You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com> on 2003/03/11 00:58:22 UTC
[STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress
How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
Despite repeated attempts, Tapestry is NOT in BugZilla. We're still forced
to use SourceForge for bug tracking.
Tapestry's mailing lists are not getting archived any more (not since 2/21).
Nobody seems to know ANY of the procedures for getting things done. Nothing
is documented. Simple things like the correct way to distribute a release
(including signing and mirroring) are just "known" by the right people ...
and I don't even know who is in the know.
Andrew and Dion have been helpful, both before the move and after.
The only other accomplishment of the incubation process has been a code
audit that resulted in a shuffling of the libraries checked into CVS and
distributed with the framework.
Jakarta infrastructure is non-existent. Worse, the Jakarta culture
erroneously expects things to get done based on e-mails, rather than
something organized, like using BugZilla to track infrastructure requests.
The Incubator team has yet to provide a time table or a check list to
indicate what the exit criteria are. In terms of Tapestry's commitments to
the Incubator, it looks like we're more than there (based on
http://incubator.apache.org/process.html). In terms of Incubator's
commitments to Tapestry ... that is, to assist Tapestry in moving into
Jakarta, fitting in, and accessing infrastructure; very little has been
accomplished.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
this is two days old, and i am very far behind in incubator mail.
my impression was that tapestry was past 'proposal', though,
having been accepted into the incubator. shall i defer further
comment until i'm caught up, or sail on in past the fleeing angels?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 20.43:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
>
...
>>PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
>>disinterested Incubator PMC.
>
> that was tried. it failed in practice.
I'd like to point out a thing. Incubation still means different things
to different people.
If incubating means teaching "The Apache Way", then there is no better
way IMHO than making th eproject be supervised and live in the accepting
PMC.
If incubating is getting it ready WRT a series of checks that have to be
done to start and be sure the project is ok, then this has clearly
failed in practice.
Many think that incubation wants to be a kind of Apache black magic that
only old veterans think they know, and that has to be inculcated with a
strange and undocumented process into virgin projects.
People, remove this ridiculous idea.
IMHO, the first we get a list of things that have to be checked and
solved, the faster we will be able to work well.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
that was tried. it failed in practice.
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
unclear -- but it is certainly not blindingly obvious to
*everyone*.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
Votes should not take place on the pmc list.
> Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
> from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
> Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
>
> I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
> officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully takes it in
> charge.
-1. I see no evidence that the task has been accomplished. Accomplish
the task and then the Tapestry committers and Jakarta committers can
choose to house Tapestry wherever they like. The point of incubator
is to make sure such self-governing committer groups exist in order
for them to make the decision, not for us to make the decision for them.
....Roy
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> See, that's the part I don't get. I know this is tedious if you've been
> through this, but I don't see how the LGPL is viral (the GPL is definitely
> viral, by design).
Some pointers:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=community@apache.org&msgNo=1606
is what should be changed in the LGPL, also read
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=community@apache.org&msgNo=1429
for some further info.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing summarizes most,
if not fully up-to-date however.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
I agree with you howard. It just doesn't matter that I agree. The
trouble is the wording doesn't make it clear in Java althought I agree
the intent of the license is what you say.
I asked Sam Ruby about this and he said something to the effect of
without clarification would you want to leave it up to twelve random
people?
He does have a point. Look at section 6 in the LGPL.. thats the main
part in dispute.
So lets say IBM included Tapestry in Websphere.. Yes they can release it
under whatever license they want, but do they have to release their
source?
-Andy
>See, that's the part I don't get. I know this is tedious if you've been
>through this, but I don't see how the LGPL is viral (the GPL is definitely
>viral, by design).
>If all you are doing is restributing an LGPL package without modification, I
>just don't see how it affects your license. As I understand it, the LGPL
>and the ASL are pretty much the same, until you modify and redistribute.
>
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
RE: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
> Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> > | Actually, this is present Apache policy. You can't link
> to them at
> > | all. Sorry.
> >
> > Why on earth can't Apache link to LGPL libraries? What's with you
> > guys? Have you heard about something called "the open source
> > community"? It's about reusing code n'allthat...
>
See, that's the part I don't get. I know this is tedious if you've been
through this, but I don't see how the LGPL is viral (the GPL is definitely
viral, by design).
If all you are doing is restributing an LGPL package without modification, I
just don't see how it affects your license. As I understand it, the LGPL
and the ASL are pretty much the same, until you modify and redistribute.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> | Actually, this is present Apache policy. You can't link to them at
> | all. Sorry.
>
> Why on earth can't Apache link to LGPL libraries? What's with you guys?
> Have you heard about something called "the open source community"? It's
> about reusing code n'allthat...
have you never heard of 'viral licensing'? the reason is, quite
simply, that linking to lgpl stuff will cause our stuff to be
licensed under lgpl instead of staying licensed under the apache
licence. and that's something from which we have decided to
protect our users. if *they* want to modify the code to do
this stuff, fine -- but not our original sources for the above reason.
we're not going to force the 3p commercial vendors who base
their products on our code into any form of [l]gpl compliance.
that's something they need to do themselves, with their eyes open.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Endre Stølsvik <En...@Stolsvik.com>.
| Actually, this is present Apache policy. You can't link to them at
| all. Sorry.
Why on earth can't Apache link to LGPL libraries? What's with you guys?
Have you heard about something called "the open source community"? It's
about reusing code n'allthat...
Endre.
Updated Tapestry code audit
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
I've redone the Tapestry code audit for March, along with notes about what
changed, and why, since February.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Mar2003
Although I was blindsided by the LPGL constraints that came out in the last
few days, I believe Tapestry is fully in compliance at this time. Does
anybody know what license DocBook and DocBook XSL is released under? I
couldn't find it.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:57 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>
>
> Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> >Parts of the Tapestry demos are compiled using J2EE APIs (EJB, JDNI,
> >Mail).
> >
> >
> Thats fine provided you do not illegally distribute them.
>
> >Certain of the demos make use of an LGPL library for drawing
> charts and
> >graphs.
> >
> Thats not allowed presently.
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>Parts of the Tapestry demos are compiled using J2EE APIs (EJB, JDNI, Mail).
>
>
Thats fine provided you do not illegally distribute them.
>Certain of the demos make use of an LGPL library for drawing charts and
>graphs.
>
Thats not allowed presently.
>As a convienience, Tapestry expects a JBoss installation to be present.
>jboss.dir is the absolute path to the JBoss installation.
>
I regard this as a build usability issue. I'm sure Dion will fix it.
>My understanding of licenses is apparently suspect. Although I'm aware of
>the problems even compiling against GPL, I had thought that LGPL is a
>different beast. Andrew C. Oliver has been making noises that not only can
>I not have LGPL frameworks in CVS or as part of the distribution (those that
>were in place have been removed, replaced with pointers on where to download
>them from), but now there's a question of even compiling against such
>frameworks.
>
>
Hehe... Yes I'm the patron saint a against LGPL ;-)
(http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1211.html)
Actually, this is present Apache policy. You can't link to them at
all. Sorry.
-Andy
>
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:00 PM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>>
>>
>>Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project
>>>>
>>>>
>>definition once I
>>
>>
>>>>get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be
>>>>
>>>>
>>done about
>>
>>
>>>>the apparent jboss prereq?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Theoretically it no longer exists (howard's answer to my previous
>>>issue
>>>with the licensing issues) ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>Here's what I get when I try to build:
>>
>>Buildfile: build.xml
>>
>>check-for-jboss-dir:
>>
>>BUILD FAILED
>>file:///home/rubys/jakarta/jakarta-tapestry/build.xml:429: Property
>>jboss.dir not specified in config/build.properties.
>>
>>If somebody can correct line 429 in the build.xml (I suspect that the
>>entire target should be removed), I will proceed onto the
>>next issue and
>>report back.
>>
>>- Sam Ruby
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Howard,
I got the framework jar to build without jboss. Maybe going for a build
other than the whole kit and kaboodle will help.
Sam,
can you use the maven project.xml I created for the framework jar to just
build it?
See http://www.apache.org/~dion/project.xml. In particular:
<dependency>
<id>servletapi</id>
<version>2.3</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>bcel</id>
<version>5.0</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/bcel/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>bsf</id>
<version>2.3.0-rc1</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/bsf/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>commons-lang</id>
<version>1.0.1</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/lang.html</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>commons-logging</id>
<version>1.0.2</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging.html</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>ognl</id>
<version>2.3.2</version>
<url>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ognl/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>oro</id>
<version>2.0.7</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/oro/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<id>xml-apis</id>
<version>1.0.b2</version>
<url>http://xml.apache.org/commons</url>
</dependency>
This was for the build in the jakarta-tapestry/framework dir.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
"Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com> wrote on 12/03/2003 01:40:08 PM:
> Parts of the Tapestry demos are compiled using J2EE APIs (EJB, JDNI,
Mail).
>
> Certain of the demos make use of an LGPL library for drawing charts and
> graphs.
>
> As a convienience, Tapestry expects a JBoss installation to be present.
> jboss.dir is the absolute path to the JBoss installation.
>
> My understanding of licenses is apparently suspect. Although I'm aware
of
> the problems even compiling against GPL, I had thought that LGPL is a
> different beast. Andrew C. Oliver has been making noises that not only
can
> I not have LGPL frameworks in CVS or as part of the distribution (those
that
> were in place have been removed, replaced with pointers on where to
download
> them from), but now there's a question of even compiling against such
> frameworks.
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:00 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
> >
> >
> > Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project
> > definition once I
> > >> get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be
> > done about
> > >> the apparent jboss prereq?
> > >
> > > Theoretically it no longer exists (howard's answer to my previous
> > > issue
> > > with the licensing issues) ;-)
> >
> > Here's what I get when I try to build:
> >
> > Buildfile: build.xml
> >
> > check-for-jboss-dir:
> >
> > BUILD FAILED
> > file:///home/rubys/jakarta/jakarta-tapestry/build.xml:429: Property
> > jboss.dir not specified in config/build.properties.
> >
> > If somebody can correct line 429 in the build.xml (I suspect that the
> > entire target should be removed), I will proceed onto the
> > next issue and
> > report back.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
Parts of the Tapestry demos are compiled using J2EE APIs (EJB, JDNI, Mail).
Certain of the demos make use of an LGPL library for drawing charts and
graphs.
As a convienience, Tapestry expects a JBoss installation to be present.
jboss.dir is the absolute path to the JBoss installation.
My understanding of licenses is apparently suspect. Although I'm aware of
the problems even compiling against GPL, I had thought that LGPL is a
different beast. Andrew C. Oliver has been making noises that not only can
I not have LGPL frameworks in CVS or as part of the distribution (those that
were in place have been removed, replaced with pointers on where to download
them from), but now there's a question of even compiling against such
frameworks.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:00 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>
>
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project
> definition once I
> >> get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be
> done about
> >> the apparent jboss prereq?
> >
> > Theoretically it no longer exists (howard's answer to my previous
> > issue
> > with the licensing issues) ;-)
>
> Here's what I get when I try to build:
>
> Buildfile: build.xml
>
> check-for-jboss-dir:
>
> BUILD FAILED
> file:///home/rubys/jakarta/jakarta-tapestry/build.xml:429: Property
> jboss.dir not specified in config/build.properties.
>
> If somebody can correct line 429 in the build.xml (I suspect that the
> entire target should be removed), I will proceed onto the
> next issue and
> report back.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project definition once I
>> get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be done about
>> the apparent jboss prereq?
>
> Theoretically it no longer exists (howard's answer to my previous issue
> with the licensing issues) ;-)
Here's what I get when I try to build:
Buildfile: build.xml
check-for-jboss-dir:
BUILD FAILED
file:///home/rubys/jakarta/jakarta-tapestry/build.xml:429: Property
jboss.dir not specified in config/build.properties.
If somebody can correct line 429 in the build.xml (I suspect that the
entire target should be removed), I will proceed onto the next issue and
report back.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project definition once I
> get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be done about
> the apparent jboss prereq?
