You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> on 2005/08/31 20:01:29 UTC
a few steps before approving a project
I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the
ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new
projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our
current set of rules where any of our 30+ PMCs can approve a new
project for incubation and where the Incubator PMC itself has a pretty
informal process for evaluating new proposals.
Here are some of the ideas I have in mind (note that some are
dependent on the implementation of others):
- change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
- ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
questions is answered.
- add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
- consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
*before* a project is approved.
- require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
statement with some other organization).
I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> What if a current PMC wants to start an effort on its own? That is,
> not
> incubation style, where there's a process of "learning the Apache Way"
> etc., but rather some ASF committers getting together and starting
> a new
> project and they come to the PMC for approval.
>
> Does the incubator PMC get involved with that too? (I'd be most
> certainly -1 to that; I am not agreeable to saying all PMCs are now
> throttled by the incubator PMC.)
Yep. ALL new projects must enter the Incubator. One main
aspect of the Incubator is to be a funnel (or throttle)
for the ASF in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 8/31/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:01 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
> > and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
> > acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
> > fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
>
> You're missing a key point: Incubation is supposed to be the *starting
> point* for getting a project into the ASF. Graduation is the process for
> getting it approved, not starting incubation. Are you seriously
> suggesting that we change that?? If not IMO the checks need to be *while
> incubating* and not prior to incubation, but YMMV.
My point is that the approval of a project for incubation has been
proven many times to have PR impact and other ramifications (whether
the ASF drafts or approves a press release or not). And if there are
any concerns about a project that can be known before accepting it for
incubation, I think the concerns should be considered at that time,
not after what is typically a 6-12 month graduation period. I
continue to stand behind out incubator branding guidelines, but I also
think we have to recognize that simply accepting a project for
incubation is perceived as a statement by the ASF.
This is why I think we need to add more consideration to the
acceptance of projects for incubation.
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> The Incubator's charter from the board says:
>> <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
>> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
>> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation;
>> and be
>> it further
>>
>> Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board
>> delegated
>> this to the Incubator PMC.
>>
>
> Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
> any in-bred ones.
>
> So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong??
Nope, at least not in my viewpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 9/1/05, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> --On September 1, 2005 10:50:20 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the answer to one or more of the questions was not simply "yes",
> > then there might be another step or two, such as requiring you or your
> > employer to sign and submit a "software grant". Some folks might say
> > you always have to sign and submit a software grant for all large
> > contributions, but with my Legal Affairs hat on, I'm not aware of why
> > that would be necessary if the answer to all questions above is "yes".
>
> For code developed on our public mailing lists, then I don't think a
> software grant is warranted; but for works developed wholly outside of the
> ASF, I think it is prudent to have the grant on file. -- justin
Sure - it certainly doesn't hurt, and I don't care enough to debate
this point when there are so many other fun things to debate these
days. ;-) I'll wait to discuss this when (if ever) I hear complaints
that the software grant becomes an burden for committers who aren't
sure when a large patch that includes some old functions they wrote
years ago turns into something requiring a software grant.
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 10:50:20 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the answer to one or more of the questions was not simply "yes",
> then there might be another step or two, such as requiring you or your
> employer to sign and submit a "software grant". Some folks might say
> you always have to sign and submit a software grant for all large
> contributions, but with my Legal Affairs hat on, I'm not aware of why
> that would be necessary if the answer to all questions above is "yes".
For code developed on our public mailing lists, then I don't think a
software grant is warranted; but for works developed wholly outside of the
ASF, I think it is prudent to have the grant on file. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
Remember that putting "code" through incubation (as opposed to a
"community") can be a really fast process -- as fast as someone can
give a solid account to the Incubator PMC of the audit trail of the
code.
But, yes -- it sounds like such a thing probably should have been
brought through the Incubator. In this case, speaking as a member of
the Incubator PMC and as the Legal Affairs guy, I would ask the
following questions:
1. Are you the author of all the code? Are you sure none of the code
is a derivative work of some other IP not owned by you?
2. Are you sure your employer (if any) doesn't have a claim on the IP
rights associated with the code?
3. Do you already have a signed individual CLA on file with the ASF?
If the answers to all questions is "yes", I would vote that the code
should immediately "graduate" from incubation. If that was the
consensus of the rest of the PMC, it would be that quick.
If the answer to one or more of the questions was not simply "yes",
then there might be another step or two, such as requiring you or your
employer to sign and submit a "software grant". Some folks might say
you always have to sign and submit a software grant for all large
contributions, but with my Legal Affairs hat on, I'm not aware of why
that would be necessary if the answer to all questions above is "yes".
Cliff
On 9/1/05, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> So, does that mean that Jakarta Commons Proxy will have to go through the
> Incubator? Right now, it's a commons sandbox project, so it's not
> officially supported. The code first lived in my "syringe" project I
> created over at java.net. It was all developed by me under the Apache
> License 2.0. Will Commons Proxy have to go through the Incubator to get
> into commons proper? Or, should it be in the incubator now?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:08 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: a few steps before approving a project
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> >>The Incubator's charter from the board says:
> >> <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
> >>
> >> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> >> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> >> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
> >> it further
> >>
> >>Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
>
> >>this to the Incubator PMC.
> >
> > Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
> > any in-bred ones.
> >
> > So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong?? We started
> > that with people who were Axis committers and started with no external
> > code contrib from anyone. We didn't go thru the incubator - just created
> > an SVN tree and started hacking.
> >
> > Are you guys saying that that was wrong and that the incubator had to
> > get involved to teach us the Apache way? Huh?
> >
> > Can we get board clarification on this please? Reading the above
> > resolution that is by no means clear, at least to me.
>
> If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure, the code was always
> under the Apache License, and the committers were all ASF committers,
> then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
>
> If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
> created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
> be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
>
> - 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 9:08:10 AM -0400 Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure, the code was always
> under the Apache License, and the committers were all ASF committers,
> then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
>
> If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
> created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
> be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
For the HTTP Server PMC, we follow an additional constraint: the code must be
developed on-list. If it wasn't developed 'in-house' on our lists, then it
needs, at the minimum, a software grant on-file with the Incubator. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Software grants Was: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 10:50:53 PM -0400 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Figuring out how the sandbox(es) and the incubator work together is
> increasingly flagging on my attention list. Sam's list of rules is the
> most concrete thing I've seen so far:
>
> * If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure,
> * the code was always under the Apache License,
> * and the committers were all ASF committers,
> => then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
>
> <= If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
> created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
> be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
Yes. (The constraint we use in httpd of being developed on-list reduces to
the same as being in our SVN tree, IMHO.)
> This is pretty painful, write a class outside the ASF that you own the
> copyright to, then go through pain to get it in. Still, it's the
> system and we need to try the system before we try to break it :)
There's a sense of proportion here too: one class that was written in an
hour may not rise to the level of needing a software grant. This is more
about whether the code can be considered 'useful' by itself.
For example, over in httpd, we had a module (mod_arm4) that was written by
a PMC member in his spare time in private and he wanted to donate it, but
we asked for the software grant.
The entire process was ensuring that the grant was sent in and
received...pretty low key.
>> The Incubator (with its delegated responsibilities from the board)
>> currently specifies that all external code imports that is going to be
>> maintained at the ASF must have a 'software grant' on file:
>>
>> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt>
>
> How is this submitted? Does it have to be fax/postal (ie very slow
> feedback loop)? Do we send to Jim or the Incubator?
The software grant is sent to Jim (usually via fax). But, like our other
documents, any officer can receive the documents and pass it along to Jim
through fax or postal too.
> Didn't get anywhere with the Commons CSV stuff earlier, but I probably
> didn't understand the right questions to ask. Currently I'm preparing
> an Incubator proposal and hoping it'll just amount to a software grant
> and then we can be out of the Incubator.
You probably don't need a full fledged proposal - it's just ensuring that
the IP clearance form is completed and associated papers are on-file with
the Incubator.
> So another question here, is the de-facto new project template the
> correct way to bring component/code into the sandbox/an existing
> project?
Depends. If there's code behind it, yes. But, if it's just adding a new
directory that has no code and it will all be developed on-list, then the
Incubator probably doesn't need to get involved.
> The message is starting to get across and we'll get there.
That's all we can ask. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Software grants Was: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 9/1/05, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> --On September 1, 2005 12:28:13 PM -0400 James Carman
> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> > So, does that mean that Jakarta Commons Proxy will have to go through the
> > Incubator? Right now, it's a commons sandbox project, so it's not
> > officially supported. The code first lived in my "syringe" project I
> > created over at java.net. It was all developed by me under the Apache
> > License 2.0. Will Commons Proxy have to go through the Incubator to get
> > into commons proper? Or, should it be in the incubator now?
