longer be mirrored:
#svn remove https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/${podling}# <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/$%7Bpodling%7D#>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>.
Honestly, I don't know. I agree that Github++ might not have been the best
term but as I said: I didn't think this through to the end.
I guess (all of this is a bunch of unfinished ideas) what it boils down to
is that we can do the incubation outside of the ASF.
I didn't even think about what you read into my statements, to be honest
but only as a "path" into the ASF. This is getting philosophical.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:44 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:33 AM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <lars.francke@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question
> raised
> > > for
> > > > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> > > > > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support
> for
> > > > many
> > > > > like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals
> > who
> > > > > choose to participate in ASF activities."
> > > > > I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I
> remember
> > > the
> > > > > recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not
> > all
> > > > of
> > > > > a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
> > > > >
> > > > > We could do something similar.
> > > >
> > > > Do I understand correctly that you're proposing a sort of "indefinite
> > > > incubation" for projects which want to benefit from our infra but
> don't
> > > > want to follow one or more of the principles we have deemed important
> > to
> > > > producing open source software?
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > I don't see Lars suggesting allowing such projects. There would still
> be
> > a
> > > Proposal, and retirement is still an option.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think that he quite literally did suggest what he called
> > github++ where projects would be free to make releases based on whatever
> > rules that they chose and to not all themselves apache projects for as
> long
> > as they like.
> >
> > I am with Myrle. That isn't what we want. There has to be some ooomph
> > toward becoming an Apache project.
> >
>
> I totally agree. Just saying I didn't read Lars that way. *shrug*
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:33 AM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised
> > for
> > > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> > > > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for
> > > many
> > > > like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals
> who
> > > > choose to participate in ASF activities."
> > > > I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I remember
> > the
> > > > recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not
> all
> > > of
> > > > a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
> > > >
> > > > We could do something similar.
> > >
> > > Do I understand correctly that you're proposing a sort of "indefinite
> > > incubation" for projects which want to benefit from our infra but don't
> > > want to follow one or more of the principles we have deemed important
> to
> > > producing open source software?
> > >
> > ...
> > I don't see Lars suggesting allowing such projects. There would still be
> a
> > Proposal, and retirement is still an option.
>
>
> Actually, I think that he quite literally did suggest what he called
> github++ where projects would be free to make releases based on whatever
> rules that they chose and to not all themselves apache projects for as long
> as they like.
>
> I am with Myrle. That isn't what we want. There has to be some ooomph
> toward becoming an Apache project.
>
I totally agree. Just saying I didn't read Lars that way. *shrug*
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised
> for
> > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> > > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for
> > many
> > > like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals who
> > > choose to participate in ASF activities."
> > > I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I remember
> the
> > > recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not all
> > of
> > > a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
> > >
> > > We could do something similar.
> >
> > Do I understand correctly that you're proposing a sort of "indefinite
> > incubation" for projects which want to benefit from our infra but don't
> > want to follow one or more of the principles we have deemed important to
> > producing open source software?
> >
> ...
> I don't see Lars suggesting allowing such projects. There would still be a
> Proposal, and retirement is still an option.
Actually, I think that he quite literally did suggest what he called
github++ where projects would be free to make releases based on whatever
rules that they chose and to not all themselves apache projects for as long
as they like.
I am with Myrle. That isn't what we want. There has to be some ooomph
toward becoming an Apache project.
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for
> > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for
> many
> > like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals who
> > choose to participate in ASF activities."
> > I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I remember the
> > recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not all
> of
> > a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
> >
> > We could do something similar.
>
> Do I understand correctly that you're proposing a sort of "indefinite
> incubation" for projects which want to benefit from our infra but don't
> want to follow one or more of the principles we have deemed important to
> producing open source software?
>
We have forcibly retired projects before. That option would still be
available in this model. The community "should" be moving towards
Apache-style governance and TLP-style releases. Lack of movement would be
an indicator to consider retirement. Just like we've always done.
> I don't want to do that. If your project is in the incubator, it should be
> with at least the intention of finding out if the ASF is a good fit for
> your community. That answer could be "no". And it could take a long time
> to figure that out. That's OK. But our volunteer time is a limited
> resource. We don't need to spend it on projects which don't actually want
> to be part of the ASF.