Theoretically it no longer exists (howard's answer to my previous issue
with the licensing issues) ;-)
But as mark pilgram said....there is no screwdriver.
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Sam, from what I've found, there's no real dependency on jboss for the
framework jar.
Servlet api, xml-apis etc, but not necessarily jboss.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote on 12/03/2003 12:23:00 PM:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just
> >>> configuring gump is a royal pain in the butt.
> >>
> >> Pppbbbttt.
> >>
> >> Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
> >>
> >> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-
> gump/project/jakarta-tapestry.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
> >>
> >> In any case, this is just a *starter* definition. What needs to be
> >> added is lines for each dependency and for each property that needs
to
> >> be overridden. The way I generally approach this is to start with a
> >> minimal set and then add only what is absolutely necessary until I
get
> >> to a failure that I can't get past.
> >>
> >> In this case, I didn't get very far. The build aborts quickly unless
> >> jboss is present.
> >
> > Sam.. With all due respect... I do not see this as a complete Gump
> > configuration.. In the end this might prove to be a problem with
> > tapestry's build but I suspect you'll hit a few more Gumpisms first.
> > Prove me wrong. It was done once or twice before.. ;-)
>
> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project definition once I get
> past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be done about the
> apparent jboss prereq?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just
>>>> configuring gump is a royal pain in the butt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pppbbbttt.
>>>
>>> Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
>>>
>>> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-gump/project/jakarta-tapestry.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
>>>
>>> In any case, this is just a *starter* definition. What needs to be
>>> added is lines for each dependency and for each property that needs
>>> to be overridden. The way I generally approach this is to start
>>> with a minimal set and then add only what is absolutely necessary
>>> until I get to a failure that I can't get past.
>>>
>>> In this case, I didn't get very far. The build aborts quickly
>>> unless jboss is present.
>>
>>
>> Sam.. With all due respect... I do not see this as a complete Gump
>> configuration.. In the end this might prove to be a problem with
>> tapestry's build but I suspect you'll hit a few more Gumpisms first.
>> Prove me wrong. It was done once or twice before.. ;-)
>
>
> I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project definition once I
> get past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be done about
> the apparent jboss prereq?
Migrate to Avalon Phoenix oir Merlin?
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just
>>> configuring gump is a royal pain in the butt.
>>
>> Pppbbbttt.
>>
>> Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
>>
>> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-gump/project/jakarta-tapestry.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
>>
>> In any case, this is just a *starter* definition. What needs to be
>> added is lines for each dependency and for each property that needs to
>> be overridden. The way I generally approach this is to start with a
>> minimal set and then add only what is absolutely necessary until I get
>> to a failure that I can't get past.
>>
>> In this case, I didn't get very far. The build aborts quickly unless
>> jboss is present.
>
> Sam.. With all due respect... I do not see this as a complete Gump
> configuration.. In the end this might prove to be a problem with
> tapestry's build but I suspect you'll hit a few more Gumpisms first.
> Prove me wrong. It was done once or twice before.. ;-)
I'm quite willing to help flush out a full project definition once I get
past the roadblocks. The question is: what should be done about the
apparent jboss prereq?
- Sam Ruby
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>>>
>> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just
>> configuring gump is a royal pain in the butt.
>
>
> Pppbbbttt.
>
> Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-gump/project/jakarta-tapestry.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
>
> In any case, this is just a *starter* definition. What needs to be
> added is lines for each dependency and for each property that needs to
> be overridden. The way I generally approach this is to start with a
> minimal set and then add only what is absolutely necessary until I get
> to a failure that I can't get past.
>
> In this case, I didn't get very far. The build aborts quickly unless
> jboss is present.
Sam.. With all due respect... I do not see this as a complete Gump
configuration.. In the end this might prove to be a problem with
tapestry's build but I suspect you'll hit a few more Gumpisms first.
Prove me wrong. It was done once or twice before.. ;-)
>
> Once this is resolved, I am willing to help. Or you can update the
> project definition directly. Or you can ask for help on
> gump@jakarta.apache.org... there are plenty of friendly people there.
>
> Meanwhile, you should get daily reminders that this is not complete
> delivered to tapestry-dev@jakarta.apache.org. ;-)
>
>> I figured
>> that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
>> and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
>
>
> Maven has code which will produce a gump descriptor, but no code that
> will consume one. Conversely gump has no code for producing or
> consuming Maven descriptors, though Jason has offered to help out by
> writing a sax based parser for the Maven descriptor.
>
> In short, Maven integration can help with Gump integration, but at the
> present time, the reverse is not true.
>
Right. All I care about is Gump integration. I see it as an important
part of integrating into the Jakarta project. Code compatibility may
not directly correspond to community compatibility but Conway's law
relates them rather heavily... ;-)
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just configuring
> gump is a royal pain in the butt.
Pppbbbttt.
Apparently creating the following is beyond Andy's abilities:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jakarta-gump/project/jakarta-tapestry.xml?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
In any case, this is just a *starter* definition. What needs to be
added is lines for each dependency and for each property that needs to
be overridden. The way I generally approach this is to start with a
minimal set and then add only what is absolutely necessary until I get
to a failure that I can't get past.
In this case, I didn't get very far. The build aborts quickly unless
jboss is present.
Once this is resolved, I am willing to help. Or you can update the
project definition directly. Or you can ask for help on
gump@jakarta.apache.org... there are plenty of friendly people there.
Meanwhile, you should get daily reminders that this is not complete
delivered to tapestry-dev@jakarta.apache.org. ;-)
> I figured
> that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
> and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
Maven has code which will produce a gump descriptor, but no code that
will consume one. Conversely gump has no code for producing or
consuming Maven descriptors, though Jason has offered to help out by
writing a sax based parser for the Maven descriptor.
In short, Maven integration can help with Gump integration, but at the
present time, the reverse is not true.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Cool. Thanks Dion. You rock.
-Andy
dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> wrote on 12/03/2003 10:33:25 AM:
>
>
>
>>Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>Audit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What about jfreechart and jcommon?
>>
>>I also don't buy that JAXP is ASL. Its that funky sun license.
>>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003
>>
>>
>
>JAXP can be replaced with xml-apis from xmlcommons.
>
>I used that when building the maven version of the framework jar
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>>Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
>>>bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>Gump integration, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just configuring
>>gump is a royal pain in the butt. I figured
>>that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
>>and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
>>The same is achievable via Centipede but one could presume you'd loose
>>Dions help if you went that route and I'm very
>>tapped at the moment.
>>
>>
>
>I'm chugging away, it's just lack of bandwidth and trying to work out how
>the test cases hang together.
>
>If anyone can help, checkout:
>http://www.apache.org/~dion/jakarta/tapestry/junit-report.html
>
>--
>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
>Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
"Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> wrote on 12/03/2003 10:33:25 AM:
> Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> >All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on
the
> >Audit.
> >
>
> What about jfreechart and jcommon?
>
> I also don't buy that JAXP is ASL. Its that funky sun license.
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003
JAXP can be replaced with xml-apis from xmlcommons.
I used that when building the maven version of the framework jar
[snip]
> >Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
> >bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step
to
> >Gump integration, right?
> >
> >
> You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just configuring
> gump is a royal pain in the butt. I figured
> that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
> and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
> The same is achievable via Centipede but one could presume you'd loose
> Dions help if you went that route and I'm very
> tapped at the moment.
I'm chugging away, it's just lack of bandwidth and trying to work out how
the test cases hang together.
If anyone can help, checkout:
http://www.apache.org/~dion/jakarta/tapestry/junit-report.html
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on the
>Audit.
>
What about jfreechart and jcommon?
I also don't buy that JAXP is ASL. Its that funky sun license.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003
>
>The GPL module and all code that imports it no longer exists (we could
>remove the ,v file from the repository I suppose).
>The LPGL modules used in demos are no longer in the repository, or shippped
>as part of the demo.
>
>
If the demos are linked to LGPL it is the boards current position that
they cannot be part of the project.
I've emailed for clarification on this to the FSF's lawyer. Next step,
I email stallman. We'll see if this changes.
If you can get specific exemption from those projects that they intend
that you can link without any license terms infecting your code, then
you can probably get a dispensation (I'd query the board first). The
problem is that most projects will be like "yeah thats what LGPL means"...
some may understand your unique political situation and be like "cool
we're used in an apache project" but I guess it depends.
>Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
>bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step to
>Gump integration, right?
>
>
You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just configuring
gump is a royal pain in the butt. I figured
that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
The same is achievable via Centipede but one could presume you'd loose
Dions help if you went that route and I'm very
tapped at the moment.
Thanks,
Andy
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:06 PM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Cc: pmc@incubator.apache.org; Tapestry development
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>>
>>
>>-1 until all audit issues are resolved:
>>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003 -
>>Its my duty as a member of the foundation and as a sponsoring
>>member of
>>tapestry to sit watch over this and I take it seriously.
>>
>>and until Tapestry builds under Gump. (not an official
>>requirement just
>>mine as a sponsoring member)
>>
>>Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
>>While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been
>>a wasteful
>>excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in that it
>>exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars used in
>>example code).
>>I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
>>process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
>>period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose.
>>Take that as a
>>statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
>>(smaller) the incubator.
>>
>>-Andy
>>
>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should
>>>>perhaps vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not
>>>>fair to the people involved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>ACK.
>>>
>>>Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
>>>from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
>>>Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
>>>
>>>I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
>>>officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully
>>>
>>>
>>takes it in
>>
>>
>>>charge.
>>>
>>>Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
>>>
>>>Mine: +1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:17 am, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on the
> Audit.
>
> The GPL module and all code that imports it no longer exists (we could
> remove the ,v file from the repository I suppose).
> The LPGL modules used in demos are no longer in the repository, or shippped
> as part of the demo.
IMHO, you should get rid of the ,v files too. Just makes it clear that you are
not distributing these libraries since access from the CVS Attic could be
considered distribution.
>
> Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
> bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step to
> Gump integration, right?
Gump can use your current Ant based buildfile.
Conor
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on the
>Audit.
>
What about jfreechart and jcommon?
I also don't buy that JAXP is ASL. Its that funky sun license.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003
>
>The GPL module and all code that imports it no longer exists (we could
>remove the ,v file from the repository I suppose).
>The LPGL modules used in demos are no longer in the repository, or shippped
>as part of the demo.
>
>
If the demos are linked to LGPL it is the boards current position that
they cannot be part of the project.
I've emailed for clarification on this to the FSF's lawyer. Next step,
I email stallman. We'll see if this changes.
If you can get specific exemption from those projects that they intend
that you can link without any license terms infecting your code, then
you can probably get a dispensation (I'd query the board first). The
problem is that most projects will be like "yeah thats what LGPL means"...
some may understand your unique political situation and be like "cool
we're used in an apache project" but I guess it depends.
>Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
>bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step to
>Gump integration, right?
>
>
You can integrate with Gump regardless of Maven. Its just configuring
gump is a royal pain in the butt. I figured
that if Maven is Gump-integrated then it should be easier to mavenize
and take advantage of maven's gump integration.
The same is achievable via Centipede but one could presume you'd loose
Dions help if you went that route and I'm very
tapped at the moment.
Thanks,
Andy
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:06 PM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Cc: pmc@incubator.apache.org; Tapestry development
>>Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>>
>>
>>-1 until all audit issues are resolved:
>>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003 -
>>Its my duty as a member of the foundation and as a sponsoring
>>member of
>>tapestry to sit watch over this and I take it seriously.
>>
>>and until Tapestry builds under Gump. (not an official
>>requirement just
>>mine as a sponsoring member)
>>
>>Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
>>While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been
>>a wasteful
>>excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in that it
>>exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars used in
>>example code).
>>I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
>>process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
>>period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose.
>>Take that as a
>>statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
>>(smaller) the incubator.
>>
>>-Andy
>>
>>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should
>>>>perhaps vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not
>>>>fair to the people involved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>ACK.
>>>
>>>Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
>>>from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
>>>Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
>>>
>>>I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
>>>officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully
>>>
>>>
>>takes it in
>>
>>
>>>charge.