Figuring out how the sandbox(es) and the incubator work together is
increasingly flagging on my attention list. Sam's list of rules is the
most concrete thing I've seen so far:
* If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure,
* the code was always under the Apache License,
* and the committers were all ASF committers,
=> then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
<= If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
This is pretty painful, write a class outside the ASF that you own the
copyright to, then go through pain to get it in. Still, it's the
system and we need to try the system before we try to break it :)
> The Incubator (with its delegated responsibilities from the board)
> currently specifies that all external code imports that is going to be
> maintained at the ASF must have a 'software grant' on file:
>
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt>
How is this submitted? Does it have to be fax/postal (ie very slow
feedback loop)? Do we send to Jim or the Incubator?
> Whether anything else is required is a decision for the Incubator PMC after
> knowing more about the situation. In a lot of cases, that's all that is
> needed.
Didn't get anywhere with the Commons CSV stuff earlier, but I probably
didn't understand the right questions to ask. Currently I'm preparing
an Incubator proposal and hoping it'll just amount to a software grant
and then we can be out of the Incubator.
So another question here, is the de-facto new project template the
correct way to bring component/code into the sandbox/an existing
project?
> If any PMC is importing code to our repository without going through the
> Incubator, then they are in violation of ASF policy. -- justin
The message is starting to get across and we'll get there.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 12:28:13 PM -0400 James Carman
<ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> So, does that mean that Jakarta Commons Proxy will have to go through the
> Incubator? Right now, it's a commons sandbox project, so it's not
> officially supported. The code first lived in my "syringe" project I
> created over at java.net. It was all developed by me under the Apache
> License 2.0. Will Commons Proxy have to go through the Incubator to get
> into commons proper? Or, should it be in the incubator now?
The Incubator (with its delegated responsibilities from the board)
currently specifies that all external code imports that is going to be
maintained at the ASF must have a 'software grant' on file:
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt>
Whether anything else is required is a decision for the Incubator PMC after
knowing more about the situation. In a lot of cases, that's all that is
needed.
If any PMC is importing code to our repository without going through the
Incubator, then they are in violation of ASF policy. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
So, does that mean that Jakarta Commons Proxy will have to go through the
Incubator? Right now, it's a commons sandbox project, so it's not
officially supported. The code first lived in my "syringe" project I
created over at java.net. It was all developed by me under the Apache
License 2.0. Will Commons Proxy have to go through the Incubator to get
into commons proper? Or, should it be in the incubator now?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 9:08 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: a few steps before approving a project
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>The Incubator's charter from the board says:
>> <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
>> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
>> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
>> it further
>>
>>Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
>>this to the Incubator PMC.
>
> Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
> any in-bred ones.
>
> So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong?? We started
> that with people who were Axis committers and started with no external
> code contrib from anyone. We didn't go thru the incubator - just created
> an SVN tree and started hacking.
>
> Are you guys saying that that was wrong and that the incubator had to
> get involved to teach us the Apache way? Huh?
>
> Can we get board clarification on this please? Reading the above
> resolution that is by no means clear, at least to me.
If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure, the code was always
under the Apache License, and the committers were all ASF committers,
then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
- 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: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>>The Incubator's charter from the board says:
>> <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
>> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
>> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
>> it further
>>
>>Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
>>this to the Incubator PMC.
>
> Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
> any in-bred ones.
>
> So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong?? We started
> that with people who were Axis committers and started with no external
> code contrib from anyone. We didn't go thru the incubator - just created
> an SVN tree and started hacking.
>
> Are you guys saying that that was wrong and that the incubator had to
> get involved to teach us the Apache way? Huh?
>
> Can we get board clarification on this please? Reading the above
> resolution that is by no means clear, at least to me.
If the SVN tree was always on ASF infrastructure, the code was always
under the Apache License, and the committers were all ASF committers,
then no trip through the incubator is necessary.
If any ONE of these things are not true (example: code on CodeHaus
created by ASF committers with Apache license), then incubator needs to
be involved to ensure that there is a proper audit trail.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 8/31/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > The Incubator's charter from the board says:
> > <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
> > it further
> >
> > Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
> > this to the Incubator PMC.
>
> Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
> any in-bred ones.
>
> So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong?? We started
> that with people who were Axis committers and started with no external
> code contrib from anyone. We didn't go thru the incubator - just created
> an SVN tree and started hacking.
>
> Are you guys saying that that was wrong and that the incubator had to
> get involved to teach us the Apache way? Huh?
>
> Can we get board clarification on this please? Reading the above
> resolution that is by no means clear, at least to me.
I can tell you how I've always advocated where the line is, and I
always *thought* most folks agreed with this, but I could be wrong:
The Incubator is responsible for incubating code for legal issues and
committers for community issues. Any large base of incoming code
(such as would require a software grant) should be "incubated" to the
extent that the Incubator PMC is satisfied that there are no obvious
licensing issues -- if this is the only issue it can be a very quick
process. Any brand new community should also be "incubated"; in other
words, if a new subproject gets started at a PMC and that subproject
is primarily composed of new committers with a new or non-existent
community, then the project should live under the supervision of the
Incubator PMC prior to graduating.
So, it sounds like this wouldn't have applied to Axis2.
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:43 -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> The Incubator's charter from the board says:
> <http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
>
> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
> it further
>
> Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
> this to the Incubator PMC.
Whoa. I had understood this as "incoming external projects" instead of
any in-bred ones.
So by your (and Jim's) interpretation, we did Axis2 wrong?? We started
that with people who were Axis committers and started with no external
code contrib from anyone. We didn't go thru the incubator - just created
an SVN tree and started hacking.
Are you guys saying that that was wrong and that the incubator had to
get involved to teach us the Apache way? Huh?
Can we get board clarification on this please? Reading the above
resolution that is by no means clear, at least to me.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Personally, I think that formal acceptance via the sponsor PMC
and the Incubator makes sense. At present, the Incubator side
is a bit fuzzy and semi-inconsistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 12:29:55 AM +0600 Sanjiva Weerawarana
<sa...@opensource.lk> wrote:
> Does the incubator PMC get involved with that too? (I'd be most
> certainly -1 to that; I am not agreeable to saying all PMCs are now
> throttled by the incubator PMC.)
>
> If not, then doesn't the problem you're trying to solve still exist at a
> different level??
The Incubator's charter from the board says:
<http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html>
RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
it further
Previously, the board had to deal with this directly. The board delegated
this to the Incubator PMC.
> A general "Related Work" section would be good. I think its very prudent
> to ask for commercial competition as well, would you agree?? Some of the
Sure: what information does the Incubator PMC need to make a decision?
>> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
>> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
>> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
>> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
>> statement with some other organization).
>
> So this would be no matter whether there's a press release involved?
> Justin was advocating that incubating projects be barred from doing PR
> at all .. so are you suggesting they can, as long as PRC is involved?
> (Which BTW is the current process.)
I think a heads-up so that the PRC can be on the lookout for stories or
opportunities to seed a story is 'nice' behavior.
Note that my suggestion w.r.t. blocking projects from PR was just that - a
suggestion. I don't set policy by myself. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:01 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
> project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the
> ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new
> projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our
> current set of rules where any of our 30+ PMCs can approve a new
> project for incubation and where the Incubator PMC itself has a pretty
> informal process for evaluating new proposals.
>
> Here are some of the ideas I have in mind (note that some are
> dependent on the implementation of others):
>
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
+1.
What if a current PMC wants to start an effort on its own? That is, not
incubation style, where there's a process of "learning the Apache Way"
etc., but rather some ASF committers getting together and starting a new
project and they come to the PMC for approval.
Does the incubator PMC get involved with that too? (I'd be most
certainly -1 to that; I am not agreeable to saying all PMCs are now
throttled by the incubator PMC.)
If not, then doesn't the problem you're trying to solve still exist at a
different level??
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
Sure, +1.
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
A general "Related Work" section would be good. I think its very prudent
to ask for commercial competition as well, would you agree?? Some of the
concerns that have been stated with open source projects are valid for
commercial stuff too - and its best that the incubator PMC (and PRC) be
aware of such items.
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
I don't think this is scaleable or necessary to do formally but that's
me.
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
So this would be no matter whether there's a press release involved?
Justin was advocating that incubating projects be barred from doing PR
at all .. so are you suggesting they can, as long as PRC is involved?
(Which BTW is the current process.)
> I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
I'd s/importance/successes/.
> should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
Are we solving the right problem then??
> BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
> and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
> acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
> fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
You're missing a key point: Incubation is supposed to be the *starting
point* for getting a project into the ASF. Graduation is the process for
getting it approved, not starting incubation. Are you seriously
suggesting that we change that?? If not IMO the checks need to be *while
incubating* and not prior to incubation, but YMMV.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 on all points. i think we are on the same page.