>
I don't see Lars suggesting allowing such projects. There would still be a
Proposal, and retirement is still an option.
Cheers,
-g
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for
> example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
> The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for many
> like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals who
> choose to participate in ASF activities."
> I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I remember the
> recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not all of
> a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
>
> We could do something similar.
>
Do I understand correctly that you're proposing a sort of "indefinite
incubation" for projects which want to benefit from our infra but don't
want to follow one or more of the principles we have deemed important to
producing open source software?
I don't want to do that. If your project is in the incubator, it should be
with at least the intention of finding out if the ASF is a good fit for
your community. That answer could be "no". And it could take a long time
to figure that out. That's OK. But our volunteer time is a limited
resource. We don't need to spend it on projects which don't actually want
to be part of the ASF.
Best Regards,
Myrle
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Projects wishing to join the ASF as a TLP would then at some point need to
> abide by the rules (some of which probably also don't make sense but that's
> a different discussion) but until then Mentors could just provide hints...
Note that this was one of the reasons for creating the Maturity Model
[1], as described in its "overview" section.
Projects that may want to move to the ASF later can start by following
those principles, or at least the ones that apply outside of the ASF,
making their move easier if the time comes.
But I'm not sure if the ASF itself needs to be involved in that.
Individuals who want to help such projects can do that independently.
-Bertrand
[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>.
This was also discussed on the ASF slack during which I suggested (this is
not fully thought through) to change the Incubator model to focus on its
core tenets of providing services to projects wanting to join the ASF.
For this cause, the projects itself don't need to be ASF projects (not even
Apache Foo but just Foo). They don't have to use the ASF infrastructure but
they can if they want but probably under a different domain/name.
This is like Github++, you can still use everything there (or Gitlab or
whatever) but you also get the community, people to help you out, mailing
lists, etc.
But you wouldn't need to do any voting on releases, no reports for the
board, no NOTICE or DISCLAIMER files etc.
Projects wishing to join the ASF as a TLP would then at some point need to
abide by the rules (some of which probably also don't make sense but that's
a different discussion) but until then Mentors could just provide hints
instead of -1 or strongly worded mails. "Hey, I see you're doing releases
like this, if you'd like to join as a TLP you need a vote on releases and
it works like this, wanna try next time?"
This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for
example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP.
The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for many
like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals who
choose to participate in ASF activities."
I don't see anything in there requiring anyone to "join" (I remember the
recent discussions about that). If you sign up to Github you're not all of
a sudden a "Github project" but still benefit from its services.
We could do something similar.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:48 AM Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Good effort Bertrand that's definitely some discussions we should have and
> ease incubation!
> To be honest I'm mentoring some projects but sometimes I'm out of
> motivation due to the huge number of nitpicking tasks/requests.
> I perfectly understand people reactions when they try to go trough the
> incubation process.. (disclaimer it's an email from the peanut gallery....)
>
> So yes let's make Apache incubation great again..
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:28, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > ...This vote is *confirming* that
> > > nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of
> the
> > > git repos being transferred...
> >
> > I agree and this means that in this case a [LAZY] vote would have been
> > sufficient.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Good effort Bertrand that's definitely some discussions we should have and
ease incubation!
To be honest I'm mentoring some projects but sometimes I'm out of
motivation due to the huge number of nitpicking tasks/requests.
I perfectly understand people reactions when they try to go trough the
incubation process.. (disclaimer it's an email from the peanut gallery....)
So yes let's make Apache incubation great again..
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:28, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...This vote is *confirming* that
> > nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
> > git repos being transferred...
>
> I agree and this means that in this case a [LAZY] vote would have been
> sufficient.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...This vote is *confirming* that
> nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
> git repos being transferred...
I agree and this means that in this case a [LAZY] vote would have been
sufficient.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
> > >
> > > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
> >
> >
> > A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> > outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
> >
>
>
> Not so much. Votes at Apache are often used to memorialized consensus in a
> highly searchable fashion. It helps to make sure that people are on the
> same page.
>
The podling community's archives have that. general@incubator would have an
[EXIT] or [RETIRE] or [NOTICE] email sent to it.