>>>
>>>Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
>>>
>>>Mine: +1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
All audit issues have been taken care of, per the schedule I posted on the
Audit.
The GPL module and all code that imports it no longer exists (we could
remove the ,v file from the repository I suppose).
The LPGL modules used in demos are no longer in the repository, or shippped
as part of the demo.
Dion is helping out with Maven integraton. I'm tapped out in terms of
bandwidth and haven't had time to learn Maven. This is the first step to
Gump integration, right?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:06 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: pmc@incubator.apache.org; Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
>
>
> -1 until all audit issues are resolved:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003 -
> Its my duty as a member of the foundation and as a sponsoring
> member of
> tapestry to sit watch over this and I take it seriously.
>
> and until Tapestry builds under Gump. (not an official
> requirement just
> mine as a sponsoring member)
>
> Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
> While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been
> a wasteful
> excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in that it
> exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars used in
> example code).
> I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
> process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
> period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose.
> Take that as a
> statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
> (smaller) the incubator.
>
> -Andy
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> >
> > Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
> >
> >> With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should
> >> perhaps vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not
> >> fair to the people involved.
> >
> >
> > ACK.
> >
> > Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
> > from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
> > Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
> >
> > I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
> > officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully
> takes it in
> > charge.
> >
> > Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
> >
> > Mine: +1
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
> While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been a
> wasteful excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in
> that it exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars
> used in example code).
> I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
> process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
> period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose. Take that as
> a statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
> (smaller) the incubator.
FWIW, I think this is exactly what is meant by "active oversight".
Whether
it happens in the Incubator or the Jakarta PMC, it needs to happen
somewhere.
-aaron
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
-1 until all audit issues are resolved:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003 -
Its my duty as a member of the foundation and as a sponsoring member of
tapestry to sit watch over this and I take it seriously.
and until Tapestry builds under Gump. (not an official requirement just
mine as a sponsoring member)
Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been a wasteful
excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in that it
exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars used in
example code).
I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose. Take that as a
statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
(smaller) the incubator.
-Andy
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
>
>> With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should
>> perhaps vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not
>> fair to the people involved.
>
>
> ACK.
>
> Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
> from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
> Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
>
> I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
> officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully takes it in
> charge.
>
> Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
>
> Mine: +1
>
Re: [VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
-1 until all audit issues are resolved:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?TapestryAudits/Feb2003 -
Its my duty as a member of the foundation and as a sponsoring member of
tapestry to sit watch over this and I take it seriously.
and until Tapestry builds under Gump. (not an official requirement just
mine as a sponsoring member)
Once both of those are resolved I'll change that to a +1 not before.
While I agree that the incubator in its current form has been a wasteful
excercise. The incubation period itself proved useful in that it
exposed issues that I was not aware of (regarding GPL jars used in
example code).
I'm torn, I consider the incubator itself to be a failure and the
process (or lack there of) to have dragged on, but the "incubation
period" has itself been useful if only for this purpose. Take that as a
statement of support supposing you seriously refactor and rescope
(smaller) the incubator.
-Andy
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
>
>> With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should
>> perhaps vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not
>> fair to the people involved.
>
>
> ACK.
>
> Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
> from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
> Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
>
> I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
> officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully takes it in
> charge.
>
> Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
>
> Mine: +1
>
[VOTE:PMC] Release Tapestry to Jakarta
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Conor MacNeill wrote, On 11/03/2003 8.26:
> With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should perhaps
> vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not fair to the people
> involved.
ACK.
Tapestry has a vibrant community, that has already suffered too much
from our incubation "experiment", and that is well taken care of by
Dion, Andy, and all the other Jakarta friends.
I thereby bropose that we "release" Tapestry so that it becomes
officially part of Jakarta, and that the Jakarta PMC fully takes it in
charge.
Incubator PMCers, please cast your votes.
Mine: +1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:04 pm, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
>
> IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
> without being further jerked around.
>
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
>
Jeff,
I agree that incubator is currently failing. Whether it was flawed from the
start, I'm not really sure. IMHO, incubation won't work unless the incubator
project can spare the time to help projects incubate.
With respect to Tapestry, I agree. I think the incubator PMC should perhaps
vote to promote it into Jakarta. The current limbo is not fair to the people
involved.
Conor
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
>projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
>This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
>
+1
>>I'd agree.
>>
>>
>
>I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missing out
>somehow.
>
>
I doubt it.
>>Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
>>Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
>>that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
>>not done goes to our demerit.
>>
>>
>
>I'll agree to disagree on that point.
>
>
The same. I feel that it is very to the demerit of the incubator to
have been nothing more than dead weight and an
obstructionist frontend load on an already load-heavy enterprise.
>>If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot
>>delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
>>Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
>>
>>
>
>I'm hoping that the incubator project didn't delegate the incubation of
>Tapestry to myself and Andy without somehow informing us. There have been
>various requests along the way for more information and documentation
>along the way, and many unanswered emails {1-4} etc.
>
>
honestly, it went exactly as I expected. The process hasn't improved:
1. The guantlet. - Persistance is required. 1000 uninvolved parties
come to debate why your project should not
be included with little factual information. Generally these involved
"this wil be the end of Apache.. . Save our club! Apache's
too big. Its too late for this project to be included. The project is
too immature to be included. The project competes with X" Generally
none of the arguments have to do with the viability of the community
(which is supposed to be what we care about barring legal/patent issues).
This does serve a purpose in a suboptimal way. Only the persistant get
in. This requires much less bandwidth of any one party than researching
the project's community but often proves the community (their
persistance at least).
2. Acceptance - The guntlet born, now the project is accepted and
generally no hard feelings...
3. The Dead Zone - A period of pain and misery as the project tries to
get enough people whom have relevant access to actually perform a function
or delegate responsibility to the project members. (For POI this
resulted in our website taking 3-4 months to get running).
4. Incorporation - Through additional badgering the site gets up, the
access is granted, bugzilla gets modules, etc.
5. Stage II Incorporation - Committers become members, PMC members or
otherwise semi-listened to.
So far the Incubator has exasurbated #1 while not participating in the
alternative (researching the community, guiding the community)
The incubator has done little to facillitate #2. Nothing to prevent,
get around, etc #3 and we've not made it to #4 or #5 yet!
Excuse the cynacism but I've watched this go around a few times.
>
>Having been involved in helping Tapestry, I feel a complete absence of any
>incubation presence working with the project. I can't speak about any
>other effort.
>
>
Agreed. I'd like to hear the Tapestry developers sound off on what they
think the incubation process has brought them.
>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00150.html
>[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00139.html
>[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00138.html
>[4] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00065.html
>--
>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
>Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
>projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
>This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
>
+1
>>I'd agree.
>>
>>
>
>I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missing out
>somehow.
>
>
I doubt it.
>>Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
>>Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
>>that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
>>not done goes to our demerit.
>>
>>
>
>I'll agree to disagree on that point.
>
>
The same. I feel that it is very to the demerit of the incubator to
have been nothing more than dead weight and an
obstructionist frontend load on an already load-heavy enterprise.
>>If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot
>>delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
>>Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
>>
>>
>
>I'm hoping that the incubator project didn't delegate the incubation of
>Tapestry to myself and Andy without somehow informing us. There have been
>various requests along the way for more information and documentation
>along the way, and many unanswered emails {1-4} etc.
>
>
honestly, it went exactly as I expected. The process hasn't improved:
1. The guantlet. - Persistance is required. 1000 uninvolved parties
come to debate why your project should not
be included with little factual information. Generally these involved
"this wil be the end of Apache.. . Save our club! Apache's
too big. Its too late for this project to be included. The project is
too immature to be included. The project competes with X" Generally
none of the arguments have to do with the viability of the community
(which is supposed to be what we care about barring legal/patent issues).
This does serve a purpose in a suboptimal way. Only the persistant get
in. This requires much less bandwidth of any one party than researching
the project's community but often proves the community (their
persistance at least).
2. Acceptance - The guntlet born, now the project is accepted and
generally no hard feelings...
3. The Dead Zone - A period of pain and misery as the project tries to
get enough people whom have relevant access to actually perform a function
or delegate responsibility to the project members. (For POI this
resulted in our website taking 3-4 months to get running).
4. Incorporation - Through additional badgering the site gets up, the
access is granted, bugzilla gets modules, etc.
5. Stage II Incorporation - Committers become members, PMC members or
otherwise semi-listened to.
So far the Incubator has exasurbated #1 while not participating in the
alternative (researching the community, guiding the community)
The incubator has done little to facillitate #2. Nothing to prevent,
get around, etc #3 and we've not made it to #4 or #5 yet!
Excuse the cynacism but I've watched this go around a few times.
>
>Having been involved in helping Tapestry, I feel a complete absence of any
>incubation presence working with the project. I can't speak about any
>other effort.
>
>
Agreed. I'd like to hear the Tapestry developers sound off on what they
think the incubation process has brought them.
>[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00150.html
>[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00139.html
>[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00138.html
>[4] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00065.html
>--
>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
>Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Could you toss the board a bone here - i.e. reach consensus what *we* as
>developers (all of us :-) feel are acceptable boundaries for working on
>that code.
>
>
Yes.
>Then the board will help define what the ASF deems acceptable, and work
>with you to convey this to RSA and/or negotiate the right sort of legal
>paperwork with RSA.
>
>
Okay.
>Some thoughds:
>
>- Zero Royalty versus (perpetual) Royalty Free ? Or a perpatual
> license with Zero Royalty today.
>
>
Yes we want RSA to sign that they give a Royalty Free, perpetual license
to use this patent inside of the propose OpenSAML project.
>- Does it affect just ASF Developers or also the End-Users or people
> who download our code ?
>
>
End users should not be required to acquire a seperate license from RSA
in order to use OpenSAML for any purpose including embedding it in
security products.
>- Does it affect individual developers or can the ASF act as an
> effective umbrella for all its committers ?
>
>
Developers should not be required to acquire a license in order to work
on the OpenSAML project.
Thoughts?
-Andy
RE: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
Dirk,
The WS-PMC wants to build new Apache WS projects on SAML....Here's the VOTE RESULTS that i sent to
this mailing list. (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=104549544123838&w=2)
Thanks,
dims
--- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Scott Cantor wrote:
>
> > In any case, my thoughts notwithstanding, it's obviously something that
> > the people interested in building new Apache WS projects on SAML should
> > decide.
>
> Aye - and the board@ is unlikely to do anything significant until at least
> that group has reached some sort of consensus :-)
>
> Dw
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
RE: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Scott Cantor wrote:
> In any case, my thoughts notwithstanding, it's obviously something that
> the people interested in building new Apache WS projects on SAML should
> decide.
Aye - and the board@ is unlikely to do anything significant until at least
that group has reached some sort of consensus :-)
Dw
RE: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Scott Cantor <ca...@osu.edu>.
> Some thoughts:
>
> - Zero Royalty versus (perpetual) Royalty Free ? Or a perpatual
> license with Zero Royalty today.
I think a perpetual license is a big issue, because otherwise people have to assume the rug could be yanked from under them. I know
that's my biggest concern, personally. Speaking just as an employee and not a developer, I know that the spectre of a change in the
terms would bother my company a lot more than a token licensing fee.
> - Does it affect just ASF Developers or also the End-Users or people
> who download our code ?
I think the fax-back requirement on end-users/developers who download the library sucks, no doubt about it. It would be nice to
achieve the détente that Roy mentioned, which presumes acceptance of the terms.
> - Does it affect individual developers or can the ASF act as an
> effective umbrella for all its committers ?
In light of the language there, and the fact that the code that those devlopers commit is donated to the ASF, I would guess that
this is pretty much the spirit of what's there now.
In any case, my thoughts notwithstanding, it's obviously something that the people interested in building new Apache WS projects on
SAML should decide.
-- Scott
Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I object to this. And it did not say WILL be royalty-free it said
..
> I object to that as well.
..
> I would like to petition the board for such a statement.