On 9/1/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Dims -- I really appreciate the response!
>
> Comments and responses to your questions below.
>
> Cliff
>
> On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please see below:
> >
> > On 8/31/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> > > charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> > > sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> > > Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
> >
> > +1. It does not have to be a formal VOTE on the pmc mailing list. It
> > could be a note from PMC chair to general@ after a week or so. If
> > something crops up in that time frame, PMC Chair can ask for a VOTE.
> >
> > > - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> > > recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> > > saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> > > questions is answered.
> >
> > +1 Absolutely (We do this already, but its because we are lazy :)
> >
> > > - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> > > proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> > > the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> > > there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> > > we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
> >
> > +0 Folks involved know better than to waste everyones time duplicating
> > work. But If this list makes you sleep better, sure. But i don't
> > really think it will help much.
> >
> > > - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> > > communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> > > knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> > > only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> > > create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> > > *before* a project is approved.
> >
> > -0 (leaning toward -0.25/-0.5) for formal liaison. Don't want
> > pre-existing preudjices to judge the proposal.
> > AND
> > Incubator our sandbox. -0 to have a pre-sandbox-sandbox. Let's do
> > whatever is needed in public. What are u worried about here? press? I
> > thought we are here to share our work and make the world a better
> > place. Not focused on poll numbers or what the press says.
>
> I was thinking this liaison notice would happen after the sponsor PMC
> has voted to take on the project, but before the Incubator PMC gives
> its final approval. I imagine there could be the occasional case
> where the Incubator PMC finds out something that would cause the
> consensus to believe that accepting the proposal would not be in the
> ASF's best interest. However, in most cases, this liaison would just
> be a chance to politely negotiate any potential PR issues before
> officially accepting the project for incubation (when press releases
> may or may not occur and when reporters start interviewing people).
>
> > > - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> > > could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> > > overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> > > expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> > > statement with some other organization).
> >
> > +1 Question is when do u want this to happen BEFORE the proposal hits
> > the general@incubator or after that? Again, don't want a
> > pre-sandbox-sandbox.
>
> I've always been in favor of public proposals (and have ensured that
> was the case in each of the three ASF project proposals I've been
> involved in). So, I definitely am not saying that the PRC must be
> looped in before anyone proposes or discusses a proposal on a public
> list! However, I think there's value in getting the PRC looped in
> before officially *accepting* the project for incubation. I haven't
> ever noticed a lot of press as a direct result of incubator
> discussions, and I think there's a big difference between the press
> that can be made about the discussion of a proposal and what can be
> made of an Apache decision to start an incubating project.
>
> > > I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> > > ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> > > should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> > > these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> > > isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> > > foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> > > the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
> >
> > Am ok for calling it just "Foo" if it helps avert problems.
>
> Why don't we just require all new projects be named "Not-Apache Foo"? ;-)
>
> I don't have a strong feeling on this issue, but I do think that as
> long as there is any press about projects being started at Apache, and
> especially when we require the projects to use the "Apache" prefix in
> their name, we need to consider that such action reflects on the ASF
> as a whole -- no matter how many times we try to explain the concept
> of incubator graduation. The other issue is that, if we know of an
> issue that people are likely to ask about, we should be prepared with
> an answer, whether the project has graduated or not.
>
> I guess this is really about allowing the opportunity to prepare a
> media response for our actions -- accepting a project for incubating
> is an ASF action, one that can be very interesting to the press and
> the software industry in general.
>
> Cliff
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Dims -- I really appreciate the response!
Comments and responses to your questions below.
Cliff
On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please see below:
>
> On 8/31/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> > charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> > sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> > Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
>
> +1. It does not have to be a formal VOTE on the pmc mailing list. It
> could be a note from PMC chair to general@ after a week or so. If
> something crops up in that time frame, PMC Chair can ask for a VOTE.
>
> > - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> > recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> > saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> > questions is answered.
>
> +1 Absolutely (We do this already, but its because we are lazy :)
>
> > - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> > proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> > the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> > there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> > we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
>
> +0 Folks involved know better than to waste everyones time duplicating
> work. But If this list makes you sleep better, sure. But i don't
> really think it will help much.
>
> > - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> > communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> > knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> > only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> > create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> > *before* a project is approved.
>
> -0 (leaning toward -0.25/-0.5) for formal liaison. Don't want
> pre-existing preudjices to judge the proposal.
> AND
> Incubator our sandbox. -0 to have a pre-sandbox-sandbox. Let's do
> whatever is needed in public. What are u worried about here? press? I
> thought we are here to share our work and make the world a better
> place. Not focused on poll numbers or what the press says.
I was thinking this liaison notice would happen after the sponsor PMC
has voted to take on the project, but before the Incubator PMC gives
its final approval. I imagine there could be the occasional case
where the Incubator PMC finds out something that would cause the
consensus to believe that accepting the proposal would not be in the
ASF's best interest. However, in most cases, this liaison would just
be a chance to politely negotiate any potential PR issues before
officially accepting the project for incubation (when press releases
may or may not occur and when reporters start interviewing people).
> > - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> > could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> > overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> > expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> > statement with some other organization).
>
> +1 Question is when do u want this to happen BEFORE the proposal hits
> the general@incubator or after that? Again, don't want a
> pre-sandbox-sandbox.
I've always been in favor of public proposals (and have ensured that
was the case in each of the three ASF project proposals I've been
involved in). So, I definitely am not saying that the PRC must be
looped in before anyone proposes or discusses a proposal on a public
list! However, I think there's value in getting the PRC looped in
before officially *accepting* the project for incubation. I haven't
ever noticed a lot of press as a direct result of incubator
discussions, and I think there's a big difference between the press
that can be made about the discussion of a proposal and what can be
made of an Apache decision to start an incubating project.
> > I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> > ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> > should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> > these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> > isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> > foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> > the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
>
> Am ok for calling it just "Foo" if it helps avert problems.
Why don't we just require all new projects be named "Not-Apache Foo"? ;-)
I don't have a strong feeling on this issue, but I do think that as
long as there is any press about projects being started at Apache, and
especially when we require the projects to use the "Apache" prefix in
their name, we need to consider that such action reflects on the ASF
as a whole -- no matter how many times we try to explain the concept
of incubator graduation. The other issue is that, if we know of an
issue that people are likely to ask about, we should be prepared with
an answer, whether the project has graduated or not.
I guess this is really about allowing the opportunity to prepare a
media response for our actions -- accepting a project for incubating
is an ASF action, one that can be very interesting to the press and
the software industry in general.
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Please see below:
On 8/31/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
+1. It does not have to be a formal VOTE on the pmc mailing list. It
could be a note from PMC chair to general@ after a week or so. If
something crops up in that time frame, PMC Chair can ask for a VOTE.
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
+1 Absolutely (We do this already, but its because we are lazy :)
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
+0 Folks involved know better than to waste everyones time duplicating
work. But If this list makes you sleep better, sure. But i don't
really think it will help much.
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
-0 (leaning toward -0.25/-0.5) for formal liaison. Don't want
pre-existing preudjices to judge the proposal.
AND
Incubator our sandbox. -0 to have a pre-sandbox-sandbox. Let's do
whatever is needed in public. What are u worried about here? press? I
thought we are here to share our work and make the world a better
place. Not focused on poll numbers or what the press says.
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
+1 Question is when do u want this to happen BEFORE the proposal hits
the general@incubator or after that? Again, don't want a
pre-sandbox-sandbox.
> I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
Am ok for calling it just "Foo" if it helps avert problems.
> BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
> and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
> acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
> fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
+1 to an ACK from PMC chair before the projects gets infra stuff started.
> Cliff
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On August 31, 2005 11:01:29 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
> project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the
> ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new
> projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our
> current set of rules where any of our 30+ PMCs can approve a new
> project for incubation and where the Incubator PMC itself has a pretty
> informal process for evaluating new proposals.
Agreed.
> Here are some of the ideas I have in mind (note that some are
> dependent on the implementation of others):
>
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
+1.
I'd also be fine if it were semi-lazy consensus - that is, along the lines
of what the board does for PMC additions - an Incubator PMC member must ack
a proposal approved by a sponsoring PMC and then there is 72 hours for
someone to register an objection. If there's an objection, the process
halts and waits for a full vote by the Incubator PMC.
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
+1!
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
+1000.
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
Good idea; not necessarily a formal change; but a good idea to help us
ensure everything goes smoothly (as it can).
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
+1.
> I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
I think these set of steps can help resolve some hiccups we've had with
recent Incubating proposals.
Thanks. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On September 1, 2005 8:41:11 PM +1000 Berin Lautenbach
> <be...@wingsofhermes.org> wrote:
>
>> There are far more checks already. To get a project approved you need a
>> full resolution signed by the board. A better analogy would be voting
>> on a
>> new PMC member. No PMC requires *any* input from anyone else to take
>> such a
>> vote.