If the community consensus is to leave, then the IPMC has no further say.
Note that I said consensus.
Any -1s here would be a major surprise, but, precisely because they would
> be a surprise, it would be important to make sure that there is a moment
> that they could be brought out.
>
> You are right that a vote that has consensus already established should
> have the expected outcome, unless the consensus was, say, the result of
> loud voices drowning out shy voices.
>
The Foundation does not police loud/shy voices in consensus. We don't
police it all, but presume it is occurring. (and await escalation reports
of failure to follow consensus)
> > But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record
> in
> > > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
> >
> > That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> > their vote to depart.
>
> That established half of the consensus. The IPMC documented the other half.
>
The IPMC is not part of the community. It has no vote.
> > > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a
> > mentor
> > > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
> >
> > Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
>
> I was watching and I didn't see any bullying. Did you? Were you even
> watching the process in detail?
>
Sheng called the vote, but clearly did not feel it was needed. "Bully"
might be too strong a word, but "obligating" somebody to run a vote pretty
well fits the same bill.
I read Justin's email as ambiguous on whether he meant the concrete call to
vote (Sheng and the email thread), or the "decision" to have Sheng run a
vote, per my comment next para:
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> > should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
> > That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of
> disrespect
> > for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a
> vote
> > to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of
> communities.
> > It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy"
> and
> > "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
>
> No, that isn't what this vote is saying. This vote is *confirming* that
> nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
> git repos being transferred.
>
Why should the IPMC have any say in a community that has refused to further
participate in Apache? That is nonsensical.
Why do they ask at weddings if there is anybody who might bring any reason
> for the wedding to not go forward?
Not at my wedding! :p
> It isn't that they *expect* anybody to
> bring something up. Instead, the tradition is there to record community
> consensus. It used to have a very serious importance when communities were
> smaller like Apache is now.
>
I reject the notion that the IPMC has any say in a community's decision to
retire. If I have in the past, then I was wrong and my thinking has
improved.
I believe the IPMC has become to "interfere-y" with the podling
communities. If it takes a Hall Pass from VP Legal to get the IPMC out of
release voting, then Make It So. Podling communities should make their
releases, and the IPMC should have no vote in that process. Review/feedback
all they want, of course. But no votes, as that implies they have ownership
of the community's release process.
Regards,
-g
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:17 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
> >
> > Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
>
>
> A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
> outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
>
Not so much. Votes at Apache are often used to memorialized consensus in a
highly searchable fashion. It helps to make sure that people are on the
same page.
Any -1s here would be a major surprise, but, precisely because they would
be a surprise, it would be important to make sure that there is a moment
that they could be brought out.
You are right that a vote that has consensus already established should
have the expected outcome, unless the consensus was, say, the result of
loud voices drowning out shy voices.
> But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in
> > the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
>
> That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
> their vote to depart.
>
That established half of the consensus. The IPMC documented the other half.
> > Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a
> mentor
> > called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
>
>
> Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
>
I was watching and I didn't see any bullying. Did you? Were you even
watching the process in detail?
>
> Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
> should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
> That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect
> for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
> to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.
> It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
> "bureaucracy" to pretend so.
>
No, that isn't what this vote is saying. This vote is *confirming* that
nobody has objections (of any form) to Zipkin leaving and control of the
git repos being transferred.
Why do they ask at weddings if there is anybody who might bring any reason
for the wedding to not go forward? It isn't that they *expect* anybody to
bring something up. Instead, the tradition is there to record community
consensus. It used to have a very serious importance when communities were
smaller like Apache is now.
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
>
> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus.
A vote has two outcomes. This kind of vote should never have a "no"
outcome. Thus, it is specious on its face.
> But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in
> the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation.
That was already established and recorded in the Zipkin community, with
their vote to depart.
> Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a mentor
> called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
Which mentor? Sheng Wu? Bullied into holding a vote?
Or maybe from the private@incubator list, the one who said "I would say we
should take a discuss/vote in general@incubator to retire the podling".
That is simply participating in IPMC overreach. It is a sign of disrespect
for the Zipkin community, that the IPMC has "final say" and requires a vote
to (ahem) "allow them to leave". The IPMC is NOT in control of communities.
It is foolish to believe so, and to construct "procedures" and "policy" and
"bureaucracy" to pretend so.
I'm fine stating all this nonsensical behavior in public.
-g
Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator,
return back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm consensus. But to be more specific in this case, to give a clear searchable record in the mail archives that this wasn’t a fork or other adverse situation. Others might have other reasons for thinking it was needed. Also, a mentor called the vote and I respect their decision to do so.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return
back to OpenZipkin)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi David and Greg,
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>...
> > BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was
> taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases
> this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation
> not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same.
>
That doesn't justify requiring a [VOTE].
> If anyone thinks a VOTE is not necessary then please discuss why on
> another thread.
>
I merely added a parenthetical to my vote. As did David.
But sure. Let's talk about the overzealous bureaucracy of the IPMC.
Think about the result of this purported [VOTE]. Two answers:
1) yes, you are free to leave
2) no, you are NOT free to leave
What does (2) mean? That we hold the community's repositories hostage? That
we don't return them? On what right? On what *ethical* right?
The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why?
The *Zipkin community* owns those repositories. Not Apache or the IPMC. Let
the community take them where they want.
If a podling graduates, then the community and its resources are recognized
by the Board as an official part of the Foundation. Unless/until then, we
should be very careful about spurious claims of ownership.
Years back, we talked about not wanting to accept "hostile forks" of other
projects as podlings. We did not want to be party to such a calamity. By
voting "no" in this case, the IPMC would be the one *creating* the hostile
fork. Not merely accepting it as a podling. Talk about bad karma.
Regards,
-g
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi David and Greg,
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I hope the podling has better success outside the ASF.
>
> BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same.
If anyone thinks a VOTE is not necessary then please discuss why on another thread.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Thanks
> Justin
>
> 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6afe3024bdbaf6e484ff376be0919ad6e6935b1688b08e7f8710542a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 2. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c386b985379c8b6b54d791c8eaa62e429987ffb651ffc753d6a69e43@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 3. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/658cba0894ba6d8884ee3900055eeea3053d6ba09d4be59a9603084a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 4. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aca69095d5b76b4acfe64a2dfe5989b82c6ed9d191499a41a005218c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 5. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7cd55f482d8842089ffdc6f13cd950f91ca3773eaf6d64dec7dfb65b@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 6, https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/52c09582d098f414a15b3a13e06bbb461b182a340635fd459ebdbbb9@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 7. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/728065ab61e74161c6d0851ada4cf254bd1e4535fcb75674fe478530@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 8. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/148f49f8d531629e8d39907447c1c65c611ac9fa37621a7ba36f1681@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 9. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dcc7974c132e9ae231f385f476e9023ccb161a65e902760793c0a076@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 10. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dc5b8252f42746475269260ff771a4f99dfa0a36bb4585eb358399ed@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 11. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6736822bbaee99dd4415ca79a37f76ccee65d384a6be57fbe1175b42@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 12. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5a7a9e021394e73cba153870f68f9b0a2b91f9489a9c7fbf6fc63006@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 13. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff6a3fbac0dbd14d4b44fb701d1974d78755b203c9734eb8e5de588a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 14. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ebb3d1fbce1ed53a74067ce210a90ee6dfd166341210abc7a04a5992@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> 15. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/92c4ce80bb6fb4c4bd3b373acb2ef80b0c5129a6d3725e31de29e700@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
+1 (binding)
I hope the podling has better success outside the ASF.
BTW in all previous cases of podlings exiting I could find, a vote was taken (see below links and there’s more I’ve not listed). In most cases this was to retire rather than returning/going elsewhere, so the situation not exactly the same, but that’s a data point all the same.
Thanks
Justin
1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6afe3024bdbaf6e484ff376be0919ad6e6935b1688b08e7f8710542a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
2. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c386b985379c8b6b54d791c8eaa62e429987ffb651ffc753d6a69e43@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
3. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/658cba0894ba6d8884ee3900055eeea3053d6ba09d4be59a9603084a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
4. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aca69095d5b76b4acfe64a2dfe5989b82c6ed9d191499a41a005218c@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
5. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7cd55f482d8842089ffdc6f13cd950f91ca3773eaf6d64dec7dfb65b@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
6, https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/52c09582d098f414a15b3a13e06bbb461b182a340635fd459ebdbbb9@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
7. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/728065ab61e74161c6d0851ada4cf254bd1e4535fcb75674fe478530@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
8. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/148f49f8d531629e8d39907447c1c65c611ac9fa37621a7ba36f1681@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
9. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dcc7974c132e9ae231f385f476e9023ccb161a65e902760793c0a076@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
10. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dc5b8252f42746475269260ff771a4f99dfa0a36bb4585eb358399ed@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
11. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6736822bbaee99dd4415ca79a37f76ccee65d384a6be57fbe1175b42@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
12. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5a7a9e021394e73cba153870f68f9b0a2b91f9489a9c7fbf6fc63006@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
13. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff6a3fbac0dbd14d4b44fb701d1974d78755b203c9734eb8e5de588a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
14. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ebb3d1fbce1ed53a74067ce210a90ee6dfd166341210abc7a04a5992@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
15. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/92c4ce80bb6fb4c4bd3b373acb2ef80b0c5129a6d3725e31de29e700@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
+1 (binding)
I agree with Greg, this feels superfluous. Let’s get out of the way of
people doing the work.
—David
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:37 Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> (and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
> rather than hinder)
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> > return back to OpenZipkin.
> >
> > PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> > Jiang
> >
> > There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
> > use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> > `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> > All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> > org(GitHub).
> > incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> > ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> > incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> > incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> > incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> > incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> > incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> > incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> > incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> > https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
> >
> > Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72
> hours
> > only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> > [ ] +1 Agree
> > [ ] +0 No opinion.
> > [ ] -1 Do not agree because
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > <
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sheng Wu
> > Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
+1, and I wish OpenZipkin all the best in your future endeavors.
Best,
Myrle
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:21 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> > > return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> +1
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> > return back to OpenZipkin.
+1
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
> 在 2019年6月18日，下午1:37，Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> (and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
> rather than hinder)
Yes. Me too.
But still do this for saving time.
I don’t want to block this, considering they have been waiting one week.
That is also why I put the vote as 3 days only for consensus.
Thanks for your supports.
Sheng Wu
Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu <wu.sheng.841108@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
>> return back to OpenZipkin.
>>
>> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
>> Jiang
>>
>> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
>> use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
>> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
>> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
>> org(GitHub).
>> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
>> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
>> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
>> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
>> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
>> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
>> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
>> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
>> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
>> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
>> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
>> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>>
>> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours
>> only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
>> [ ] +1 Agree
>> [ ] +0 No opinion.
>> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
>> <
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sheng Wu
>> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
Re: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
(and IMO this vote should never have been needed/called; let's help them,
rather than hinder)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:22 PM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a call for official vote of Zipkin leave from incubator, and
> return back to OpenZipkin.
>
> PPMC have voted.[1], carried two IPMC +1 vote from Sheng Wu and Willem
> Jiang
>
> There is no trademark, logo transfer, so, Zipkin community is OK to still
> use the name(io.zipkin or zipkin + xxx) and logo.
> `org.apache.zipkin` is not allowed or going to be used.
> All 9 repositories(GitHub repo) will be transferred back to OpenZipkin
> org(GitHub).
> incubator-zipkin --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin
> ncubator-zipkin-dependencies -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-dependencies
> incubator-zipkin-api --> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-api
> incubator-zipkin-b3-propagation -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation
> incubator-zipkin-reporter-java -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-reporter-java
> incubator-zipkin-brave --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave
> incubator-zipkin-brave-cassandra -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-cassandra
> incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf --> https://github.com/openzipkin/brave-karaf
> incubator-zipkin-layout-factory -->
> https://github.com/openzipkin/zipkin-layout-factory
>
> Voting will start now (2019-6-18 9:20 UTC+8) and will remain open 72 hours
> only for consensus, Request all IPMC members to give their vote.
> [ ] +1 Agree
> [ ] +0 No opinion.
> [ ] -1 Do not agree because
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fbeb254f569d9852e9740d55532ee338580287ec384e26c7d9107964@%3Cdev.zipkin.apache.org%3E
> >
>
>
>
> Sheng Wu
> Apache Skywalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>
>
>
>