Folks,
Could you toss the board a bone here - i.e. reach consensus what *we* as
developers (all of us :-) feel are acceptable boundaries for working on
that code.
Then the board will help define what the ASF deems acceptable, and work
with you to convey this to RSA and/or negotiate the right sort of legal
paperwork with RSA.
Some thoughds:
- Zero Royalty versus (perpetual) Royalty Free ? Or a perpatual
license with Zero Royalty today.
- Does it affect just ASF Developers or also the End-Users or people
who download our code ?
- Does it affect individual developers or can the ASF act as an
effective umbrella for all its committers ?
Obviously - the spirit of the ASF license are our main guideline; we'd
like our code to be as unencumbered for others to work on. But at the same
time we have the frameworks to work with people like SUN or RSA if needed
to ensure that things like the nessesary patent licenses are obtained.
Dw
Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Scott Cantor wrote:
>>There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
>>that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
>>license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
>>contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than
>>LGPL section 6. . So I would expect the board to treat this
>>as needing to be crystal clear.
>>
>>
>
>Certainly, but I still don't know what you're reading into this. Let me try this one more time. The rule as it's currently going to
>be defined will be:
>
>Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free license from RSA to use it, separate from whatever other license
>applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into changing their mind, that's the story. No ambiguity intended.
>
>
I object to this. And it did not say WILL be royalty-free it said
INTEND and there is a special mention for those who might write
security-base products.
>Will it be royalty-free forever and ever? No idea. But whatever you're reading into the statement they posted, I can clearly
>communicate that the above is exactly what we've been told in plain English.
>
>
I object to that as well.
>If that's a deal-breaker for the board, then I'm simply suggesting that that be made clear so that the principals can either drop
>the proposal or tell RSA that it's a problem. The latter has been done informally, but obviously there's a stronger case to be made
>to them if we can say "change it or the standard isn't going to be accepted".
>
>
I would like to petition the board for such a statement.
>
>Unlike RSA's intent, the above is not clear to me. I have no idea whether a requirement to fax RSA a signed document constitutes a
>"hindrance". If what you mean is that there are no other terms in play other than the ASL, then this is asked and answered, I think.
>Right now, the answer is no, the ASL is only the code license. Right to use a SAML library (as opposed to a product) requires direct
>permission from RSA at no cost.
>
>
This is not clear to me.
-Andy
>
>
>>I do not think my concerns are petty and irrelevant as you seem to.
>>
>>
>
>I'd ask that you please don't put words in my mouth. Your concerns are unclear to me. If they were petty and irrelevant, I wouldn't
>be wasting my precious time responding to them.
>
>-- Scott
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free
> license from RSA to use it, separate from whatever other license
> applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into
> changing their mind, that's the story. No ambiguity intended.
>
> Will it be royalty-free forever and ever? No idea. But whatever you're
> reading into the statement they posted, I can clearly
> communicate that the above is exactly what we've been told in plain
> English.
>
> If that's a deal-breaker for the board, then I'm simply suggesting
> that that be made clear so that the principals can either drop
> the proposal or tell RSA that it's a problem. The latter has been done
> informally, but obviously there's a stronger case to be made
> to them if we can say "change it or the standard isn't going to be
> accepted".
My opinion is that the board will not accept such a proposal. The board
might accept a conditional grant wherein the license to use is revoked
for a given user if and only if that user sues RSA for patent
infringement.
Such grants are the commonly accepted form of a mutual-defense license.
....Roy (speaking with my ASF board member hat on)
RE: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Scott Cantor <ca...@osu.edu>.
> There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
> that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
> license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
> contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than
> LGPL section 6. . So I would expect the board to treat this
> as needing to be crystal clear.
Certainly, but I still don't know what you're reading into this. Let me try this one more time. The rule as it's currently going to
be defined will be:
Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free license from RSA to use it, separate from whatever other license
applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into changing their mind, that's the story. No ambiguity intended.
Will it be royalty-free forever and ever? No idea. But whatever you're reading into the statement they posted, I can clearly
communicate that the above is exactly what we've been told in plain English.
If that's a deal-breaker for the board, then I'm simply suggesting that that be made clear so that the principals can either drop
the proposal or tell RSA that it's a problem. The latter has been done informally, but obviously there's a stronger case to be made
to them if we can say "change it or the standard isn't going to be accepted".
> No. Accepting the project should be tied to the licensing issues
> resolution. Meaning a legal agreement stating clearly that
> committers/developers/members have the right to use/develop the software
> unhindered and that users can use the software under the same conditions
> as goverened by the ASL license.
Unlike RSA's intent, the above is not clear to me. I have no idea whether a requirement to fax RSA a signed document constitutes a
"hindrance". If what you mean is that there are no other terms in play other than the ASL, then this is asked and answered, I think.
Right now, the answer is no, the ASL is only the code license. Right to use a SAML library (as opposed to a product) requires direct
permission from RSA at no cost.
> I do not think my concerns are petty and irrelevant as you seem to.
I'd ask that you please don't put words in my mouth. Your concerns are unclear to me. If they were petty and irrelevant, I wouldn't
be wasting my precious time responding to them.
-- Scott
Re: OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>I certainly disagree that I didn't address the issue. Your issue was that you didn't believe the RSA license (that may never get
>released, the way things are going ;-) would be royalty-free, which simply disregards the history of the discussion with RSA that
>you weren't part of. It will be, whether you believe it or not. Debating that is a waste of our time, since neither of us controls
>the terms.
>
>
I think we have a misunderstanding on what it was I'm taling about.
>*My* issue is that it still remains a license that developers would have to get, and there's no guarantee that the license will be
>royalty free forever, though I rather think it will. I agree, that's a concern, and it may be that Apache simply can't accept such
>any such terms. That's fine too.
>
>
There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than
LGPL section 6. . So I would expect the board to treat this as needing
to be crystal clear.
>I remain of the opinion that if the patent itself is the real issue, then you might as well vote now on that basis. If the terms of
>the license that they release sometime in the hopefully near future are the issue, then I think it's simply wise to defer the
>discussion until that time.
>
>
No. Accepting the project should be tied to the licensing issues
resolution. Meaning a legal agreement stating clearly that
committers/developers/members have the right to use/develop the software
unhindered and that users can use the software under the same conditions
as goverened by the ASL license.
>In any case, I haven't dropped it. If you want to vote it down, then do so, and we'll get on with life. Last I heard, the Apache
>representative who approached me had sent a note off to RSA expressing concern over the issue, and was awaiting a response.
>
>
I do not think my concerns are petty and irrelevant as you seem to.
Thanks,
Andy
>Sorry to interrupt, please resume your flaming as necessary.
>
>-- Scott
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
OpenSAML (was RE: Incubator DOA)
Posted by Scott Cantor <ca...@osu.edu>.
> It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board
> with some advice and consent by the members. The division of
> responsibility should be clarified here. One board member did respond.
> The proponent seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and
> I think it was mostly dropped.
I'm not sure if the "proponent" you're referring to is the author (me), or the person who solicited us to submit the project to the
new WS PMC.
In any case, I certainly agree with your first statement about it being a board-level issue.
I certainly disagree that I didn't address the issue. Your issue was that you didn't believe the RSA license (that may never get
released, the way things are going ;-) would be royalty-free, which simply disregards the history of the discussion with RSA that
you weren't part of. It will be, whether you believe it or not. Debating that is a waste of our time, since neither of us controls
the terms.
*My* issue is that it still remains a license that developers would have to get, and there's no guarantee that the license will be
royalty free forever, though I rather think it will. I agree, that's a concern, and it may be that Apache simply can't accept such
any such terms. That's fine too.
I remain of the opinion that if the patent itself is the real issue, then you might as well vote now on that basis. If the terms of
the license that they release sometime in the hopefully near future are the issue, then I think it's simply wise to defer the
discussion until that time.
In any case, I haven't dropped it. If you want to vote it down, then do so, and we'll get on with life. Last I heard, the Apache
representative who approached me had sent a note off to RSA expressing concern over the issue, and was awaiting a response.
Sorry to interrupt, please resume your flaming as necessary.
-- Scott
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
>> to the boards
>
>
> Nope.
>
>> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
>
>
> Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
I would rephrase this as:
"someone has to *champion* new requests"
Cheers Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 06:01 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> [..]
> Making progress on getting infrastructural resources is always very
> slow at Apache and probably always will be.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
-aaron
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
I'm dropping the issue for now. I don't have time to work it out. I'm
strictly going
to focus on tapestry:
1. Getting all its license issues worked out - (which seems done)
2. Getting in gump (to fit in with Jakarta)
3. Getting to project status.
I am specifically not going to focus on:
4. Making the incubator viable.
My motivation is to see Tapestry do well and make its way into Jakarta.
Later if there is some other project I want to
sponsor maybe I'll contribute to 4. (although the "incubator" is the
wrong approach)
-Andy
>
> Why is this concept so hard to understand? Incubator is a project.
> It is
> not an entity. By definition, anything done by way of incubation falls
> under the category of incubator. The only question is whether what is
> done is marked as progress or not, and for that somebody actually has
> to make note of it within the incubator module.
>
> This is no different from any other Apache project. I can spend hundreds
> of hours working on the best-thing-since-sliced-bread for an HTTP server,
> but no progress is made until I commit those changes to an httpd module
> and the rest of the project agrees (or doesn't disagree) that it is okay.
> Collaborative development requires that extra bit of work. If nobody
> does that work, then a project will never pass through incubator.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> The incubator will always be a cabbage. What does a cabbage have to
> do with Tapestry's incubation? Exactly.
Why is this concept so hard to understand? Incubator is a project. It
is
not an entity. By definition, anything done by way of incubation falls
under the category of incubator. The only question is whether what is
done is marked as progress or not, and for that somebody actually has
to make note of it within the incubator module.
This is no different from any other Apache project. I can spend
hundreds
of hours working on the best-thing-since-sliced-bread for an HTTP
server,
but no progress is made until I commit those changes to an httpd module
and the rest of the project agrees (or doesn't disagree) that it is
okay.
Collaborative development requires that extra bit of work. If nobody
does that work, then a project will never pass through incubator.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
>>
>>
>> In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
>> ground.
>
>
> Obviously you have more of a passion for quitting than you do for
> making progress. Why did you volunteer to be the shepherd?
For TAPESTRY and prior to the creation of the incubator. I have NO
passion for the incubator. I think its a bad idea in its current
implimentation.
>> . . In that case, I'm not getting paid for this, its not worth my
>> time. My interest is in seeing tapestry part of Jakarta not
>> debugging the incubator that I think is a bad idea anyhow. If its
>> what I make it, I wish to make the incubator into a cabbage.
>
>
> Which is why no progress is being made on incubation, because you aren't
> making any and would rather wait until someone else turns the cabbage
> into something useful. All fine and good, but stop complaining about it
> if you aren't willing to make it better.
No, progress is being made on Tapestry's legal compliance and fitting in
with Jakarta. Tapestry already had met the community guidelines before
being accepted into the "incubator". Making progress on getting
infrastructural resources is always very slow at Apache and probably
always will be.
The incubator will always be a cabbage. What does a cabbage have to do
with Tapestry's incubation? Exactly.
-Andy
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
>> Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
>
> In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
> ground.
Obviously you have more of a passion for quitting than you do for
making progress. Why did you volunteer to be the shepherd?
> I think the incubator is a waste. I try and work on something
> constructive and you say "it must be done my way or it will be
> ingored" well.
No, I said that if it isn't in CVS, then it won't be noticed by
incubator,
since our project memory is in CVS and always will be. I don't care
what
your opinion of incubator is or why you think pissing and moaning is
constructive, but making progress is a simple concept that should be
understandable by any Apache committer.
> . . In that case, I'm not getting paid for this, its not worth my
> time. My interest is in seeing tapestry part of Jakarta not debugging
> the incubator that I think is a bad idea anyhow. If its what I make
> it, I wish to make the incubator into a cabbage.