>
>
> No, it's not. The board always reserves the right to reject a PMC
> member. Don't confuse the 100% success rate so far for a rubber stamp.
I'm not - you are not reading me right. For a vote on a PMC member, the
board is not involved but the PMC member is not yet ratified by the
board, and so is not yet a PMC member - *regardless of what the PMC
might wish*. If the board says no, then that's it. Doesn't change the
fact the PMC had a vote. It just invalidates it.
Likewise incubation - you can incubate as much as you want, but without
the signoff of the board, you will never get to TLP.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 8:41:11 PM +1000 Berin Lautenbach
<be...@wingsofhermes.org> wrote:
> There are far more checks already. To get a project approved you need a
> full resolution signed by the board. A better analogy would be voting on a
> new PMC member. No PMC requires *any* input from anyone else to take such a
> vote.
No, it's not. The board always reserves the right to reject a PMC member.
Don't confuse the 100% success rate so far for a rubber stamp. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
I've been following this with a little bit of confusion. It strikes me
that there is a lot of reaction going on without really thinking through
the implications.
So just to stir the pot....
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
> project proposals. The purpose of these changes would be to allow the
> ASF to consider big picture issues related to the acceptance of new
> projects into the Incubator, which isn't as likely to happen with our
> current set of rules where any of our 30+ PMCs can approve a new
> project for incubation and where the Incubator PMC itself has a pretty
> informal process for evaluating new proposals.
>
> Here are some of the ideas I have in mind (note that some are
> dependent on the implementation of others):
>
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
What does this add? The incubator should not be the arbiter of what
kinds of things the ASF wants to take on board - that's why we have
project PMCs who can represent the wide and varied breadth of the ASF.
The purpose of the Incubator is to incubate and to make sure that code
bases and communities are in a proper state before they enter the ASF
whole. Let them in! If there are issues, then the process of
incubation should bring those issues to light so we can decide what to do.
The only way I would ever be +1 on this kind of idea is if the allowable
reasons for the Incubator PMC denying a project or proposal are very
clearly defined and signed up to by all. Otherwise we have one PMC
second guessing another PMC. Sure set the rules for accepting proposals
or projects, but let the PMCs get on and do the work!
>
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
OK - I can see this. But again I'd be careful not to get too
bureaucratic. I'd put forward a standard template and encourage people
to use it, but God help us if we start turning interesting and useful
projects away simply because they didn't use the right template!
>
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
OK - This is just another bit of information we are asking for. I
personally think it's just adding work for proposals, but OK.
>
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
+1 to the first part, not sure I agree with the second. I think we are
forgetting that a project is *not* "approved" when it enters incubation.
It is simply approved to be incubated. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with things starting at that point rather than before. Loop
people in then - "we have just received a podling dealing with X and are
letting you know".
Really we are in danger of creating an incubator that you need to get
through before you get into the incubator.
>
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
I think this is true of any PMC now isn't it? And really, this should
be the responsibility of the PPMC (or the owning PMC). The Incubator
PMC should just be stepping in when it isn't happening.
Otherwise you are asking the Incubator PMC to be involved in every
single activity of every single podling, when really the aim of the
Incubator is to make the podlings self sufficient and capable under the
ASF umbrella and standards.
>
> I really don't want to add more process than necessary, but as the
> ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
Another approach is to change peoples perception. Another again is to
live with it!
I saw another trail referring to the ASF is a gorilla. We are.
*Whatever we do we are going to upset people*. So rather than focus on
how to have the right PR and the not upset people, take a step back and
ask what is important to the ASF first and formost.
*If* the most important things to the ASF as a whole is PR - then lets
go head first down that track. But if the most important thing is Open
Source and community, then lets foster that first and formost. Lets not
sacrifice the bigger picture because of some pain and angst.
>
> BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
> and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
> acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
> fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
There are far more checks already. To get a project approved you need a
full resolution signed by the board. A better analogy would be voting
on a new PMC member. No PMC requires *any* input from anyone else to
take such a vote.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
>
+1
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
>
+1
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
>
Sure, why not.
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
>
-1
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
>
I think, instead, that podlings should be prevented from
doing any PR without checking with the PRC. That is, it
isn't an Incubator responsibility, but a PPMC one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:01:29AM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a few changes to the process of approving new
> project proposals.
I think I like your goals and some of your plans, but question whether
its smart to paint this as "changes to process". Just see how far you
get with "changes to documentation". Documentation changes are lazy
consensus around here :-)
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects, so that once a
> sponsor PMC (if not the Incubator PMC) approves a new project, the
> Incubator PMC still has to give a final approval.
Disagree. You can educate PMCs about whatever it would be that would
lead the incubator to make a different decision than they would, but
lets not have the incubator do more than absolutely neccessary.
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template -- we've
> recently gotten proposals that simply copied some other proposal they
> saw -- we're not really making sure that any one set of standard
> questions is answered.
Yes please. Simple matter of writing a good template and putting it
somewhere visible on the site.
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or outside
> the ASF. I'm not suggesting that a project wouldn't get approved if
> there is some similar high profile open source project, but at least
> we are explicitly asking the question and getting the information.
Sure. Make it lots of questions, including FAQs from previous proposals.
Like this one. Information is good.
It'd be great if the PRC could add a bunch of questions to our template
if it helps to get the right information to them.
> - consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial. This really
> only works if we add the new proposal question mentioned above and
> create a more centralized process of looping the Incubator PMC in
> *before* a project is approved.
Ugh. I'm not volunteering. Can't open source communities continue to
function according to group based asynchronous web-based communication
mechanisms (such as this mailing list)? For example, we really haven't
needed a formal liason at the FSF in order to talk to them. If we can
manage to get various lawyers interacting with us through mailing lists,
why can't it be the same with open source orgs? Just send them all an
invite to read this mailing list!
> - require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of the
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
Eh, yeah, sure. The incubator appreciates any and all help it can get
from the PRC. We obviously need it. A little more concretely, would a
simple Fwd of new project proposals to the prc@ do? Would that be
enough? If not, what else?
> I really don't want to add more process than necessary
good.
> , but
I just *knew* you were going to say that!
> as the ASFs importance continues to grow, I think there a few issues that
> should be addressed with each new project, and I'm hoping steps like
> these could help that to happen. Of course, an incubating project
> isn't an officially endorsed ASF project, but we still call it "Apache
> foo" and it's certainly perceived by the outside as being an action by
> the ASF when it is accepted for incubation.
And it is, after all, there's at least one PMC that votes on it. PMCs
are perfectly capable of carrying out actions on behalf of the ASF,
heck, they're the primary bodies for carrying out those actions.
(...)
We've never needed to go out of our way to go and tell people about our
various actions, since the stuff we do is publicly visible anyway. I
don't want that to change. There's a sliding scale here that ends with
warning a dozen marketing departments everytime we fart. They can just
subscribe to our announce@ lists like everyone else. And we'll send
them a press release when we want their attention.
You know, I'm not too happy with new project proposals now being
extensively prepared in private and drumrolls sounding when they "go
public". We did that with Harmony and I wasn't happy about it then,
and everytime I see it happening at least some kind of mess results. It
all gets in the way of the incubation work we have to do.
I think the "procedural fix" is that PMCs send new subproject proposals
this way (and the prc@ way) for the first time long before its voted on
so we can discuss things and form some consensus before various colors
of shite hit the fan. Eg
From: me
To: general@incubator
Date: january 2005
Subject: J2SE project?
So, ehm, hi! Let's do a J2SE implementation @ Apache. I put some ideas
on the wiki:
http://here.it.is/
WDYT? Feel free to patch the proposal!
-LSD
Yes, we do our laundry in public, and yes, that must be a nightmare from
a PR perspective. We shouldn't stop doing our laundry in public though.
> BTW, the XMLBeans PMC just voted to add a single member to the PMC,
> and even that required a 72-hour wait after getting Board
> acknowledgement (which is fine with me)....why should there be
> fewer checks to get an entire project approved?
Eh, ain't there a whole bunch of checks as part of a process called
"incubation"? Which takes about two friggin' years on average??
Incubation is not meant to be viewed as endorsement of stuff by the ASF.
It is the start of a process of checks that may eventually lead to
endorsement. If PR departments don't get that, they can be educated. If
they can't be educated, they can, oh, I dunno, be ignored.
The Incubator is responsible for legal and IP vetting and for something
we might dub "community health ensurance". We shouldn't make ourselves
responsible for anything beyond that.
cheers,
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Cliff,
>
>
>>- change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
>>charter) to include approving of all new projects
>
>
> To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to second
> guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
>
>
>>- ensure all proposals use the same standard template
>
>
> Fine.
>
>
>>- add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
>>proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or
>>outside the ASF.
>
>
> To what end? I know what is motivating this. In my view, any group that
> wants to part of the ASF, under our IP and Community policies, is welcomed.
> The ASF should not be in the business of forbidding people to work on things
> here just because someone else feels that it should be happening in their
> fiefdom. We don't even require uniqueness within the ASF, much less between
> us and other groups. Should JAMES insist that the HTTP Server project shut
> down mod_smtpd?
And what if such a project involves forking another communities code and
claiming some of their committers? Does it not concern you _how_ that
happens, and how it makes the ASF look? In my mind, it isn't a question
of whether or not a project should start, but that the ASF should _know_
the baggage that a project will bring with it, and the issues it might
bring in relation to other projects, so that we can ensure that the
starting of the new project maintains rather than degrades our relations
with other projects.
That's all this is about in my book. If I were to be in a position to
decide about an incubating project, I'd like to know who might be
offended by the starting of that project _before_ I make my decision -
even if I decide to accept it. It just makes life easier, and more
predictable all-round.
>>consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
>>communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
>>knows there's a proposal that could be controversial
>
> I am in favor of liaisons with other communities, but even making the
> judgment call required above is claiming a subjective value.
Well yes. That's the judgement call that ultimately is going to have to
come from the original proposing PMC, or the people making the proposal.
They're the ones who know the landscape. Hence the need for questions on
the proposal template to prompt them to tell us.
>>require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
>>could have any chance of media attention (either because of there
>>overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
>>expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
>>statement with some other organization).
>
> EVERY project should involve the PRC. The PRC is entirely underused, even
> if overcommitted.
>
> And don't forget that contrary to what was said on this thread, existing
> PMCs *can* start their own projects from existing ASF committers and new
> codebases that are developed within the ASF infrastructure without going
> through the Incubator. The motivation for your e-mail would apply to those
> as well.
Not so much in my mind. If there's no interaction in terms of code or
committers, but only in 'subject area', then it is more just plain old
competition. We may want to consider competitors, but this discussion
isn't about competitors, it is about people who might be directly
affected by our actions - e.g we fork their code.
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 02 September 2005 12:53, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> While we
> are at it, we should probably have our say on contests like this as
> well (http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php)
And someone have turned ALv2 into a Geronimo EULA ...
How come I don't have to click "I agree" when I download from ASF ??
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I am generally opposed to any of the suggestions that we add
> more constraints to incubation (aside from a general constraint
> of no new projects, which I can understand for infrastructure
> reasons alone). What we need is more documentation, not more rules.
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the prc@. Please
> complain to the folks there.
>
> There was one document (unsolicited) from Gartner. I've already
> personally sent a response with help from Justin and others (Thanks
> justin).
>
> So there is nothing left for to do for me other than keep hearing
> choice words, so i'll just stop and listen. Pile it on :(
>
> If there is something else i did not do, that i have control on, let
> me know.
I think you did all the right things when they needed to be done
and I have no need for anything more, personally. I am just saying
that this kind of reaction should be expected, even if it can't be
avoided, and the right thing to do is simply improve the documentation
so that we can caution companies up-front rather than assume they
will play nice without any guidance.
I am generally opposed to any of the suggestions that we add
more constraints to incubation (aside from a general constraint
of no new projects, which I can understand for infrastructure
reasons alone). What we need is more documentation, not more rules.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
And yes, gag orders have been issued :)
-- dims
On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the prc@. Please
> complain to the folks there.
>
> There was one document (unsolicited) from Gartner. I've already
> personally sent a response with help from Justin and others (Thanks
> justin).
>
> So there is nothing left for to do for me other than keep hearing
> choice words, so i'll just stop and listen. Pile it on :(
>
> If there is something else i did not do, that i have control on, let me know.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 9/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
> >
> > > IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> > > earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> > > showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> > > what do we get, brick bats again.
> >
> > No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
> > that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
> > commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
> > makes other companies look good.
> >
> > > Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> > > the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> > > a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> > > one even understands that.
> >
> > Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
> > a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
> > by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
> >
> > > Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> > > Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> > > businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> > > reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> > > we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> > > die.
> >
> > Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
> > exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
> > Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
> > prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
> > OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
> > YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
> > mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
> > when they make mistakes.
> >
> > This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
> > with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
> > nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
> > swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
> > not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
> > can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
> > the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
> > the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
> > take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
> > other sites that merely host code.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
I should have been more explicit. "ONLY one press release that i was
involved in...that was"
-- dims
On 9/1/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (renaming the subject to try to keep the past flames and future
> discussions somewhat separate)
>
> On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the prc@. Please
> > complain to the folks there.
>
> Actually, there were at least two that I know of:
>
> IONA: http://www.iona.com/pressroom/2005/20050822b.htm
> Sonic: http://www.sonicsoftware.com/news_events/pressitem/pressrelease_648412/index.ssp?
>
> I was the PRC member who gave feedback to IONA, which they
> incorporated. Any complaints about that one should be directed at me.
> Giving it another look now, I think I should have suggested that one
> of the sentences be reworded to not indicate that IONA is joining the
> project, but that IONA is sponsoring employees who are joining the
> project.
>
> Cliff
>
>
> > There was one document (unsolicited) from Gartner. I've already
> > personally sent a response with help from Justin and others (Thanks
> > justin).
> >
> > So there is nothing left for to do for me other than keep hearing
> > choice words, so i'll just stop and listen. Pile it on :(
> >
> > If there is something else i did not do, that i have control on, let me know.
> >
> > -- dims
> >
> > On 9/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > > I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
> > >
> > > > IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> > > > earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> > > > showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> > > > what do we get, brick bats again.
> > >
> > > No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
> > > that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
> > > commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
> > > makes other companies look good.
> > >
> > > > Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> > > > the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> > > > a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> > > > one even understands that.
> > >
> > > Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
> > > a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
> > > by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
> > >
> > > > Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> > > > Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> > > > businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> > > > reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> > > > we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> > > > die.
> > >
> > > Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
> > > exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
> > > Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
> > > prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
> > > OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
> > > YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
> > > mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
> > > when they make mistakes.
> > >
> > > This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
> > > with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
> > > nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
> > > swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
> > > not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
> > > can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
> > > the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
> > > the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
> > > take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
> > > other sites that merely host code.
> > >
> > > ....Roy
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
(renaming the subject to try to keep the past flames and future
discussions somewhat separate)
On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the prc@. Please
> complain to the folks there.
Actually, there were at least two that I know of:
IONA: http://www.iona.com/pressroom/2005/20050822b.htm
Sonic: http://www.sonicsoftware.com/news_events/pressitem/pressrelease_648412/index.ssp?
I was the PRC member who gave feedback to IONA, which they
incorporated. Any complaints about that one should be directed at me.
Giving it another look now, I think I should have suggested that one
of the sentences be reworded to not indicate that IONA is joining the
project, but that IONA is sponsoring employees who are joining the
project.
Cliff
> There was one document (unsolicited) from Gartner. I've already
> personally sent a response with help from Justin and others (Thanks
> justin).
>
> So there is nothing left for to do for me other than keep hearing
> choice words, so i'll just stop and listen. Pile it on :(
>
> If there is something else i did not do, that i have control on, let me know.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 9/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
> >
> > > IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> > > earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> > > showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> > > what do we get, brick bats again.
> >
> > No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
> > that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
> > commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
> > makes other companies look good.
> >
> > > Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> > > the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> > > a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> > > one even understands that.
> >
> > Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
> > a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
> > by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
> >
> > > Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> > > Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> > > businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> > > reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> > > we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> > > die.
> >
> > Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
> > exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
> > Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
> > prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
> > OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
> > YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
> > mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
> > when they make mistakes.
> >
> > This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
> > with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
> > nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
> > swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
> > not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
> > can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
> > the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
> > the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
> > take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
> > other sites that merely host code.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
There was ONLY one press release...that was vetted by the prc@. Please
complain to the folks there.
There was one document (unsolicited) from Gartner. I've already
personally sent a response with help from Justin and others (Thanks
justin).
So there is nothing left for to do for me other than keep hearing
choice words, so i'll just stop and listen. Pile it on :(
If there is something else i did not do, that i have control on, let me know.
-- dims
On 9/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
>
> > IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> > earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> > showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> > what do we get, brick bats again.
>
> No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
> that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
> commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
> makes other companies look good.
>
> > Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> > the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> > a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> > one even understands that.
>
> Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
> a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
> by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
>
> > Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> > Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> > businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> > reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> > we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> > die.
>
> Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
> exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
> Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
> prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
> OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
> YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
> mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
> when they make mistakes.