Which is why no progress is being made on incubation, because you aren't
making any and would rather wait until someone else turns the cabbage
into something useful. All fine and good, but stop complaining about it
if you aren't willing to make it better.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
In that case forget it. I won't waste my time. There is no middle
ground. I think the incubator is a waste. I try and work on something
constructive and you say "it must be done my way or it will be ingored"
well.. . In that case, I'm not getting paid for this, its not worth my
time. My interest is in seeing tapestry part of Jakarta not debugging
the incubator that I think is a bad idea anyhow. If its what I make it,
I wish to make the incubator into a cabbage.
-Andy
>
>> I still think a set of "here is what the goals are" "this means it
>> succeeded" "this means we need to change our minds"
>
>
> That sounds like a good start.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
>> The usual way -- people wanting it to happen will make it happen. If
>> people
>> don't want it to happen, it won't happen. However, let me make this
>> perfectly clear: anyone who thinks non-action on the part of incubator
>> will result in this process being handed back to the PMCs is smoking
>> some very bad dope. The default will be to not accept the project.
>> If you want to improve incubation, then you will have to improve
>> the incubator, and the only way to do that is by volunteering.
>
> The incubator is good because it provides a great benefit to the ASF
> and there is no other way because the incubator is good and it
> provides a great benefit to the ASF and there is no other way. Got > it.
That's infantile. "incubator" is a project. It should be obvious that
if
nobody works on the project, the task it was set out to accomplish won't
be accomplished. You can either continue pissing and moaning about lack
of progress or you can choose to make progress. Either way, it will
still
be called "incubator" when you are done, and it will still have sole
responsibility for accepting new code.
>> You were supposed to be the incubator.
>
> Wow in the long winded conversations going into this I was an
> irrelevant cog interrupting the grand incubator scheme.. Now I'm the
> incubator?
When was the last time you encountered an Apache project that was
actually wind-powered?
>>> So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?
>>
>> The PMC exists for the same reason other projects have PMCs -- to make
>> sure that committers get commit privs, to approve the guidelines when
>> they are documented, and to identify those people who have been given
>> the authority to make decisions on behalf of the ASF within its scope.
>> The PMC is supposed to be the people doing the work.
>
> It has done none of those things. Sam did the first, I did the third
> with regards to tapestry.
I know that.
>>> Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with
>>> Tapestry. So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't
>>> know what good the icubator did for it.
>>
>> You are the incubator. What do you think?
>
> Every response I tried to give resolved to "God so loved the world
> that he didn't send a committee"... and I'm not even a creationist.
Hey, if I wanted a parable ...
> I think I'll just spell out the sponsoring member's duties and
> who/what has is the real process. I will volunteer to document it.
> I'll forward the wiki page once I get it started.
Don't cry to me about ignored bits if you can't bother to use CVS.
> I still think a set of "here is what the goals are" "this means it
> succeeded" "this means we need to change our minds"
That sounds like a good start.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>>
>> Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has
>> exacerbated the mess.
>
>
> No, it has simply made it a little more obvious. The problem we had was
> that projects were being accepted without due diligence. The choice is
> now either to perform due diligence or not accept the project. Sorry if
> that slows things down, but I would rather not accept any more projects
> than continue to ignore the dirty laundry.
Again. I disagree.
>>
>> Great. How will this happen? Whats the plan to get there? And it
>> will be a logical falacy to put that back on me as I don't believe it
>> will in its present form/etc. ;-)
>
>
> The usual way -- people wanting it to happen will make it happen. If
> people
> don't want it to happen, it won't happen. However, let me make this
> perfectly clear: anyone who thinks non-action on the part of incubator
> will result in this process being handed back to the PMCs is smoking
> some very bad dope. The default will be to not accept the project.
> If you want to improve incubation, then you will have to improve
> the incubator, and the only way to do that is by volunteering.
The incubator is good because it provides a great benefit to the ASF and
there is no other way because the incubator is good and it provides a
great benefit to the ASF and there is no other way. Got it.
>> Well I sheparded the Tapestry thing so far as I had access to do so.
>> What role was the incubator supposed to play in this?
>
>
> You were supposed to be the incubator.
Wow in the long winded conversations going into this I was an irrelevant
cog interrupting the grand incubator scheme.. Now I'm the incubator?
>>
>> So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?
>
>
> The PMC exists for the same reason other projects have PMCs -- to make
> sure that committers get commit privs, to approve the guidelines when
> they are documented, and to identify those people who have been given
> the authority to make decisions on behalf of the ASF within its scope.
> The PMC is supposed to be the people doing the work.
It has done none of those things. Sam did the first, I did the third
with regards to tapestry.
>
>> Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with
>> Tapestry. So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't
>> know what good the icubator did for it.
>
>
> You are the incubator. What do you think?
Every response I tried to give resolved to "God so loved the world that
he didn't send a committee"... and I'm not even a creationist.
I think I'll just spell out the sponsoring member's duties and who/what
has is the real process. I will volunteer to document it. I'll
forward the wiki page once I get it started.
I still think a set of "here is what the goals are" "this means it
succeeded" "this means we need to change our minds"
-Andy
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
>>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with
>>> regards to the boards
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Okay. Well they are to me.
The board is capable of making any ASF decision and responsible for
everything. Incubator is responsible for what is listed in the STATUS
file
and capable of making decisions on those things on behalf of the ASF.
>>> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
>>
>> Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
>
> Thats a bit backwards.. So a new project coming has an internal
> owner right? And he's going to get access from where?
> Infrastructure,.... He might not be able to subscribe to
> infrastructure...
>
> Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has exacerbated
> the mess.
No, it has simply made it a little more obvious. The problem we had was
that projects were being accepted without due diligence. The choice is
now either to perform due diligence or not accept the project. Sorry if
that slows things down, but I would rather not accept any more projects
than continue to ignore the dirty laundry.
>>> 3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
>>> Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it appear to have benefitted
>>> from it.
>>
>> Irrelevant. The ASF benefits from it, or at least will once it
>> crosses
>> the hump.
>
> Great. How will this happen? Whats the plan to get there? And it
> will be a logical falacy to put that back on me as I don't believe it
> will in its present form/etc. ;-)
The usual way -- people wanting it to happen will make it happen. If
people
don't want it to happen, it won't happen. However, let me make this
perfectly clear: anyone who thinks non-action on the part of incubator
will result in this process being handed back to the PMCs is smoking
some very bad dope. The default will be to not accept the project.
If you want to improve incubation, then you will have to improve
the incubator, and the only way to do that is by volunteering.
>> Of course it should be expanded. The PMC should be the people doing
>> the
>> incubation. However, if we get no volunteers, then the correct
>> response
>> is that the ASF should not be accepting new projects.
>
> Well I sheparded the Tapestry thing so far as I had access to do so.
> What role was the incubator supposed to play in this?
You were supposed to be the incubator.
>>> I think the real problem here is that we're moving the
>>> responsibility away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
>>
>> No, we aren't. The problem is that the people motivated to accept it
>> are not motivated to do the work of accepting it, and hence are not
>> here
>> doing that work. Much of that is simply because they don't know that
>> they need to be here, they don't know what the work is, and they don't
>> know what is acceptable.
>>
>> Expecting some uncle-PMC to do those things is just backwards.
>
> So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?
The PMC exists for the same reason other projects have PMCs -- to make
sure that committers get commit privs, to approve the guidelines when
they are documented, and to identify those people who have been given
the authority to make decisions on behalf of the ASF within its scope.
The PMC is supposed to be the people doing the work.
> Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with
> Tapestry. So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't
> know what good the icubator did for it.
You are the incubator. What do you think?
....Roy
RE: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by James Cox <ja...@imajes.info>.
one of the problems incubator faces is that it is pretty much required that
anyone who takes the task needs to be a reasonable veteran of the ASF, or at
the very least a member. Hopefully by that stage, they'll know the ins and
outs.
Unfortunately, all these people are busy.
-- james
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
Sent: 12 March 2003 03:07
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
>> to the boards
>
>
> Nope.
Okay. Well they are to me.
>
>> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
>
>
> Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
Thats a bit backwards.. So a new project coming has an internal owner
right? And he's going to get access from where? Infrastructure,....
He might not be able to subscribe to infrastructure...
Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has exacerbated
the mess.
>
>> 3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
>> Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it appear to have benefitted
>> from it.
>
>
> Irrelevant. The ASF benefits from it, or at least will once it crosses
> the hump.
Great. How will this happen? Whats the plan to get there? And it will
be a logical falacy to put that back on me as I don't believe it will in
its present form/etc. ;-)
>
> Of course it should be expanded. The PMC should be the people doing the
> incubation. However, if we get no volunteers, then the correct response
> is that the ASF should not be accepting new projects.
Well I sheparded the Tapestry thing so far as I had access to do so.
What role was the incubator supposed to play in this?
>
>> I think the real problem here is that we're moving the responsibility
>> away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
>
>
> No, we aren't. The problem is that the people motivated to accept it
> are not motivated to do the work of accepting it, and hence are not here
> doing that work. Much of that is simply because they don't know that
> they need to be here, they don't know what the work is, and they don't
> know what is acceptable.
>
> Expecting some uncle-PMC to do those things is just backwards.
So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?
Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with
Tapestry. So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't know
what good the icubator did for it.
-Andy
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
>> to the boards
>
>
> Nope.
Okay. Well they are to me.
>
>> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
>
>
> Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
Thats a bit backwards.. So a new project coming has an internal owner
right? And he's going to get access from where? Infrastructure,....
He might not be able to subscribe to infrastructure...
Dude... We can agree to disagree but I think incubator has exacerbated
the mess.
>
>> 3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
>> Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it appear to have benefitted
>> from it.
>
>
> Irrelevant. The ASF benefits from it, or at least will once it crosses
> the hump.
Great. How will this happen? Whats the plan to get there? And it will
be a logical falacy to put that back on me as I don't believe it will in
its present form/etc. ;-)
>
> Of course it should be expanded. The PMC should be the people doing the
> incubation. However, if we get no volunteers, then the correct response
> is that the ASF should not be accepting new projects.
Well I sheparded the Tapestry thing so far as I had access to do so.
What role was the incubator supposed to play in this?
>
>> I think the real problem here is that we're moving the responsibility
>> away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
>
>
> No, we aren't. The problem is that the people motivated to accept it
> are not motivated to do the work of accepting it, and hence are not here
> doing that work. Much of that is simply because they don't know that
> they need to be here, they don't know what the work is, and they don't
> know what is acceptable.
>
> Expecting some uncle-PMC to do those things is just backwards.
So if the purpose of the PMC is to what?
Dion, myself and the tapestry committers did all the work with
Tapestry. So if thats the program congrats it worked...just don't know
what good the icubator did for it.
-Andy
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> 1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards
> to the boards
Nope.
> 2. The incubator is not responsive to new requests
Yep. Somebody needs to own each request.
> 3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
> Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it appear to have benefitted
> from it.
Irrelevant. The ASF benefits from it, or at least will once it crosses
the hump.
> I would suggest the Incubator PMC suggest a more limited scope (those
> things that they are actually able/willing to provide on a reliable
> basis) and that they suggest a plan to get there. It is possible (and
> I'm not volunteering) that the membership of the incubator PMC should
> be expanded in the event the problem is bandwidth.
Of course it should be expanded. The PMC should be the people doing the
incubation. However, if we get no volunteers, then the correct response
is that the ASF should not be accepting new projects.
> I think the real problem here is that we're moving the responsibility
> away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
No, we aren't. The problem is that the people motivated to accept it
are not motivated to do the work of accepting it, and hence are not here
doing that work. Much of that is simply because they don't know that
they need to be here, they don't know what the work is, and they don't
know what is acceptable.
Expecting some uncle-PMC to do those things is just backwards.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Conor MacNeill wrote:
>Andy,
>
>Please don't miss the point. The point is not whether these are suitable
>projects for Jakarta. That itself is an interesting question and you have a
>valid opinion. I really don't mind if the conclusion to these proposals is
>"Thanks, but we are not interested given the current situation ..." - I just
>want to see some conclusion - not just limbo.