>
> This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
> with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
> nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
> swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
> not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
> can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
> the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
> the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
> take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
> other sites that merely host code.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving
a project)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Am still waiting for someone to point
> out to an actual problem ("factually incorrect press releases"). Last
> time i checked, people pay to put out press releases to make them look
> good. ("seek to spin Synapse into something that makes other companies
> look good.").
>
> May be justin is right, we should ban anyone involved in any incubator
> project from making press releases. As far as i know no one has caught
> flak so far derby had press releases, beehive had them, stdcxx had
> them...
and stdcxx is the other example in the last 45 days of a badly written
release (which was subsequently corrected, after it was initially
published.) This seems to be a pattern. Of course Covalent, my own
employeer, published something in conjunction with the donation of
mod_aspdotnet. But then again, Jim Jag and I both are on that marketing
staff about making accurate statements when it comes to the ASF.
We have to be very careful on the cusp of commercial code becoming ASF
based code... the marketing depts are still stuck on the 'our code'
model, and are unlikely to grok the ASF concept (offending us and many
of our fans and detractors)...
...so maybe an outright ban is appropriate? Or maybe the 'press
education' planned by the PRC should actually be 'vendor education'
upfront, to avoid misattributions.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Hehe, thanks :)
-- dims
On 9/2/05, Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> wrote:
> On 02 Sep 2005, at 06:53, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Why is it just us catching the flak?
>
> Because we feel you're one of us, rather than one of "them". Look at it
> as a token of ultimate appreciation.
>
> </Steven>
> --
> Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
> Outerthought Open Source Java & XML
> stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Well,
after following this thread (even though not actively taking part) I'd
say the stereotype of large and close Italian families fits even
better.
Which is just fine with me, being born just 30km from the Italian border ;)
regards,
Martin
P.S.: Can you cook some spaghetti, Mamma mia ;) ?
On 9/2/05, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2005, at 4:22 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
>
> > On 02 Sep 2005, at 06:53, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Why is it just us catching the flak?
> >>
> >
> > Because we feel you're one of us, rather than one of "them". Look
> > at it as a token of ultimate appreciation.
> >
>
> Here here! :)
>
> IMO, this is the type of "discussion" that close families have ;)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Trainings in English and German
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 2, 2005, at 4:22 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
> On 02 Sep 2005, at 06:53, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>
>> Why is it just us catching the flak?
>>
>
> Because we feel you're one of us, rather than one of "them". Look
> at it as a token of ultimate appreciation.
>
Here here! :)
IMO, this is the type of "discussion" that close families have ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 02 Sep 2005, at 06:53, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Why is it just us catching the flak?
Because we feel you're one of us, rather than one of "them". Look at it
as a token of ultimate appreciation.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought Open Source Java & XML
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before
approving a project)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 2, 2005 11:54:50 AM -0700 "Roy T. Fielding"
<fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> Actually, I think Justin was fed up with the stdcxx folks. The
> Gartner crap (which is always crap) just happened to come along
> at the wrong time.
For the record (since this is a public list), the stdcxx issue has now been
resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
But, yes, the issue with publicity is more than just Synapse - almost every
Incubated projects that involves corporations unfamiliar with the ASF (and
a few including companies that know us well) has had some hiccups with
publicity in some way or another. It's part of the learning experience for
them. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Roy,
Understood. Please see the reply from Sanjiva about Foo vs "Apache
Foo" (message id is <11...@localhost.localdomain>)
thanks,
dims
On 9/2/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Am hurt by the words "You turned this into a Web Services marketing
> > event" (Though i made it really clear multiple times that there was
> > only on press release that i was part of and that was vetted by the
> > prc@) But i will live and learn. Am still waiting for someone to point
> > out to an actual problem ("factually incorrect press releases"). Last
> > time i checked, people pay to put out press releases to make them look
> > good. ("seek to spin Synapse into something that makes other companies
> > look good.").
>
> Ah, maybe you are missing how corporations work in the US.
> If you ask a corporation to join a collaborative project with other
> companies, they expect to do a press release about it. In fact,
> if they are a public company, they are mandated by the SEC and
> antitrust laws to do a press release to avoid lawsuits over insider
> trading. Public companies must be even-handed when informing the
> public of events that might impact their share price.
>
> If you want to avoid that, just start the project and don't ask
> companies to get involved -- ask individual developers.
>
> The only problem I know of in the Synapse releases was the lack
> of "Apache Synapse" in the project name. It didn't bother me. AFAIK,
> this thread wasn't even directly about Synapse -- we were talking
> about press and incubated projects in general.
>
> > May be justin is right, we should ban anyone involved in any incubator
> > project from making press releases. As far as i know no one has caught
> > flak so far derby had press releases, beehive had them, stdcxx had
> > them...
>
> Eh? stdcxx is in considerable danger of being flushed down the
> toilet because of a Roguewave press release and the fact that
> none of the three mentors seems to have enough time to actually
> mentor the project. Derby press releases were a huge discussion
> at the time (even with three ASF board members guiding the project).
> Beehive was carefully monitored by Cliff at the time and I don't
> recall any problems there.
>
> > But hey you picked us to be the scape goat and use it as an
> > excuse for introducing a "NO PRESS RELEASES" policy. That's fine.
>
> Actually, I think Justin was fed up with the stdcxx folks. The
> Gartner crap (which is always crap) just happened to come along
> at the wrong time.
>
> > If you don't want companies to talk about their involvement in Apache
> > projects, then make that a policy and ban ALL press releases (OR) make
> > sure there are no press releases get out w/o prc approval.
>
> The former is what people are proposing in this thread. The latter
> has been Apache policy for some time, though policies without
> documentation are a waste of time. I've already told the PRC that.
>
> > While we
> > are at it, we should probably have our say on contests like this as
> > well (http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php). Have you read the stdcxx
> > press release?
> > (http://www.roguewave.com/news/press/index.cfm?PRID=117).
> >
> > Why is it just us catching the flak?
>
> The flak is on the PRC list, where it belongs.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Sep 1, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Am hurt by the words "You turned this into a Web Services marketing
> event" (Though i made it really clear multiple times that there was
> only on press release that i was part of and that was vetted by the
> prc@) But i will live and learn. Am still waiting for someone to point
> out to an actual problem ("factually incorrect press releases"). Last
> time i checked, people pay to put out press releases to make them look
> good. ("seek to spin Synapse into something that makes other companies
> look good.").
Ah, maybe you are missing how corporations work in the US.
If you ask a corporation to join a collaborative project with other
companies, they expect to do a press release about it. In fact,
if they are a public company, they are mandated by the SEC and
antitrust laws to do a press release to avoid lawsuits over insider
trading. Public companies must be even-handed when informing the
public of events that might impact their share price.
If you want to avoid that, just start the project and don't ask
companies to get involved -- ask individual developers.
The only problem I know of in the Synapse releases was the lack
of "Apache Synapse" in the project name. It didn't bother me. AFAIK,
this thread wasn't even directly about Synapse -- we were talking
about press and incubated projects in general.
> May be justin is right, we should ban anyone involved in any incubator
> project from making press releases. As far as i know no one has caught
> flak so far derby had press releases, beehive had them, stdcxx had
> them...
Eh? stdcxx is in considerable danger of being flushed down the
toilet because of a Roguewave press release and the fact that
none of the three mentors seems to have enough time to actually
mentor the project. Derby press releases were a huge discussion
at the time (even with three ASF board members guiding the project).
Beehive was carefully monitored by Cliff at the time and I don't
recall any problems there.
> But hey you picked us to be the scape goat and use it as an
> excuse for introducing a "NO PRESS RELEASES" policy. That's fine.
Actually, I think Justin was fed up with the stdcxx folks. The
Gartner crap (which is always crap) just happened to come along
at the wrong time.
> If you don't want companies to talk about their involvement in Apache
> projects, then make that a policy and ban ALL press releases (OR) make
> sure there are no press releases get out w/o prc approval.
The former is what people are proposing in this thread. The latter
has been Apache policy for some time, though policies without
documentation are a waste of time. I've already told the PRC that.
> While we
> are at it, we should probably have our say on contests like this as
> well (http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php). Have you read the stdcxx
> press release?
> (http://www.roguewave.com/news/press/index.cfm?PRID=117).
>
> Why is it just us catching the flak?
The flak is on the PRC list, where it belongs.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Recent Incubator proposals ( was Re: a few steps before approving a project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Roy,
We did not want to shut the door on anyone bringing in some code,
hence we are going thru the incubator. Infravio is donating some code,
am hopeful committers from Sonic and IONA will do so as well (code
that they have copyright on). Am actually glad that we are taking the
highway and meeting these doubts, questions head on instead of landing
up in trouble later. If we are facing so much flak for doing all the
right things at the right time. I can't imagine what flak we'd get if
we had taken short-cuts and or circumvent processes/procedures. I am
still hopeful that we will continue to use incubation process and
personally am glad that we are doing this thru incubator.