>
>
No I get your point, I just want to make sure we are fair.
It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board
with some advice and consent by the
members. The division of responsibility should be clarified here. One
board member did respond. The proponent
seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and I think it
was mostly dropped.
It seemed to me the pluto folks expected an immediate rubber stamp
vote. I think they went away.
>The real point I'm making is about the "mysterious silence" as you call it. I
>saw no discussion from incubator PMC members on the Pluto proposal and
>nothing at all from anyone on Charon (It may have been assumed that it was
>part of Pluto - I don't know). Have the proposers given up, are they working
>on changing things, etc, etc.
>
>
Charon is kind of tied to Pluto.
>The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
>may have missed others.
>
>
That is completely fair.
>This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
>
>
so to be fair:
1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards to
the boards
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requrests
3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to
Tapestry, its first project. Nor does it appear to have benefitted from it.
I would suggest the Incubator PMC suggest a more limited scope (those
things that they are actually able/willing to provide on a reliable
basis) and that they suggest a plan to get there. It is possible (and
I'm not volunteering) that the membership of the incubator PMC should be
expanded in the event the problem is bandwidth.
I think the real problem here is that we're moving the responsibility
away from those whom are motivated to accept it.
-Andy
>Conor
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Incubator PMC members, WAS: RE: Incubator DOA
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:28 AM
> Maybe part of my offer to chair swap with someone on the PMC, was
> perhaps to give anyone the opportunity to step down. Anyone who may lack
> the time to do anything for incubator presently ....
Having time to spare is usually something that is different from time
to time. Not being able to put in enough now doesn't mean you can't
next week or next month.
Sander
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Greg,
>>...
>>Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
>>like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
>>answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
>>opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
>>committer for about three years.
>>
>>
>
>Nobody needs to step down to "make room". The size of PMCs is unlimited. If
>you want to participate, then do so. Simultaneous with your stepping up to
>actually get stuff done, I would expect the Incubator Chair (Jim) to start a
>vote on adding you to the PMC. (technically, he could just add you :-), but
>I suspect he'd want to take a vote first)
>
>As with any PMC participation, it is usually based on demonstrable effort.
>And I don't think you have to be on the PMC to participate either...
>
>
OK, a little selling then..
I've already stepped up to work on incubator-site. Clearly the need for
me was to get AltRMI listed on the site, but I found it had not been
updated in a while. I did a small amount of repair work and updated the
whole site. Unsung at that stage, though root was involved in giving me
karma to the site. I generally take the attiude of if it needs doing
then do it.
Maybe part of my offer to chair swap with someone on the PMC, was
perhaps to give anyone the opportunity to step down. Anyone who may lack
the time to do anything for incubator presently ....
- Paul
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:29:02AM +0000, Paul Hammant wrote:
>...
> Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
> like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
> answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
> committer for about three years.
Nobody needs to step down to "make room". The size of PMCs is unlimited. If
you want to participate, then do so. Simultaneous with your stepping up to
actually get stuff done, I would expect the Incubator Chair (Jim) to start a
vote on adding you to the PMC. (technically, he could just add you :-), but
I suspect he'd want to take a vote first)
As with any PMC participation, it is usually based on demonstrable effort.
And I don't think you have to be on the PMC to participate either...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC didn't feel it was their
> jurisdiction.
and that some, though passionately interested, had real-life
concerns that prevented engagement.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> > [..] I
> > promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> > opportunities arise. [ .. ]
> Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
> the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
> and also possible that some of the PMC didn't feel it was their
> jurisdiction.
Was not trying to make an accusation, more like trying to "I'll be there". An election manifesto
of sorts.
- Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 11:29 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up
> (though like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I
> promise to answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
> opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
> committer for about three years.
As far as I'm concerned, the Incubator PMC does not require someone
to step down before someone else can be invited. I will try to nominate
people actively involved in the incubation process who have demonstrated
a willingness and desire to help manage the incubation process.
Second, please resend any questions to this list that you believe
the PMC failed to respond to. It is possible we simply missed it,
and also possible that some of the PMC didn't feel it was their
jurisdiction.
-aaron
RE: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:29 AM
> >The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
> >may have missed others.
> >
> >
> There was a very low vote, yes. The project is quite active though.
>
> >This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
> >
> >
> Perhaps.
>
> Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
> like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day).
Why would anyone need to step down? I don't think there is a cap on the
number of PMC members for Incubator.
Sander
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
>
>
>The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
>may have missed others.
>
>
There was a very low vote, yes. The project is quite active though.
>This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
>
>
Perhaps.
Does anyone want to step down from Incubator PMC? I'll step up (though
like many I'm pressured for spare hours in the day). I promise to
answer emails directed at the PMC, and vote though whenever
opportunities arise. I'm on the Avalon PMC and have been an Apache
committer for about three years.
Regards,
- Paul
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:24 pm, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> but then
> came one of those mysterious silences.
>
> In any case. I do not regard this as fault of the incubator.
>
Andy,
Please don't miss the point. The point is not whether these are suitable
projects for Jakarta. That itself is an interesting question and you have a
valid opinion. I really don't mind if the conclusion to these proposals is
"Thanks, but we are not interested given the current situation ..." - I just
want to see some conclusion - not just limbo.
The real point I'm making is about the "mysterious silence" as you call it. I
saw no discussion from incubator PMC members on the Pluto proposal and
nothing at all from anyone on Charon (It may have been assumed that it was
part of Pluto - I don't know). Have the proposers given up, are they working
on changing things, etc, etc.
The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I
may have missed others.
This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
Conor
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>I'd add to the list the Pluto and Charon proposals. I haven't seen any
>reaction from the incubator to these? I know there was some discussions and
>issues/hurdles raised by Andy but some sort of acknowledgment would be
>polite.
>
>
Note that as a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm -1 on the Pluto project
until such time as the
issues are resolved. I think there was some consensus on that.
It seemed to me that this isn't an incubator issue so much as the Pluto
folks hoped this would be a rubber
stamp process and didn't like it when they found out they had to change
and hence took their cookies and
went home.
The was some discussion from David Taylor that perhaps Pluto should just
be part of Jetspeed after all, but then
came one of those mysterious silences.
In any case. I do not regard this as fault of the incubator.
-Andy
>Conor
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>I'd add to the list the Pluto and Charon proposals. I haven't seen any
>reaction from the incubator to these? I know there was some discussions and
>issues/hurdles raised by Andy but some sort of acknowledgment would be
>polite.
>
>
Note that as a member of the Jakarta PMC I'm -1 on the Pluto project
until such time as the
issues are resolved. I think there was some consensus on that.
It seemed to me that this isn't an incubator issue so much as the Pluto
folks hoped this would be a rubber
stamp process and didn't like it when they found out they had to change
and hence took their cookies and
went home.
The was some discussion from David Taylor that perhaps Pluto should just
be part of Jetspeed after all, but then
came one of those mysterious silences.
In any case. I do not regard this as fault of the incubator.
-Andy
>Conor
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 12/03/2003 22.02:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
>>project or not.
...
> so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
> existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
> emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
> the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
> on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
> get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
> aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
> sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
> the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
> path will be to a new top-level project.
>
> im[h?]o.
MO as well, AFAIK.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Dum Question
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>For totally new projects with no destination? Then I honestly have no idea
>how to provide the "training" for those people. I don't believe the
>Incubator can do it, but I'm also not going to even try to obstruct others
>who feel it is (I'd just hope people provide due consideration to whether
>the Incubator is the right approach). i.e. within my time constraints, I'd
>happily participate in verifying that logistical requirements have been met,
>but "training" is too amorphous for me to deal with properly [in this
>context].
>
>
If the incubator actually started providing logicial support 80% of my
rant would be rendered irrelvant.
Thanks,
-Andy
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>
>
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:02:59PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>...
> i believe you are mistaken. that model only permits new adoptions
> into existing projects -- which is most definitely not the sole
> scenario. iirc, that is *one* scenario -- but the incubator has
> the task of fielding requests from external projects that want to
> become part of apache.
Ah. Excllent point, which I hadn't considered. I completely agree.
The point which I've made in the past, but would like to reiterate is that I
see the Incubator as a logistics manager for incoming projects. Not as a
training ground. The future TLP is the training ground simply on the basis
that it will be providing oversight to the incoming codebase.
For totally new projects with no destination? Then I honestly have no idea
how to provide the "training" for those people. I don't believe the
Incubator can do it, but I'm also not going to even try to obstruct others
who feel it is (I'd just hope people provide due consideration to whether
the Incubator is the right approach). i.e. within my time constraints, I'd
happily participate in verifying that logistical requirements have been met,
but "training" is too amorphous for me to deal with properly [in this
context].
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote, On 13/03/2003 17.01:
...
> If we lack the resources to do an adequate job,
> we should respectfully decline rather than try to "make do" and
> do a half-arsed job.
I think this is something that really has to be remembered.
Probably we should forget that help from other non-incubators can do
work for us, at least not all.
For subprojects that have strong sponsors, we still need to make
assessments here based on the checklist (that will also get better over
time), and have one of us take 'shepherd' role for the project.
For those that will want to become TLPs, it will be much harder, and
your comment strikes the point.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 4:02 PM -0500 3/12/03, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
>existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
>emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
>the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
>on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
>get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
>aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
>sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
>the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
>path will be to a new top-level project.
>
The latter case will, by design, require much more involvement
from the Incubator than the former, and any acceptance should keep
that in mind. If we lack the resources to do an adequate job,
we should respectfully decline rather than try to "make do" and
do a half-arsed job.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
> project or not. Some other ASF PMC says "we want this project to migrate
> into the ASF" [after whatever vote] and sends the project to the Incubator.
> The Incubator then processes it. Upon completion, the new project is part of
> the original PMC.
i believe you are mistaken. that model only permits new adoptions
into existing projects -- which is most definitely not the sole
scenario. iirc, that is *one* scenario -- but the incubator has
the task of fielding requests from external projects that want to
become part of apache.
so a project can enter either because it was sponsored by an
existing asf project that commits to provide a home for it on
emergence, or by applying out of the blue. in the former case,
the incubator probably doesn't get to vote on acceptance, only
on emergence. in the latter case, however, the incubator *does*
get to decide. part of the decision is to make existing projects
aware of the application in case any of them want to become a
sponsor. if none do, then the incubator gets to decide whether
the project would be an asset to the asf, and, if so, the exit
path will be to a new top-level project.
im[h?]o.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Dum Question
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:57:04AM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> To Accept a project:
>
> 1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
> does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
> 2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
I've said before: I don't think the Incubator gets to vote on accepting a
project or not. Some other ASF PMC says "we want this project to migrate
into the ASF" [after whatever vote] and sends the project to the Incubator.
The Incubator then processes it. Upon completion, the new project is part of
the original PMC.
There is the possibility that PMCs will overburden the Incubator with
incoming projects. Fine... the incubator just slows down on its processing.
But the original PMC that *did* the loading will then want to lend a hand.
The Incubator PMC *does* vote on the release of a project -- has the project
met the required steps/guides/"paperwork".
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Dum Question WAS Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF]
Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
To Accept a project:
1. Another PMC must sign off on it but can't vote a project in. (What
does that mean exactly? A head nod?)
2. The Incubator PMC must then vote to accept the project.
However the board/etc have stated a preference to not have
Uber-projects. Therefore the above model seems contrary to this wish.
So if the Incubator PMC is not predisposed to like...vote...
The project is rejected.
So if no one on the incubator votes (which is currently true) or
responds except Nicola Ken....
-Andy
Re: Incubator - where do we go from here
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 07:11 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
[excellent checklist snipped]
> - Who tracks down things in the status file?
> incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
Anyone who posts a patch to this list or has commit access to that
respository.
> As Incubator
>
> - We need more helpers. If someone wants to become part of this PMC,
> please start helping in any way possible, and we'll vote him in in
> case.
Volunteers here need not be members of the PMC, but they will be
invited in over
time (just like every other ASF project I've been involved in).