Am hurt by the words "You turned this into a Web Services marketing
event" (Though i made it really clear multiple times that there was
only on press release that i was part of and that was vetted by the
prc@) But i will live and learn. Am still waiting for someone to point
out to an actual problem ("factually incorrect press releases"). Last
time i checked, people pay to put out press releases to make them look
good. ("seek to spin Synapse into something that makes other companies
look good.").
May be justin is right, we should ban anyone involved in any incubator
project from making press releases. As far as i know no one has caught
flak so far derby had press releases, beehive had them, stdcxx had
them...But hey you picked us to be the scape goat and use it as an
excuse for introducing a "NO PRESS RELEASES" policy. That's fine. Just
make it an ACTUAL policy for incubation process and that way we don't
have to debate who said what and when. IF that's not what you want,
then please say what you want in the new policy. ("Press releases
should go thru prc@"? yep, we did that as i said multiple times).
If you don't want companies to talk about their involvement in Apache
projects, then make that a policy and ban ALL press releases (OR) make
sure there are no press releases get out w/o prc approval. While we
are at it, we should probably have our say on contests like this as
well (http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php). Have you read the stdcxx
press release? (http://www.roguewave.com/news/press/index.cfm?PRID=117).
Why is it just us catching the flak?
-- dims
On 9/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
>
> > IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> > earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> > showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> > what do we get, brick bats again.
>
> No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
> that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
> commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
> makes other companies look good.
>
> > Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> > the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> > a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> > one even understands that.
>
> Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
> a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
> by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
>
> > Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> > Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> > businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> > reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> > we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> > die.
>
> Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
> exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
> Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
> prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
> OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
> YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
> mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
> when they make mistakes.
>
> This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
> with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
> nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
> swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
> not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
> can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
> the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
> the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
> take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
> other sites that merely host code.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
I don't see what this has to do with Synapse, but whatever ...
> IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
> earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
> showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
> what do we get, brick bats again.
No, actually, nobody has complained about IONA. People are complaining
that the mentors are doing a crappy job of controlling the other
commercial organizations who seek to spin Synapse into something that
makes other companies look good.
> Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
> the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
> a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
> one even understands that.
Then you shouldn't have any seed code and you should just create
a directory and start working. You created this mess yourselves
by turning it into a Web Services marketing event.
> Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
> Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
> businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
> reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
> we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
> die.
Look, I am going to explain this as roughly as possible. Apache
exists now, today, because people like ME and Randy and Jim and
Brian (and now Greg and Justin and Sam and ...) have forcibly
prevented various companies from abusing their participation in
OUR projects through factually incorrect press releases. It is
YOUR responsibility to do that with projects that YOU agree to
mentor, even if it means publicly humiliating the idiots in PR
when they make mistakes.
This will be a far harder task in the Web Services area (filled
with companies who exist solely on the basis of press releases and
nothing else) than it was for the original Web projects. You are
swimming in a sewer of bad companies trying to do good. It should
not be surprising that we need to hose the project down before it
can join Apache. We need to do that to protect both Apache and
the new project. It only takes ONE bad project to undue all of
the gains we have made within the ASF. It is the fact that we
take such care with new projects that differentiates Apache from
other sites that merely host code.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 02 September 2005 04:11, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I just would like to hear more thoughts from people about whether
> there are things we could do to improve our process of approving new
> proposals as the ASF continues to grow.
Whether or not the ASF needs both belt and suspenders seems to be a tricky
task. On one hand, the ICLA requires the contributor to be the original
author, but on the other hand it seems that this is not enough, in case such
code have had some kind of public exposure.
I just don't get it. Why does that matter, compared to the "original
contributor" outright stealing the code from somewhere else? We assume that
this doesn't happen, and why should we therefor assume that a package for a
new subproject that a existing ASF committer has hacked together, gained some
fellow ASFers support for and ready to jump in 'somewhere' would require
"audit trail", signatures from employer and what not.
IMVHO, let the committers experiment outside ASF repositories without
requirement to go through Incubation.
As for commercial codebases turned OpenSource, projects sponsored by
companies, projects wanting to implement specifications, projects hosted
elsewhere prior to coming to ASF and codebases with many, possibly
independent, authors is what I thought the Incubator was initially for. Here
I have no problem that a very rigorous process is put in place, with strict
requirements for graduation, PROVIDED that those are well-known,
objective/measurable and understood.
Another danger that may lurk in the shadows, is that the "Apache Way" gets
diluted by too fast influx of new projects/committers, and mentors/champions
taking on more than they should. Not sure if it is true, but I get the
feeling that more and more projects have "passive committers" to increase
numbers and gain credibility.
My devaluing 2 cents.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Done.
thanks,
dims
On 9/1/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> With all due respect for your frustration and its expression (I'm
> actually not being sarcastic), could you also respond to the subject
> of this thread and possibly the thoughts that started it? I was
> really hoping this could remain a discussion of the pros and cons of
> things along those lines.
>
> I realize that the thread changed track long before this post, but I'm
> arbitrarily picking right now to request that any flames against or in
> defense of some past proposal be posted under a different subject
> line.
>
> I just would like to hear more thoughts from people about whether
> there are things we could do to improve our process of approving new
> proposals as the ASF continues to grow.
>
> Cliff
>
>
> On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My 2 cents, Hani style :)
> >
> > <rant>
>
> <snip/>
>
> > </rant>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
Dims,
With all due respect for your frustration and its expression (I'm
actually not being sarcastic), could you also respond to the subject
of this thread and possibly the thoughts that started it? I was
really hoping this could remain a discussion of the pros and cons of
things along those lines.
I realize that the thread changed track long before this post, but I'm
arbitrarily picking right now to request that any flames against or in
defense of some past proposal be posted under a different subject
line.
I just would like to hear more thoughts from people about whether
there are things we could do to improve our process of approving new
proposals as the ASF continues to grow.
Cliff
On 9/1/05, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2 cents, Hani style :)
>
> <rant>
<snip/>
> </rant>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
My 2 cents, Hani style :)
<rant>
Names of individual committers are on the Synapse Proposal...No one
had ANY problems when the WS PMC was struggling to gain acceptance and
struggling to get people excited and willing to contribute. No one
lifted a finger when we got bad press because of IBM's or JBoss's
fork.
Suddenly when we get some traction with the exciting work we are doing
and news spreads, we get the brickbats from EXACTLY the same people
who should be supportive and understanding. Am just getting sick of
it. Incubator won't graduate projects if there isn't diversity. IF you
try to build diversity from the get-go then we get an earful.
IF we even seem to appear to sneak something by AM sure we will get an
earful BUT in this case we courted IONA and got their support and
showed that we can build diversity that spans OW and Apache. For this
what do we get, brick bats again.
No one has told us that we did a good job getting many people from
various backgrounds to work on something exciting and new and cutting
edge. All we hear are innuendoes...No one is willing to tell us
EXACTLY what the team that put together this proposal did wrong. Yes,
we could have mentioned that there could be some fall out because of
OW/Celtix. BUT we took care of it by working with the folks involved
and getting them interested in what we are doing. Yes, we could have
secretly email the PMC. BUT THIS IS OPEN SOURCE for god's sake. If
you have a problem, talk about it in general mailing lists.
Look we have no code, some code from Infravio is using Axis 1.X and
the porposal makes it clear that it is only for "consultation" and not
a seeding codebase. So we are practically starting from scratch. No
one even understands that.
Am getting demoralized now because of all this brouhaha over nothing.
Guess, we don't really mean to be open. Suddenly even building
businesses around Open Source seems to be a bad idea given the
reactions for just one DAMN PROPOSAL. I guess given all the acrimony
we should stop introducing any projects in Apache. Let's just rot and
die.
/me wishes he were an employee of MSFT
</rant>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 01 Sep 2005, at 01:25, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> In my view, any group that
> wants to part of the ASF, under our IP and Community policies, is
> welcomed.
> The ASF should not be in the business of forbidding people to work on
> things
> here just because someone else feels that it should be happening in
> their
> fiefdom.
Someone should triple-check that a project consists of people rather
than industry consortia players.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought Open Source Java & XML
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>> IMHO, Incubator CANNOT take a decision based on a proposal. A badly
>> written proposal with best of intentions will not make it and folks
>> will not resubmit stuff just because a similar proj got rejected
>> before. I've always thought that the role of Incubator is to make SURE
>> that a project is ready for becoming a normal ASF project.
>>
>
> Also, the Incubator has the responsibility to watch a podling
> and determine if it should continue. Certainly this would imply
> that it has the responsibility to do so at the start. Plus,
> the Incubator has the responsibility for the "acceptance"
> of the new project. I just think that a RTC policy is
> better than a CTR policy for that acceptance, for the same
> reason we do so with code: stability and reliability.
I'm guessing you ment the stability and reliability of the Apache
Software Foundation, not the 0.0.1 release candidate of a newly minted,
incubating project :)
And with that justification, +1 across the board to your previous
comments.
Davanum - and other critics of this proposal - it's going to be your job
to ensure that the incubator doesn't use this responsibility as a club,
indescriminantly or worse yet, to descriminate about certain types of
software, languages, healthy communities or so on. Remember that the
folks exercising this oversight serve at the pleasure of the board, and
if there are problems here, the problems can be addressed on a case by
case basis :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 1, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Jim,
>
> IMHO, Incubator CANNOT take a decision based on a proposal. A badly
> written proposal with best of intentions will not make it and folks
> will not resubmit stuff just because a similar proj got rejected
> before. I've always thought that the role of Incubator is to make SURE
> that a project is ready for becoming a normal ASF project.
>
Also, the Incubator has the responsibility to watch a podling
and determine if it should continue. Certainly this would imply
that it has the responsibility to do so at the start. Plus,
the Incubator has the responsibility for the "acceptance"
of the new project. I just think that a RTC policy is
better than a CTR policy for that acceptance, for the same
reason we do so with code: stability and reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On September 1, 2005 11:32:49 AM -0400 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> The problem is that, up until the Incubator, there was
> relatively little oversight on new and incoming projects, at
> least in how they entered the ASF. Certainly the board
> could not keep track, and PMCs would occasionally
> not keep the board up to date. You then add in the fact
> that some of those projects had no concept of what
> the ASF was about, etc,... and it was a non-optimal
> situation.
>
> The Incubator was designed to be a funnel and a clearinghouse
> for new projects; yes, for the legal aspects, yes to
> ensure that the community grows and develops as it
> should, but also, I feel, to look at projects and
> see how they fit; to basically be the eyes and ears of
> the board with respect to these new projects.
>
> Now certainly having a PMC sponsor a project says
> a great deal and the Incubator does, and should,
> know that that approval carries a lot of weight.
> But again, I don't feel it is unreasonable for the
> Incubator also formally accept a podling, via
> some mechanism.
+1.
> To be blunt, the PMC is worried about the PMC alone; the
> Incubator is concerned about the ASF in general. Once in
> a rare while, the 2 might have conflicts.
The Incubator PMC may also be aware of issues that the other PMC is not
cognizant of.
> Lets be even more blunt. Once a podling is accepted
> into the Incubator, it is awarded almost instant credibility.
> Basically, it is using the Apache name and the Apache
> brand. Certainly the Incubator should ensure that any
> podling doesn't abuse that, and it should also ensure that
> the proposal and podling isn't just an avenue for creating
> instant buzz and instant credibility, for the benefit
> of the podling 1st and the ASF secondly (or less).
>
> The board has said many times, concerning growth, that
> when the brakes need to be applied, the Incubator would
> be the 1st entity to feel it, or want it. They are
> the canary in the coal mine.
+1. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
The problem is that, up until the Incubator, there was
relatively little oversight on new and incoming projects, at
least in how they entered the ASF. Certainly the board
could not keep track, and PMCs would occasionally
not keep the board up to date. You then add in the fact
that some of those projects had no concept of what
the ASF was about, etc,... and it was a non-optimal
situation.
The Incubator was designed to be a funnel and a clearinghouse
for new projects; yes, for the legal aspects, yes to
ensure that the community grows and develops as it
should, but also, I feel, to look at projects and
see how they fit; to basically be the eyes and ears of
the board with respect to these new projects.
Now certainly having a PMC sponsor a project says
a great deal and the Incubator does, and should,
know that that approval carries a lot of weight.
But again, I don't feel it is unreasonable for the
Incubator also formally accept a podling, via
some mechanism.
To be blunt, the PMC is worried about the PMC alone; the
Incubator is concerned about the ASF in general. Once in
a rare while, the 2 might have conflicts.
Lets be even more blunt. Once a podling is accepted
into the Incubator, it is awarded almost instant credibility.
Basically, it is using the Apache name and the Apache
brand. Certainly the Incubator should ensure that any
podling doesn't abuse that, and it should also ensure that
the proposal and podling isn't just an avenue for creating
instant buzz and instant credibility, for the benefit
of the podling 1st and the ASF secondly (or less).
The board has said many times, concerning growth, that
when the brakes need to be applied, the Incubator would
be the 1st entity to feel it, or want it. They are
the canary in the coal mine.
On Sep 1, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Jim,
>
> IMHO, Incubator CANNOT take a decision based on a proposal. A badly
> written proposal with best of intentions will not make it and folks
> will not resubmit stuff just because a similar proj got rejected
> before. I've always thought that the role of Incubator is to make SURE
> that a project is ready for becoming a normal ASF project.
>
> If we can't scale, it's our problem and we have to fix it. We should
> not fix it by closing our doors. Then its a old boys (and girls)
> club....
>
> -- dims
>
> On 9/1/05, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Cliff,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
>>>> charter) to include approving of all new projects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to
>>> second
>>> guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, but it is the role of the Incubator to ensure that
>> new projects are in the best interest of the foundation,
>> and not simply be a rubber stamp. The Incubator, for
>> example, I think has the responsibility to be able
>> to say "You know, this is a great proposal, but there
>> are too many podlings right now, and we cannot accept
>> it" and have that honored.
>>
>> For things as important as new projects within the
>> ASF, having the Incubator vote on acceptance is, I
>> think, a small consideration.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service
> Platform
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Jim,
IMHO, Incubator CANNOT take a decision based on a proposal. A badly
written proposal with best of intentions will not make it and folks
will not resubmit stuff just because a similar proj got rejected
before. I've always thought that the role of Incubator is to make SURE
that a project is ready for becoming a normal ASF project.
If we can't scale, it's our problem and we have to fix it. We should
not fix it by closing our doors. Then its a old boys (and girls)
club....
-- dims
On 9/1/05, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Cliff,
> >
> >
> >> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> >> charter) to include approving of all new projects
> >>
> >
> > To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to
> > second
> > guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
> >
>
> No, but it is the role of the Incubator to ensure that
> new projects are in the best interest of the foundation,
> and not simply be a rubber stamp. The Incubator, for
> example, I think has the responsibility to be able
> to say "You know, this is a great proposal, but there
> are too many podlings right now, and we cannot accept
> it" and have that honored.
>
> For things as important as new projects within the
> ASF, having the Incubator vote on acceptance is, I
> think, a small consideration.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web Service Platform
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:25 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Cliff,
>
>
>> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
>> charter) to include approving of all new projects
>>
>
> To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to
> second
> guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
>
No, but it is the role of the Incubator to ensure that
new projects are in the best interest of the foundation,
and not simply be a rubber stamp. The Incubator, for
example, I think has the responsibility to be able
to say "You know, this is a great proposal, but there
are too many podlings right now, and we cannot accept
it" and have that honored.
For things as important as new projects within the
ASF, having the Incubator vote on acceptance is, I
think, a small consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: a few steps before approving a project
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Cliff,
> - change the Incubator PMC charter (not that we have a official
> charter) to include approving of all new projects
To quote (or paraphrase) Roy, it is not the Incubator PMC's role to second
guess other ASF PMCs when it comes to introducing new ASF projects.
> - ensure all proposals use the same standard template
Fine.
> - add a question to the template asking whether the person(s)
> proposing are aware of similar open source projects inside or
> outside the ASF.
To what end? I know what is motivating this. In my view, any group that
wants to part of the ASF, under our IP and Community policies, is welcomed.
The ASF should not be in the business of forbidding people to work on things
here just because someone else feels that it should be happening in their
fiefdom. We don't even require uniqueness within the ASF, much less between
us and other groups. Should JAMES insist that the HTTP Server project shut
down mod_smtpd?
> consider having a formal liaison at a few key external open source
> communities to give a friendly notice to whenever the Incubator PMC
> knows there's a proposal that could be controversial
I am in favor of liaisons with other communities, but even making the
judgment call required above is claiming a subjective value.
> require that the Incubator PMC loops in the PRC on any project that
> could have any chance of media attention (either because of there
> overall significance of the project, the potential for controversy,
> expected vendor press releases, or the opportunity to release a joint
> statement with some other organization).
EVERY project should involve the PRC. The PRC is entirely underused, even
if overcommitted.
And don't forget that contrary to what was said on this thread, existing
PMCs *can* start their own projects from existing ASF committers and new
codebases that are developed within the ASF infrastructure without going
through the Incubator. The motivation for your e-mail would apply to those
as well.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org