> - We need incubators responsible for projects. I'd propose to be
> responsible for Tapestry ATM.
Anyone who contributes is responsible, so yeah that includes you. :)
-aaron
Re: Incubator - where do we go from here
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 4:11 PM +0100 3/12/03, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>* Copyright
>
> - Have the papers that transfer the rights to the ASF been recieved?
> - Is fax sufficient?
> - Who sent what?
>
>* verification of IP rights (meaning the ASF can distribute the code)
>
> - What does this exactly mean WRT the previous item?
>
>* establishment of a list of active committers
>
> - Are all active committers in the STATUS file?
> - Do they have access to CVS?
> - Did they all send the signed paper?
> - Is fax sufficient?
>
>* infrastructure aspects
>
> - Are mailing lists set up?
> - Are they archived?
> - Is Bugzilla set up?
> - Is the site migrated to our infrastructure?
>
>* documented decisions by those committers to do things
> (like release code, move to Jakarta, etc.)
>
> - What does this mean?
> - Who is the release manager?
> - Are releases being properly signed, mirrored and accepted by the PMC?
>
>* organizational acceptance of responsibility for the project (i.e., a vote by the destination PMC or creation of a new PMC by the board).
>
> - Has the Jakarta PMC accepted it with a vote?
>
>* Responsibility
>
> - Who is responsibly to this PMC for Tapestry?
> - Who tracks down things in the status file?
> incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
>
++1!
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Incubator - where do we go from here
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Geez, a night and half a day, and I get loooads of mails and rants on
the list. Ok, let's see to get some order in it, and be constructive.
First of all:
Roy T. Fielding wrote, On 12/03/2003 3.26:
>
> -1. I see no evidence that the task has been accomplished.
> Accomplish
> the task and then the Tapestry committers and Jakarta committers can
> choose to house Tapestry wherever they like. The point of incubator
> is to make sure such self-governing committer groups exist in order
> for them to make the decision, not for us to make the decision for
> them.
From what I read on the other mails, I agree too.
What should we do? Here it comes:
Greg Stein wrote, On 12/03/2003 8.54:
...
> Constructive criticism of the day:
> establish the checklist, get projects signed off, and move 'em along.
> Very objective, and very satisfying to those involved.
...
>
> There is a definite need for the Incubator, but I think the people who
> advocated it as a "community builder" need to reassess that concept.
Ok, I start to see the light here. And what has happened to Tapestry is
a very clear indication that the above is exactly the point.
So we need a checklist to perform... here goes a version:
Roy T. Fielding wrote, On 12/03/2003 4.18:
> The same ones you have been saying all along. Copyright, verification
> of IP rights (meaning the ASF can distribute the code), establishment
> of a list of active committers, documented decisions by those
> committers to do things (like release code, move to Jakarta, etc.),
> and organizational acceptance of responsibility for the project
> (i.e., a vote by the destination PMC or creation of a new PMC by
> the board).
So, what we need now is to decide on this list and get it done.
I also need help here from Dion, Andy and others to see the point we
have come to WRT these items.
We will define them and asses them in parallel for Tapestry.
* Copyright
- Have the papers that transfer the rights to the ASF been recieved?
- Is fax sufficient?
- Who sent what?
* verification of IP rights (meaning the ASF can distribute the code)
- What does this exactly mean WRT the previous item?
* establishment of a list of active committers
- Are all active committers in the STATUS file?
- Do they have access to CVS?
- Did they all send the signed paper?
- Is fax sufficient?
* infrastructure aspects
- Are mailing lists set up?
- Are they archived?
- Is Bugzilla set up?
- Is the site migrated to our infrastructure?
* documented decisions by those committers to do things
(like release code, move to Jakarta, etc.)
- What does this mean?
- Who is the release manager?
- Are releases being properly signed, mirrored and accepted by the PMC?
* organizational acceptance of responsibility for the project (i.e., a
vote by the destination PMC or creation of a new PMC by the board).
- Has the Jakarta PMC accepted it with a vote?
* Responsibility
- Who is responsibly to this PMC for Tapestry?
- Who tracks down things in the status file?
incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
As Incubator
- We need more helpers. If someone wants to become part of this PMC,
please start helping in any way possible, and we'll vote him in in case.
- We need to have projects discuss things *here*. I see thiungs being
done outside, and rants happen here. Not good.
- We need incubators responsible for projects. I'd propose to be
responsible for Tapestry ATM.
- Let's get here the docs that Dion talked about from the tapestry work.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 11:54 PM -0800 3/11/03, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly
>problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people
>associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have
>a bunch of unrelated volunteers. It's a recipe for status quo. With a more
>limited mission, and an objective progress meter, then the Incubator is
>about verifying process rather than needing to participate.
>
Incubator has had to hit the ground running, as it were. I think it's
done an adequate job, but Yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
On one hand, people want Incubator to be a simple rubber stamp, which
is unacceptable IMO. Yet, on the other hand you have people who
gripe and complain whenever anyone from Incubator makes suggestions
("All talk, no action", etc... blah blah blah). It's a tough line
to walk.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>Again, IMO, I don't see the Incubator in the role you're thinking of. If the
>Incubator is mostly about logistics rather than evaluation, then there is no
>potential for rejection. They simply won't hit the Incubator if there wasn't
>a sponsor PMC to say "we'll take them when you're done".
>
>
There in lies the catch 22. The PMCs don't see a need to vote a
"pseudo-acceptence" and point people to the incubator. . The incubator
then points them back at the PMC.
I don't like searching archives, but this has happened already.
If it were clearly spelled out it would help.. . However I'm not
volunteering since like its not clear to me either. (I could write
something but it would be a lie ;-) )
-Andy
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:19:49PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>...
> Is there then any reason why project can't 'incubate' on non-Apache
> hardware? Sourceforge?
It doesn't sound as clean, but possibly. I'd be concerned with the oversight
that the Incubator needs to apply while getting everything set up and proper
within the ASF. With it located elsewhere, that becomes a bit more
difficult.
Call me a -0 on allowing off-site incubation.
> This would remove the most (potentially) unfair aspect of incubation:
> that projects can be rejected, and must then relocate all their
> infrastructure off Apache.
Again, IMO, I don't see the Incubator in the role you're thinking of. If the
Incubator is mostly about logistics rather than evaluation, then there is no
potential for rejection. They simply won't hit the Incubator if there wasn't
a sponsor PMC to say "we'll take them when you're done".
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:54:02PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
...
> From a legal standpoint, the Incubator was created to ensure that we had our
> i's dotted and t's crossed. Beyond that, I have little opinion. IMO, the
> Incubator is more about process and checklists, than warm fuzzies and
> "teaching about the community". Docco on the community, its expections, and
> the ASF culture should be provided by the Incubator to *ALL* of the ASF, not
> just those projects which are arriving. The culture is all of the ASF, and
> the entire ASF participates; there are a lot of things that new committers
> to existing projects need to learn. Not just the committers arriving via the
> incubated projects.
>
>
> Constructive criticism of the day: establish the checklist, get projects
> signed off, and move 'em along. Very objective, and very satisfying to those
> involved.
>
>
> But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly
> problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people
> associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have
> a bunch of unrelated volunteers. It's a recipe for status quo. With a more
> limited mission, and an objective progress meter, then the Incubator is
> about verifying process rather than needing to participate.
>
> There is a definite need for the Incubator, but I think the people who
> advocated it as a "community builder" need to reassess that concept.
Agreed.
Is there then any reason why project can't 'incubate' on non-Apache
hardware? Sourceforge?
This would remove the most (potentially) unfair aspect of incubation:
that projects can be rejected, and must then relocate all their
infrastructure off Apache.
--Jeff
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:07:12PM +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:33 am, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
> > projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
> > This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
> I have to agree. AFAICT, accepting subprojects in the raison d'etre of the
> Incubator. I was surprised by the statement that the incubator does not want
> subprojects. IIRC, the board has said that all subprojects must come through
> the incubator. If it's just a cork, what's the point of it?
We have had *numerous* problems in the past with code arriving in the CVS
repository *without* the proper legal footwork. In my mind, that is the
primary reason for the Incubator -- to ensure that the ASF has right and
title to all arriving code.
RE: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:striker@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:29 AM
>> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>
>>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>>> begged, both here and the incubator.
>>
>> I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
>> request to infrastructure, which is where it should go.
>
> My guess is that was me. AFAIK all requests were followed up on.
> There were some bumps in the road and it took a bit longer.
Nevermind.
"I shall read all my mail before replying"
"I shall read all my mail before replying"
"I shall read all my mail before replying"
...
> But this is certainly not something limited to Tapestry.
This still holds. There seems to be an archival problem. I'll go
and poke our eyebrowse man ;).
Sander
RE: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:19 AM
>> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
>> begged, both here and the incubator.
>
> I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
> request to infrastructure, which is where it should go.
My guess is that was me. AFAIK all requests were followed up on.
There were some bumps in the road and it took a bit longer.
But this is certainly not something limited to Tapestry.
Sander
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
> begged, both
> here and the incubator.
I was talking about incubator. I notice that somebody forwarded their
request
to infrastructure, which is where it should go.
>> Who is the RM for incubation of Tapestry? We have a STATUS file:
>
> Define RM.
release manager -- that person responsible for building a release
candidate,
which in our case translates into someone preparing the project for
exit from the incubator.
>> incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
>>
>> I see no evidence of any progress of Tapestry towards fulfilling the
>> conditions on incubation. Does that mean the STATUS file needs
>> updating?
>> Please let me know who should have commit access to it.
>
> What are those conditions?
The same ones you have been saying all along. Copyright, verification
of IP rights (meaning the ASF can distribute the code), establishment
of a list of active committers, documented decisions by those committers
to do things (like release code, move to Jakarta, etc.), and
organizational
acceptance of responsibility for the project (i.e., a vote by the
destination PMC or creation of a new PMC by the board).
> Give commit access to Howard Lewis Ship and let him know
> what the conditions are. I'm sure he'll be happy to update it.
Done. All committers for tapestry and altrmi now have commit access to
incubator and incubator-site.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
> What I see is Tapestry asking incubator to do things that only
> infrastructure can accomplish (because we don't have the user privs)
> and complaining here. Sorry dudes, but I tune out people who start
> their message by pissing and moaning about the behavior of those
> people from whom they wish a favor. We are all volunteers.
With all due respect Roy, thats not fair. They've asked, they've
begged, both
here and the incubator.
> Who is the RM for incubation of Tapestry? We have a STATUS file:
Define RM.
>
> incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
>
> I see no evidence of any progress of Tapestry towards fulfilling the
> conditions on incubation. Does that mean the STATUS file needs updating?
> Please let me know who should have commit access to it.
What are those conditions? Give commit access to Howard Lewis Ship and
let him know
what the conditions are. I'm sure he'll be happy to update it.
-Andy
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>Infrastructure should have its own request tracker, but that is a completely
>different story...
>
>
bugzilla.
>Sander
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
RE: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:21 AM
> No, accepting the donation of new code has to come though incubator.
> Unfortunately, the incubator PMC currently consists of the same people
> who have over-volunteered their time for all of the other projects that
> aren't getting done in the ASF.
I'm sad to admit that is true. Furthermore personal life and work can get
in the way of doing things in a rather efficient way aswell. Unfortunate
but real.
> Furthermore, there are no project guidelines for incubator that say who
> gets to vote and what we might be voting about, let alone how we track
> requests for infrastructure.
Infrastructure should have its own request tracker, but that is a completely
different story...
Sander
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> I have to agree. AFAICT, accepting subprojects in the raison d'etre of
> the
> Incubator. I was surprised by the statement that the incubator does
> not want
> subprojects. IIRC, the board has said that all subprojects must come
> through
> the incubator. If it's just a cork, what's the point of it?
No, accepting the donation of new code has to come though incubator.
Unfortunately, the incubator PMC currently consists of the same people
who have over-volunteered their time for all of the other projects that
aren't getting done in the ASF. Furthermore, there are no project
guidelines for incubator that say who gets to vote and what we might
be voting about, let alone how we track requests for infrastructure.
Does anyone want to volunteer for those tasks? Or just do them?
I'll be happy to give you whatever commit access is needed.
What I see is Tapestry asking incubator to do things that only
infrastructure can accomplish (because we don't have the user privs)
and complaining here. Sorry dudes, but I tune out people who start
their message by pissing and moaning about the behavior of those
people from whom they wish a favor. We are all volunteers.
Yes, the documentation is insufficient. Sorry, someone made the mistake
of introducing an entry-barrier on the docs, which means it will be a
while before anyone other than Ken or Nicola Ken will get around to
editing the documentation directly. Most of the decisions on incubator
are on hold pending other site-wide or community-wide or board issues
that soak up 110% of everyone's time.
Who is the RM for incubation of Tapestry? We have a STATUS file:
incubator/projects/tapestry/STATUS
I see no evidence of any progress of Tapestry towards fulfilling the
conditions on incubation. Does that mean the STATUS file needs
updating?
Please let me know who should have commit access to it.
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:33 am, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>
> The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
> projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
> This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
I have to agree. AFAICT, accepting subprojects in the raison d'etre of the
Incubator. I was surprised by the statement that the incubator does not want
subprojects. IIRC, the board has said that all subprojects must come through
the incubator. If it's just a cork, what's the point of it?
>
> I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missing out
> somehow.
>
The issue is that the incubator is not incubating. It's cold and the eggs are
going off. We need to get them somewhere where they might just hatch. If
there are issues with Tapestry, will they be addressed here?
> I'm hoping that the incubator project didn't delegate the incubation of
> Tapestry to myself and Andy without somehow informing us. There have been
> various requests along the way for more information and documentation
> along the way, and many unanswered emails {1-4} etc.
>
I'd add to the list the Pluto and Charon proposals. I haven't seen any
reaction from the incubator to these? I know there was some discussions and
issues/hurdles raised by Andy but some sort of acknowledgment would be
polite.
Conor
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Sure,
I'm happy to commit documentation we've gleaned from Tapestry.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
"Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org> wrote on 12/03/2003 01:29:44 PM:
> > The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that
> > new
> > projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra
> > helper.
> > This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
>
> People need to do that. Projects don't do anything. Incubator is
> simply
> a group of people given the authority to make decisions about the
> process.
> We still need people to write the documentation and follow the process.
> Who wants commit access for that purpose?
>
> ....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>.
> The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that
> new
> projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra
> helper.
> This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
People need to do that. Projects don't do anything. Incubator is
simply
a group of people given the authority to make decisions about the
process.
We still need people to write the documentation and follow the process.
Who wants commit access for that purpose?
....Roy
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> wrote on 12/03/2003 09:18:34 AM:
> I think that probably in case of subprojects it's quite obvious that
> PMCs should take the incubation into account themselves. One from us
> could simple monitor that project for some time and help needed, but
> only as an extra helper.
The Incubator project needs to take a proactive role in ensuring that new
projects are brought to Apache the right way, not just be an extra helper.
This means documentation, processes to be followed etc.
> > IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
> > without being further jerked around.
>
> I'd agree.
I'm worried that Tapestry hasn't been incubated, and hence is missing out
somehow.
> Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
> Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
> that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
> not done goes to our demerit.
I'll agree to disagree on that point.
> If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot
> delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
> Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
I'm hoping that the incubator project didn't delegate the incubation of
Tapestry to myself and Andy without somehow informing us. There have been
various requests along the way for more information and documentation
along the way, and many unanswered emails {1-4} etc.
> I'll make a more articulated summary on this soon. I hope I've been able
> to capture the failings that have brought to this rant and address them,
> at least tentatively, in a reasonable manner.
Having been involved in helping Tapestry, I feel a complete absence of any
incubation presence working with the project. I can't speak about any
other effort.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00150.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00139.html
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00138.html
[4] http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg00065.html
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
> Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
> that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
> not done goes to our demerit.
>
> If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot
> delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
> Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
I think there is a misconception of the role of the PMC in this. I see
two simultaneous roles w/in the Incubator Project:
1) Active oversight and "management" of the Incubator process.
2) Actual Incubation (creation of project resources, charters,
community building,
voting policies, brainwashing^Wer, ASF Culture, etc...);
molding of a project/community into something acceptable to the ASF
and to the
receiving ASF project (and that Project's PMC).
I'm not here to tell java people how to form their mailing lists or
their charters or their source code directories or their JAR
repositories.
I don't claim to have the knowledge that would benefit this, nor the
time or interest. IMHO that is not the job of anyone on the Incubator
PMC.
As we begin to feel out this Incubation process, I think the separation
of roles will become more clear. Right now we don't really know yet what
patterns will emerge in the process of creating new projects.
-aaron
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote, On 11/03/2003 6.04:
> Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start.
Thanks, I like constructive attitude.
> It is busy failing in practice.
It has failed for the first project, which it actually never incubated.
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
First of all not all projects want or can start as subprojects.
As for "disinterested", I'll take it constructively... yes, the
Incubator PMC is less interested than other project in accepting
subprojects.
I think that probably in case of subprojects it's quite obvious that
PMCs should take the incubation into account themselves. One from us
could simple monitor that project for some time and help needed, but
only as an extra helper.
We should stay around also to be an initial filter (witness the case of
the lates WS PMC request and license issues), and as a helper for those
projects that won't have accepting PMCs. These will have to remain on
*our* lists and CVS, or else we have no control.
> IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
> without being further jerked around.
I'd agree.
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
We have had (and I'm also replying to Dion about his earlier request), a
project called Tapestry that has been a first for us. We are a project
ourselves, and you seem to me a bit too harsh in your comments.
Anyway, Tapestry has *not* been incubated, at least not by the
Incubator. It has been followed by Dion and Andy (whom I thank BTW),
that are not Incubator PMCers. I don't see how something that we have
not done goes to our demerit.
If there is one thing that I have learned from this, is that we cannot
delegate to others that are not from this PMC.
Another is that we need more PMCers, especially from the Java land.
I'll make a more articulated summary on this soon. I hope I've been able
to capture the failings that have brought to this rant and address them,
at least tentatively, in a reasonable manner.
Thanks.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Michael Wechner wrote, On 11/03/2003 23.08:
...
> But I think Jeff has a point. For instance in the case of Lenya,
> discussions quickly moved to cocoon-dev, because we
> proposed Lenya as a Cocoon subproject, and hence the Cocoon community
> cared about it.
Yes, I also have seen this.
I'll see what I can come up with ASAP.
Thanks for the patience.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.org>.
I think Incubator is very fine for defining, refining and formalizing a
general Apache Incubation
process, which then should be applied by the various Apache top-level
projects, because else
you might end up with "Baby-Apaches" (but I guess this might be not just
because there are different opinions on the incubation process, but
other stuff as well).
But I think Jeff has a point. For instance in the case of Lenya,
discussions quickly moved to cocoon-dev, because we
proposed Lenya as a Cocoon subproject, and hence the Cocoon community
cared about it.
Thanks
Michael
Paul Hammant wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>There is more than just Tapestry in incubator.
>
>- Paul
>
> --- Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote: > Feh.
>
>
>>Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
>>practice.
>>
>>PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
>>disinterested Incubator PMC.
>>
>>IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
>>without being further jerked around.
>>
>>I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
>>
>>
>>--Jeff
>>
>>On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:58:22PM -0500, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
>>>
>>>Despite repeated attempts, Tapestry is NOT in BugZilla. We're still forced
>>>to use SourceForge for bug tracking.
>>>
>>>Tapestry's mailing lists are not getting archived any more (not since 2/21).
>>>
>>>Nobody seems to know ANY of the procedures for getting things done. Nothing
>>>is documented. Simple things like the correct way to distribute a release
>>>(including signing and mirroring) are just "known" by the right people ...
>>>and I don't even know who is in the know.
>>>
>>>Andrew and Dion have been helpful, both before the move and after.
>>>
>>>The only other accomplishment of the incubation process has been a code
>>>audit that resulted in a shuffling of the libraries checked into CVS and
>>>distributed with the framework.
>>>
>>>Jakarta infrastructure is non-existent. Worse, the Jakarta culture
>>>erroneously expects things to get done based on e-mails, rather than
>>>something organized, like using BugZilla to track infrastructure requests.
>>>
>>>The Incubator team has yet to provide a time table or a check list to
>>>indicate what the exit criteria are. In terms of Tapestry's commitments to
>>>the Incubator, it looks like we're more than there (based on
>>>http://incubator.apache.org/process.html). In terms of Incubator's
>>>commitments to Tapestry ... that is, to assist Tapestry in moving into
>>>Jakarta, fitting in, and accessing infrastructure; very little has been
>>>accomplished.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>>>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>>>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
Jeff,
There is more than just Tapestry in incubator.
- Paul
--- Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org> wrote: > Feh.
>
> Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
> practice.
>
> PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
> disinterested Incubator PMC.
>
> IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
> without being further jerked around.
>
> I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
>
>
> --Jeff
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:58:22PM -0500, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> > How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
> >
> > Despite repeated attempts, Tapestry is NOT in BugZilla. We're still forced
> > to use SourceForge for bug tracking.
> >
> > Tapestry's mailing lists are not getting archived any more (not since 2/21).
> >
> > Nobody seems to know ANY of the procedures for getting things done. Nothing
> > is documented. Simple things like the correct way to distribute a release
> > (including signing and mirroring) are just "known" by the right people ...
> > and I don't even know who is in the know.
> >
> > Andrew and Dion have been helpful, both before the move and after.
> >
> > The only other accomplishment of the incubation process has been a code
> > audit that resulted in a shuffling of the libraries checked into CVS and
> > distributed with the framework.
> >
> > Jakarta infrastructure is non-existent. Worse, the Jakarta culture
> > erroneously expects things to get done based on e-mails, rather than
> > something organized, like using BugZilla to track infrastructure requests.
> >
> > The Incubator team has yet to provide a time table or a check list to
> > indicate what the exit criteria are. In terms of Tapestry's commitments to
> > the Incubator, it looks like we're more than there (based on
> > http://incubator.apache.org/process.html). In terms of Incubator's
> > commitments to Tapestry ... that is, to assist Tapestry in moving into
> > Jakarta, fitting in, and accessing infrastructure; very little has been
> > accomplished.
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
Feh.
Incubation was a dumb idea from the start. It is busy failing in
practice.
PMCs should manage the acceptance of new subprojects, not some
disinterested Incubator PMC.
IMHO, scrap this failed experiment and let Tapestry migrate to Jakarta
without being further jerked around.
I feel I'm stating the blindingly obvious. Is it just me?
--Jeff
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:58:22PM -0500, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> How, exactly, is Tapestry ever expected to exit the proposal stage?
>
> Despite repeated attempts, Tapestry is NOT in BugZilla. We're still forced
> to use SourceForge for bug tracking.
>
> Tapestry's mailing lists are not getting archived any more (not since 2/21).
>
> Nobody seems to know ANY of the procedures for getting things done. Nothing
> is documented. Simple things like the correct way to distribute a release
> (including signing and mirroring) are just "known" by the right people ...
> and I don't even know who is in the know.
>
> Andrew and Dion have been helpful, both before the move and after.
>
> The only other accomplishment of the incubation process has been a code
> audit that resulted in a shuffling of the libraries checked into CVS and
> distributed with the framework.
>
> Jakarta infrastructure is non-existent. Worse, the Jakarta culture
> erroneously expects things to get done based on e-mails, rather than
> something organized, like using BugZilla to track infrastructure requests.
>
> The Incubator team has yet to provide a time table or a check list to
> indicate what the exit criteria are. In terms of Tapestry's commitments to
> the Incubator, it looks like we're more than there (based on
> http://incubator.apache.org/process.html). In terms of Incubator's
> commitments to Tapestry ... that is, to assist Tapestry in moving into
> Jakarta, fitting in, and accessing infrastructure; very little has been
> accomplished.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry