You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com> on 2006/03/13 08:41:18 UTC
ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
John Sisson wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
>> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
>>
>> We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
> In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical
> service required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.
>
> Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:
> * JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a
> JIRA issue)
> * Backups of JIRA data under ASF control
>
> Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA
> does not have the ability to import data for a single project from
> data exported from another JIRA instance (
> http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ).
>
> Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a
> copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it,
> delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and
> then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?
>
> Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data
> into the main ASF instance.
>
> Thoughts?
Sounds great. It seems that you have a good start on this. Thanks for
volunteering!
/me ducks out of the room...
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 13 Mar 2006, at 17:27, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF
>> infrastructure!
>> But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
>> poddling from graduation from the incubator.
>
> Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all
> resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1.
Given the complexity of moving just a single project from a JIRA
server into a different server, how about we create a brand new JIRA
project on Apache's JIRA server for ActiveMQ and leave the old one
around for legacy pre-Apache stuff?
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 13 Mar 2006, at 17:27, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF
>> infrastructure!
>> But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
>> poddling from graduation from the incubator.
>
> Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all
> resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1.
Given the complexity of moving just a single project from a JIRA
server into a different server, how about we create a brand new JIRA
project on Apache's JIRA server for ActiveMQ and leave the old one
around for legacy pre-Apache stuff?
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I'll start at thread on infrastructure to discuss how best to get the
JIRA migration done.
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/13/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure!
> > But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
> > poddling from graduation from the incubator.
>
> Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all
> resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1.
>
> > I did a quick check and it
> > seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see:
> > http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html
>
> I would not look at Maven as a good example of where the lines should
> be drawn. -- justin
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/13/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure!
> But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
> poddling from graduation from the incubator.
Well, I do. At the end of the Incubation process, it must have all
resources on ASF-standard resources or I will vote -1.
> I did a quick check and it
> seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see:
> http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html
I would not look at Maven as a good example of where the lines should
be drawn. -- justin
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Hi John,
On 3/13/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> > ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
> >
> > We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service
> required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.
I agree that we should work on getting our JIRA in the ASF infrastructure!
But I don' think accomplishing that task should be gate the limit's a
poddling from graduation from the incubator. I did a quick check and it
seems even the Maven TLP's JIRA is not on Apache infrastructure. see:
http://maven.apache.org/issue-tracking.html
Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:
> * JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a
> JIRA issue)
> * Backups of JIRA data under ASF control
>
> Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does
> not have the ability to import data for a single project from data
> exported from another JIRA instance (
> http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ).
Agreed. I would think this one of the biggest problems that the ASF
infrastructure team has with JIRA.
Regards,
Hiram
Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a
> copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it,
> delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and
> then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?
>
> Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data into
> the main ASF instance.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
John Sisson wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
>> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
>>
>> We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
> In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical
> service required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.
>
> Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:
> * JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a
> JIRA issue)
> * Backups of JIRA data under ASF control
>
> Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA
> does not have the ability to import data for a single project from
> data exported from another JIRA instance (
> http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ).
>
> Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a
> copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it,
> delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and
> then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?
>
> Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data
> into the main ASF instance.
>
> Thoughts?
Sounds great. It seems that you have a good start on this. Thanks for
volunteering!
/me ducks out of the room...
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
>
> We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service
required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.
Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:
* JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a
JIRA issue)
* Backups of JIRA data under ASF control
Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does
not have the ability to import data for a single project from data
exported from another JIRA instance (
http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ).
Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a
copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it,
delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and
then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?
Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data into
the main ASF instance.
Thoughts?
Regards,
John
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> ActiveMQ from the Incubator. The status file is located here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/activemq/trunk/STATUS
>
> We are proactively seeking feedback in the interest of graduation.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
In regards to the infrastructure items, IMHO JIRA is a critical service
required by the project and should be run on ASF infrastructure.
Some of the benefits of moving ActiveMQ's JIRA data to the ASF would be:
* JIRA svn integration (ability to see svn changes associated with a
JIRA issue)
* Backups of JIRA data under ASF control
Seems like now would be a good time to do this, but currently JIRA does
not have the ability to import data for a single project from data
exported from another JIRA instance (
http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-1604 ).
Would it be practical to follow Jeff Turner's suggestion in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713 , e.g. downloading a
copy of JIRA 'Standalone' (built-in hsql db), load the data into it,
delete everything not relating to ActiveMQ, and create an export and
then run ActiveMQ's JIRA in a separate JIRA instance?
Once JIRA's import/export is enhanced we then could import the data into
the main ASF instance.
Thoughts?
Regards,
John
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Hi Noel,
We've got a JIRA out there to create the PPMC lists:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-757
But perhaps it has fallen through the cracks. Should I ping the
infrastructure mailing lists about this issue? Any help with this
would be most appreciated!
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for
> ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing
> that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in
> several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I
> have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as
> it does from Bugzilla.
>
> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James
> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF
> community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we
> need more Mentors.
>
> There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
> Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable,
> limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because
> projects are already here, and lack the resources.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/14/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
> Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
Only the Board can approve a new TLP. If the Board does not approve a
podling as a TLP, the Incubator PMC is then responsible for
'releasing' that project into the oversight of another PMC. The
Incubator PMC should only 'release' when it is confident that all of
the legal and community procedures and policies have been successfully
completed. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
No, it's not mandatory. And (AFAIK) no-one's going to force it
TLP against the consensual wishes of its participants and sponsor
unless there's a bloody good reason.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf2JZrNPMCpn3XdAQK1+wQAtugkocu4mpiMjbSW1Trgby2tbGlme3rt
ZoHH6dj27vAGIEqwqP8K0elHhh7fezea0cItawPcXTHjwXKQMkbonv1XGdfdeAIZ
nrwIfyJAb3t3P0qR5O3oekEeazFu7odeoWf6vYKypg0JyBc1jPTRxEd6QB6yEvai
dxSP6AMPGzw=
=EygF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
No, it's not mandatory. And (AFAIK) no-one's going to force it
TLP against the consensual wishes of its participants and sponsor
unless there's a bloody good reason.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf2JZrNPMCpn3XdAQK1+wQAtugkocu4mpiMjbSW1Trgby2tbGlme3rt
ZoHH6dj27vAGIEqwqP8K0elHhh7fezea0cItawPcXTHjwXKQMkbonv1XGdfdeAIZ
nrwIfyJAb3t3P0qR5O3oekEeazFu7odeoWf6vYKypg0JyBc1jPTRxEd6QB6yEvai
dxSP6AMPGzw=
=EygF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
Unless there is a really good reason for AMQ *not* to graduate
into Geronimo, that's what will happen. At which point it
will be part of Geronimo and the Geronimo PMC applies. While
it's still in the incubator, though.. no, AMQ *can't* use the
Geronimo PMC for oversight. AMQ's PPMC can have zero to N of
the Geronimo PMC members on it, but it would also have some
from the incubator (at least the mentors -- currently just you)
and some committers from the podling (who would *not* be on the
Geronimo PMC). Sponsoring TLPs can provide advice and
guidance to podlings, but not direction -- they're self-directing.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBgRj5rNPMCpn3XdAQLnLQP/cZMXTLLaS+/wvVXwXqzseNwA8PqUziaJ
H3aRUgfzskZtYcZ0a6XNKQsIFtPbmtq7hC1Wpd3vQ6b7hYt4wmjkAsw7ZhgXH5yE
p1sI1WXJvG44Mr27mQdAVF/zuAnOFaAe4yThWyR9Jp4tb95qPY56MsuDkO0y4Cd9
zBfyXY7edfY=
=PKwQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
> want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
> just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
> to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
Unless there is a really good reason for AMQ *not* to graduate
into Geronimo, that's what will happen. At which point it
will be part of Geronimo and the Geronimo PMC applies. While
it's still in the incubator, though.. no, AMQ *can't* use the
Geronimo PMC for oversight. AMQ's PPMC can have zero to N of
the Geronimo PMC members on it, but it would also have some
from the incubator (at least the mentors -- currently just you)
and some committers from the podling (who would *not* be on the
Geronimo PMC). Sponsoring TLPs can provide advice and
guidance to podlings, but not direction -- they're self-directing.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBgRj5rNPMCpn3XdAQLnLQP/cZMXTLLaS+/wvVXwXqzseNwA8PqUziaJ
H3aRUgfzskZtYcZ0a6XNKQsIFtPbmtq7hC1Wpd3vQ6b7hYt4wmjkAsw7ZhgXH5yE
p1sI1WXJvG44Mr27mQdAVF/zuAnOFaAe4yThWyR9Jp4tb95qPY56MsuDkO0y4Cd9
zBfyXY7edfY=
=PKwQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/14/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
> Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
Only the Board can approve a new TLP. If the Board does not approve a
podling as a TLP, the Incubator PMC is then responsible for
'releasing' that project into the oversight of another PMC. The
Incubator PMC should only 'release' when it is confident that all of
the legal and community procedures and policies have been successfully
completed. -- justin
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> I don't see any rush here.
I think your initial 'what do we need to work on in order
to eventually graduate?' message got interpreted by some
- -- probably myself included -- as a 'what are the last
items to check off so we can graduate?' message. And
from there emotions flared. Sorry to say, I think Dain's
comment:
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation.
unluckily came at the perfect time to reinforce the wrong message.
> Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do?
It absolutely is.
> Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if there
> is no real need other than historical precedence of previous
> podlings' matriculation?
No. But that's the wrong question. 'Is there a real need to keep
this in the incubator, and, if so, what is it?'
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBjiw5rNPMCpn3XdAQL6lQP+Pa7TWNs6BO57HAbSkeerPFS3k7ZRfqRV
U/MyaPM2iiCaaXQaIhEBdJrXC/tlT3SKOOgJ9KzxZyfBJkC/9Vu77z35LgI+uIEq
Dt+2/rQvU6EeENYiz0eN6RG1RhthHBfremhM1ONr/SMND35QaxZQQIAycm4zBS0h
guuwMdwjxxY=
=ZQYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> I don't see any rush here.
I think your initial 'what do we need to work on in order
to eventually graduate?' message got interpreted by some
- -- probably myself included -- as a 'what are the last
items to check off so we can graduate?' message. And
from there emotions flared. Sorry to say, I think Dain's
comment:
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation.
unluckily came at the perfect time to reinforce the wrong message.
> Is it not a natural question to ask what else is left to do?
It absolutely is.
> Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the incubator if there
> is no real need other than historical precedence of previous
> podlings' matriculation?
No. But that's the wrong question. 'Is there a real need to keep
this in the incubator, and, if so, what is it?'
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBjiw5rNPMCpn3XdAQL6lQP+Pa7TWNs6BO57HAbSkeerPFS3k7ZRfqRV
U/MyaPM2iiCaaXQaIhEBdJrXC/tlT3SKOOgJ9KzxZyfBJkC/9Vu77z35LgI+uIEq
Dt+2/rQvU6EeENYiz0eN6RG1RhthHBfremhM1ONr/SMND35QaxZQQIAycm4zBS0h
guuwMdwjxxY=
=ZQYY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and
Geronimo
> PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see
communities
> having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
> community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some
time.
>
> Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
> JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
> projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
> different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
> months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
> to rush to judgment?
> I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what
> else is left to do?
Sure. And I did answer. There are objective critera, and a subjective
judgment that the community is ready. The references to other projects,
with the caveats, were in terms of setting expectations based upon what has
been the case over a large set of projects. As a general rule, communities
of any size do spend more time than ActiveMQ has spent so far.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>
>> What other issues are there?
>>
>
> A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
> PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
> having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
> community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time.
>
> Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
> JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
> projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
> different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
> months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
> to rush to judgment?
I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what
else is left to do? Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the
incubator if there is no real need other than historical precedence of
previous podlings' matriculation? There were concrete reasons for the
duration of their incubation. If they are the same issues as AMQ, then
let's focus on those concrete issues.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>
>> What other issues are there?
>>
>
> A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
> PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
> having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
> community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time.
>
> Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
> JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
> projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
> different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
> months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
> to rush to judgment?
I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what
else is left to do? Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the
incubator if there is no real need other than historical precedence of
previous podlings' matriculation? There were concrete reasons for the
duration of their incubation. If they are the same issues as AMQ, then
let's focus on those concrete issues.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>
>> What other issues are there?
>>
>
> A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
> PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
> having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
> community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time.
>
> Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
> JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
> projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
> different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
> months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
> to rush to judgment?
I don't see any rush here. Is it not a natural question to ask what
else is left to do? Is there a compelling reason to keep this in the
incubator if there is no real need other than historical precedence of
previous podlings' matriculation? There were concrete reasons for the
duration of their incubation. If they are the same issues as AMQ, then
let's focus on those concrete issues.
Regards,
Alan
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
James Strachan wrote:
> What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time.
Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
to rush to judgment?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
James Strachan wrote:
> What other issues are there?
A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo
PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities
having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF
community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time.
Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months;
JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few
projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is
different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3
months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need
to rush to judgment?
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe
> that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
> separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE
> server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my
> views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about
> ActiveMQ. I like
> the project.
Great :)
> I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to
> go before
> it is ready as a TLP.
What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
> For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is
> only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
What other issues are there?
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
> >>> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
> >>> see a separate jar).
> >>>
> >>>
> >> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own
> >> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at
> >> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had
> >> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done
> >> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
> >>
> >>
> >>> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
> >>> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
> >>> on it. Are people talking offline?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most
> >> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see
> >> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
> >> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk
> >> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not apply :)
> >
> > A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the
> > subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain
> > oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be
> > an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC
> > don't even know that they exist.
> >
>
> Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an
> architectural component of AMQ.
Scandalous - you're suggesting I should actually understand things
before making wide sweeping statements? :)
Hopefully I'll get better at that (understanding - expect the
statements to continue) - my last job involved lots of JMS and I
always had a todo of looking to see how easy it would be to move to
ActiveMQ [not that I could have achieved that politically - we'd moved
from JBossMQ to Fiorano a few years previously]. Even been writing a
simple JMS implementation recently, though more as an exercise and
excuse to work with an old friend than a serious project.
I'd meant it to refer to ActiveCluster/ActiveIO as well; but good to
know OpenWire isn't a subproject of ActiveMQ.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
One of my pet peeves was that there was little or no discussion on
many aspects of the proposals in the Geronimo dev list before the pmc
decided to sponsor it. Am just making sure there are no unknowns with
my incubator pmc hat on. I'd like to thank James and Alan for taking
the time to answer all my questions.
thanks,
dims
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nope. just a review.
>
> On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> > > component of AMQ" as well?
> >
> > Are you looking for obstacles?
> > - --
> > #ken P-)}
> >
> > Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> > Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
> >
> > "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iQCVAwUBRBliCprNPMCpn3XdAQLy+gQAy1UvXv9zRtaSGbDLzj/Gwds01BSHIFJG
> > 3G7Oc05OyKbsvXbgVTyJoHVn9UOYm6vFNrU/WpXxSYScVORwhFSzP1OXknC9EPff
> > iSajCtWXtZp02ibIqDOOSkkU0GHtT6RNfm3/fP4SHx5QZdbjRs6OwYqckjyKxWBo
> > Id5A31eQnxM=
> > =CYKV
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
nope. just a review.
On 3/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> > component of AMQ" as well?
>
> Are you looking for obstacles?
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRBliCprNPMCpn3XdAQLy+gQAy1UvXv9zRtaSGbDLzj/Gwds01BSHIFJG
> 3G7Oc05OyKbsvXbgVTyJoHVn9UOYm6vFNrU/WpXxSYScVORwhFSzP1OXknC9EPff
> iSajCtWXtZp02ibIqDOOSkkU0GHtT6RNfm3/fP4SHx5QZdbjRs6OwYqckjyKxWBo
> Id5A31eQnxM=
> =CYKV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> component of AMQ" as well?
Are you looking for obstacles?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBliCprNPMCpn3XdAQLy+gQAy1UvXv9zRtaSGbDLzj/Gwds01BSHIFJG
3G7Oc05OyKbsvXbgVTyJoHVn9UOYm6vFNrU/WpXxSYScVORwhFSzP1OXknC9EPff
iSajCtWXtZp02ibIqDOOSkkU0GHtT6RNfm3/fP4SHx5QZdbjRs6OwYqckjyKxWBo
Id5A31eQnxM=
=CYKV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
> component of AMQ" as well?
Yes
Both those codebases sprang out of the ActiveMQ code (developed by a subset
of the ActiveMQ committers) but they turned out to be way too small to
really deserve to be separate projects - both libraries are pretty much
complete with little development activitity; so we merged them back into
ActiveMQ as modules. ActiveIO is a low level IO module which ActiveMQ
depends on for NIO & AIO support but can be reused by other Geronimo
projects like OpenEJB; ActiveCluster is a clustering layer implemented with
ActiveMQ but providing a slightly higher level abstraction to node
membership than the JMS API which already WADI uses and other clustering
services in Geronimo could use too.
One of the main reasons for wanting to unify the Geronimo sub projects
together - even if its just for a short while until things move TLP - is so
we can more easily move code around to where it really belongs and
consolidate infrastructural code across technical areas (web, JMS, EJB, JMX,
JBI etc). e.g. I can imagine code from the ActiveCluster module merging with
WADI into some new Geronimo cluster module one day - or it might just remain
a module in ActiveMQ. ActiveIO could maybe merge with code from OpenEJB and
XBean into code in Geronimo for a generic Geronimo IO module etc. One of the
big motivations for moving all the sub projects to Apache was that there was
lots of similar chunks of code in the sub projects - and in Geronimo itself
- that really needed unifcation and consolidation which is harder to do when
every project is effectively its own TLP with different PMCs and committers.
James
On 3/16/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> > > On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate
> projects
> > >>> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i
> don't
> > >>> see a separate jar).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their
> own
> > >> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations
> at
> > >> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they
> had
> > >> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been
> done
> > >> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
> > >>> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any
> opinion
> > >>> on it. Are people talking offline?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so
> most
> > >> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll
> see
> > >> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
> > >> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large
> bulk
> > >> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not
> apply :)
> > >
> > > A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the
> > > subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain
> > > oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be
> > > an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC
> > > don't even know that they exist.
> > >
> >
> > Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an
> > architectural component of AMQ.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural
component of AMQ" as well?
On 3/16/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
> >>> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
> >>> see a separate jar).
> >>>
> >>>
> >> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own
> >> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at
> >> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had
> >> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done
> >> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
> >>
> >>
> >>> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
> >>> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
> >>> on it. Are people talking offline?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most
> >> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see
> >> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
> >> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk
> >> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not apply :)
> >
> > A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the
> > subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain
> > oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be
> > an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC
> > don't even know that they exist.
> >
>
> Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an
> architectural component of AMQ.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
>>> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
>>> see a separate jar).
>>>
>>>
>> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own
>> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at
>> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had
>> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done
>> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
>>
>>
>>> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
>>> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
>>> on it. Are people talking offline?
>>>
>>>
>> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most
>> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see
>> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
>> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk
>> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
>>
>
> Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not apply :)
>
> A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the
> subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain
> oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be
> an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC
> don't even know that they exist.
>
Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an
architectural component of AMQ.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
> > in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
> > see a separate jar).
> >
>
> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own
> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at
> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had
> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done
> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
>
> > - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
> > email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
> > on it. Are people talking offline?
> >
>
> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most
> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see
> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk
> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not apply :)
A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the
subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain
oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be
an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC
don't even know that they exist.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Alan,
>
> There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
>
> - The large # of committers who don't really commit
>
This is a perennial issue w/ incubation, IIRC. Do we give commit to all
original committers and take it away from inactive ones or do we go the
route of Ode and make the initial committer set small. Personally, I
like the latter but that would cut out people like Brian, who doesn't
write crappy code. ;) Maybe there's a written policy in the incubator
on this. I think that this is a topic worthy of a separate discussion.
FWIW, of the 20 who actually have karma, 15 have committed code so far.
Most of the remaining 5 work on Geronimo and have committed work in the
past when we integrated AMQ into Geronimo.
> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
> see a separate jar).
>
These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their own
project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations at
the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they had
known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been done
differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
> - The constant unrelenting pressure to make activemq part of Geronimo
> so that all the 27 people become Geronimo committers
>
I'm on the fence on this one. I just would like to see AMQ graduate,
soon. If it's a TLP, great. If it's a sub-project, fine. If ACLs are
created so that these committers stay in their sub-project pen, that's
cool too. At Geronimo, we don't jealously guard membership to the
committer table; any motivated competent person is welcome to the
table. These people have worked hard on AMQ and are competent coders.
I want to point out that I don't see 27 committers, I see 20. When I
look at the list of committers I see that a large chunk, almost half,
already are Geronimo committers.
> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
> on it. Are people talking offline?
>
OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so most
of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll see
bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings.
However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large bulk
of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++.
> - People commenting on the silence on the dev mailing list.[2]
>
Probably IRC. It's a bad addictive habit that should be stomped out,
but it happens everywhere, not that that's an excuse. You'll notice
that the email is about OpenWire. It also seems that our email activity
is on a par with other graduated projects.
> Somehow all of this is making me queasy...
>
Get some sleep! ;) (Some of you may not know that Dims has been
recently blessed w/ a new baby)
There are some good points here on where we can improve. Thanks for the
detailed list. I'm glad to see that you are consistently expending a
lot of effort in this. The amount of time that you have spent scrubbing
the subversion logs and reading the email archives really sets you apart
from the rest of the Apache community. It really makes a big
difference. Would you consider being one of our mentors?
Regards,
Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Alan,
There is something going on that i can't really put my finger on.
- The large # of committers who don't really commit
- The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate projects
in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i don't
see a separate jar).
- The constant unrelenting pressure to make activemq part of Geronimo
so that all the 27 people become Geronimo committers
- The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status
email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any opinion
on it. Are people talking offline?
- People commenting on the silence on the dev mailing list.[2]
Somehow all of this is making me queasy...
[1] - http://www.mail-archive.com/activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg00138.html
[2] - http://www.mail-archive.com/activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg00099.html
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >
> >
> >> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> >> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
> >>
> >
> > Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
> > should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
> > releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
> > and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
> > Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
> >
> > Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
> > the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> > project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
> > it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> > has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
> > issue, and is being addressed.
> >
> > Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
> > should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
> >
> >
>
> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would
> prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>
> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues, to be done to graduate as
> a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate?
>
> IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a
> sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve
> into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at
> this time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Leo,
Many of the folks in the ActiveMQ project already have been through
the incubation process once before when we put Geronimo though. It's
not like this is our first rodeo. So in our eyes we really do think
we are very close to having satisfied the incubation requirements. I
think Alan was opening up the discussion to get constructive feed back
on what people feel is missing.
For example, you have an opinion that "The idea that ActiveMQ as a
community is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward." You are
aware that this was a community that was started by Apache committers
and run very much in the Apache meritocratic style when it was the
codehaus right? So in sort, it would be nice for you to explain this
opinion a little more.
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
> * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
> * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
> mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
> of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
> those that came before you.
>
> * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
> and discussion.
>
> * work to address the list.
>
> * keep a record of this work.
>
> * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
> * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
> during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
> send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting.
>
> * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
> can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> > >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> > >
> >
> > At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> > concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
> > the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
> > subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
> > necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
> > that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
> >
> > >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> > >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> > >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
> > >>
> > >
> > >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to
> > >being
> > >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> > >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> > >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> > >Incubator.
> > >
> >
> > There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
> > subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
> > not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
> > communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
> > fair to the AMQ community?
> >
> > >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> > >>as a sub-project
> > >>
> > >
> > >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> > >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
> > >
> > >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> > >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> > >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> > >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> > >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> > >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> > >have binding votes?
> > >
> > >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> > >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> > >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
> > >ActiveMQ
> > >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> > >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
> > >
> > >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> > have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> > Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> > ready to vote, imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
There are some good ideas in here. Though I don't see Alan complaining.
I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it,
and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion.
Seems like a positive start.
-David
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and
> something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of
> those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-
> to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation
> thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the
> third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this
> is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
> * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
> * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
> mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
> of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
> those that came before you.
>
> * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
> and discussion.
>
> * work to address the list.
>
> * keep a record of this work.
>
> * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
> * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
> during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
> send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board
> meeting.
>
> * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
> can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>>>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>>>
>>
>> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
>> concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out
>> points on
>> the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a
>> TLP or
>> subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
>> necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it
>> graduates
>> that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>>
>>>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that
>>>> it has a
>>>> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
>>>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come
>>> down to
>>> being
>>> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
>>> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and
>>> practices. And
>>> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
>>> Incubator.
>>>
>>
>> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
>> subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself,
>> can you
>> not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
>> communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is
>> that
>> fair to the AMQ community?
>>
>>>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>>>> as a sub-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of
>>> that comes
>>> down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>>>
>>> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more
>>> or less
>>> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So
>>> if we have
>>> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of
>>> another TLP
>>> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that
>>> community to
>>> lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they
>>> going to
>>> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for
>>> them to
>>> have binding votes?
>>>
>>> This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in
>>> detail the PMC
>>> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to
>>> this case.
>>> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome
>>> them as
>>> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>>>
>>> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the
>> need to
>> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it
>> graduates.
>> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we
>> will be
>> ready to vote, imho.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Leo,
Many of the folks in the ActiveMQ project already have been through
the incubation process once before when we put Geronimo though. It's
not like this is our first rodeo. So in our eyes we really do think
we are very close to having satisfied the incubation requirements. I
think Alan was opening up the discussion to get constructive feed back
on what people feel is missing.
For example, you have an opinion that "The idea that ActiveMQ as a
community is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward." You are
aware that this was a community that was started by Apache committers
and run very much in the Apache meritocratic style when it was the
codehaus right? So in sort, it would be nice for you to explain this
opinion a little more.
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
> * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
> * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
> mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
> of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
> those that came before you.
>
> * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
> and discussion.
>
> * work to address the list.
>
> * keep a record of this work.
>
> * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
> * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
> during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
> send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting.
>
> * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
> can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> > >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> > >
> >
> > At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> > concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
> > the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
> > subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
> > necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
> > that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
> >
> > >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> > >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> > >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
> > >>
> > >
> > >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to
> > >being
> > >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> > >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> > >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> > >Incubator.
> > >
> >
> > There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
> > subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
> > not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
> > communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
> > fair to the AMQ community?
> >
> > >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> > >>as a sub-project
> > >>
> > >
> > >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> > >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
> > >
> > >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> > >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> > >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> > >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> > >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> > >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> > >have binding votes?
> > >
> > >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> > >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> > >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
> > >ActiveMQ
> > >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> > >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
> > >
> > >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> > have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> > Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> > ready to vote, imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
There are some good ideas in here. Though I don't see Alan complaining.
I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it,
and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion.
Seems like a positive start.
-David
On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and
> something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of
> those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-
> to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation
> thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the
> third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this
> is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
> * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
> * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
> mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
> of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
> those that came before you.
>
> * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
> and discussion.
>
> * work to address the list.
>
> * keep a record of this work.
>
> * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
> * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
> during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
> send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board
> meeting.
>
> * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
> can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>>>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>>>
>>
>> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
>> concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out
>> points on
>> the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a
>> TLP or
>> subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
>> necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it
>> graduates
>> that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>>
>>>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that
>>>> it has a
>>>> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
>>>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come
>>> down to
>>> being
>>> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
>>> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and
>>> practices. And
>>> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
>>> Incubator.
>>>
>>
>> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
>> subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself,
>> can you
>> not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
>> communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is
>> that
>> fair to the AMQ community?
>>
>>>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>>>> as a sub-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of
>>> that comes
>>> down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>>>
>>> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more
>>> or less
>>> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So
>>> if we have
>>> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of
>>> another TLP
>>> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that
>>> community to
>>> lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they
>>> going to
>>> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for
>>> them to
>>> have binding votes?
>>>
>>> This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in
>>> detail the PMC
>>> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to
>>> this case.
>>> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome
>>> them as
>>> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>>>
>>> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the
>> need to
>> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it
>> graduates.
>> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we
>> will be
>> ready to vote, imho.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Leo,
Many of the folks in the ActiveMQ project already have been through
the incubation process once before when we put Geronimo though. It's
not like this is our first rodeo. So in our eyes we really do think
we are very close to having satisfied the incubation requirements. I
think Alan was opening up the discussion to get constructive feed back
on what people feel is missing.
For example, you have an opinion that "The idea that ActiveMQ as a
community is ready to leave the incubator, is well, awkward." You are
aware that this was a community that was started by Apache committers
and run very much in the Apache meritocratic style when it was the
codehaus right? So in sort, it would be nice for you to explain this
opinion a little more.
Regards,
Hiram
On 3/17/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
> * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
> * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
> mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
> of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
> those that came before you.
>
> * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
> and discussion.
>
> * work to address the list.
>
> * keep a record of this work.
>
> * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
> * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
> during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
> send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting.
>
> * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
> can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> > >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> > >
> >
> > At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> > concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
> > the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
> > subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
> > necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
> > that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
> >
> > >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> > >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> > >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
> > >>
> > >
> > >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to
> > >being
> > >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> > >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> > >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> > >Incubator.
> > >
> >
> > There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
> > subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
> > not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
> > communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
> > fair to the AMQ community?
> >
> > >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> > >>as a sub-project
> > >>
> > >
> > >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> > >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
> > >
> > >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> > >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> > >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> > >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> > >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> > >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> > >have binding votes?
> > >
> > >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> > >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> > >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
> > >ActiveMQ
> > >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> > >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
> > >
> > >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> > have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> > Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> > ready to vote, imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Alan,
Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
(...)
What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face
history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp
your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time
I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not
how it works.
(...)
Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
* stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
* compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
those that came before you.
* send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
and discussion.
* work to address the list.
* keep a record of this work.
* point to the record (STATUS file).
* spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting.
* look back on this process and document what you learned so others
can benefit from it.
The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
it is not.
LSD
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> >>
> >
> >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> >
>
> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
> the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
> subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
> necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
> that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>
> >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
> >>
> >
> >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to
> >being
> >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> >Incubator.
> >
>
> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
> subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
> not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
> communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
> fair to the AMQ community?
>
> >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> >>as a sub-project
> >>
> >
> >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
> >
> >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> >have binding votes?
> >
> >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
> >ActiveMQ
> >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
> >
> >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
> >
> >
>
> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> ready to vote, imho.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Alan,
Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and something
incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of those people
are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
(...)
What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face-to-face
history of various people trying to help with this incubation thing, stamp
your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the third time
I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this is not
how it works.
(...)
Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
* stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
* compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
those that came before you.
* send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
and discussion.
* work to address the list.
* keep a record of this work.
* point to the record (STATUS file).
* spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board meeting.
* look back on this process and document what you learned so others
can benefit from it.
The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
it is not.
LSD
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> >>that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
> >>
> >
> >Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> >
>
> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
> concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
> the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
> subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
> necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
> that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>
> >>You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> >>long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> >>remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
> >>
> >
> >See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to
> >being
> >able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> >community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> >that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> >Incubator.
> >
>
> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
> subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
> not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
> communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
> fair to the AMQ community?
>
> >>If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> >>as a sub-project
> >>
> >
> >I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> >down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
> >
> >Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> >been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> >some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> >within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> >lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> >be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> >have binding votes?
> >
> >This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> >and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> >I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
> >ActiveMQ
> >and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> >Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
> >
> >Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
> >
> >
>
> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> ready to vote, imho.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to
> > convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that
> > the community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles
> > and practices.
> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective".
An operational definition would be decisions that are based upon each
person's experiences, best judgment, etc. That does not mean arbitrary and
capricious.
Members of the Incubator PMC are expected to be experienced in community
building and ASF practices, and to use their best judgment. We may not
always agree off the bat, and may debate matters to arrive at a consensus,
but each member of the Incubator PMC is entitled to their opinions, and
would be expected to vote such.
> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
> ready to vote, imho.
I believe that I've explained that my concerns over where it lands come from
underlying issues for each community. In any event, if a vote is called, we
can find out what the overall consensus is of the Incubator PMC.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>
> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
>> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>
>
> See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> Incubator.
>
There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
fair to the AMQ community?
>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>> as a sub-project
>>
>
> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>
> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> have binding votes?
>
> This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
> and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>
> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>
>
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
ready to vote, imho.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>
> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
>> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>
>
> See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> Incubator.
>
There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
fair to the AMQ community?
>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>> as a sub-project
>>
>
> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>
> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> have binding votes?
>
> This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
> and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>
> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>
>
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
ready to vote, imho.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>
>
> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>
At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
concerns. Henri and the others have provided well thought out points on
the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a TLP or
subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it graduates
that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
>> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>
>
> See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
> Incubator.
>
There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective". If
subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself, can you
not explicitly state what you'd like to see? If you are unable to
communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them. Is that
fair to the AMQ community?
>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>> as a sub-project
>>
>
> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
> down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>
> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
> lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
> have binding votes?
>
> This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
> and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>
> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>
>
If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the need to
have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it graduates.
Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we will be
ready to vote, imho.
Regards,
Alan
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
Incubator.
> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> as a sub-project
I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
have binding votes?
This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
> long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being
able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and practices. And
that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
Incubator.
> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
> as a sub-project
I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes
down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more or less
been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already." So if we have
some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP
within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to
lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to
be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to
have binding votes?
This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC
and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case.
I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ
and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as
Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
>> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
>>
>
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
>
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
> the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
> it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
>
> Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
> should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
>
>
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would
prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
remains, aside from the infrastructure issues, to be done to graduate as
a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate?
IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a
sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve
into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at
this time.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe
> that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
> separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE
> server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my
> views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about
> ActiveMQ. I like
> the project.
Great :)
> I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to
> go before
> it is ready as a TLP.
What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
> For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is
> only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
What other issues are there?
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
>> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
>>
>
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
>
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
> the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
> it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
>
> Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
> should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
>
>
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would
prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
remains, aside from the infrastructure issues, to be done to graduate as
a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate?
IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a
sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve
into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at
this time.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
>> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
>>
>
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
>
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
> the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
> it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
>
> Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
> should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
>
>
I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would
prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a
long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what
remains, aside from the infrastructure issues, to be done to graduate as
a TLP? If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
as a sub-project, can you enumerate what remains to be done to graduate?
IMO, aside from the infrastructure issues, AMQ is good to go as a
sub-project. It should start there and if it's worthy enough, evolve
into a TLP. I see no good reason for it to stay in the incubator at
this time.
Regards,
Alan
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 15 Mar 2006, at 03:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe
> that it
> should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is
> separately
> releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE
> server,
> and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my
> views. The
> Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
Just out of interest, who decides on if its going to be a TLP or
Geronimo sub project & how is that decision made?
> Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about
> ActiveMQ. I like
> the project.
Great :)
> I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
> project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to
> go before
> it is ready as a TLP.
What if folks involved in the project & on the Geronimo project don't
want it to be a TLP - at least not for a while yet? e.g. can't we
just use the Geronimo PMC until the time folks want/decide to start
to go TLP? Or is going TLP now mandatory?
> For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
> has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is
> only one
> issue, and is being addressed.
What other issues are there?
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
And should have been on general@incubator.apache.org, not pmc@i.a.o.
Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate
question of netiquette. And the Geronimo PMC can address the use of
pmc@g.a.o. In the meantime, since this was cross-posted to at least two
public lists, I am replying to general@i.a.o.
Now, on to the main topic:
----------------------------
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
issue, and is being addressed.
Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
> Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST
> will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just
went back and found that particular e-mail. Sorry.
To be clear, as noted above, we're still discussing SHOULD and MUST. There
is no *requirement* today that a project have at least 3 Mentors. I hope
that we will end up agreeing that it SHOULD, but with leeway to allow for
the PMC to apply human judgment.
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
> Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST
> will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just
went back and found that particular e-mail. Sorry.
To be clear, as noted above, we're still discussing SHOULD and MUST. There
is no *requirement* today that a project have at least 3 Mentors. I hope
that we will end up agreeing that it SHOULD, but with leeway to allow for
the PMC to apply human judgment.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
> > (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
> That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST will be,
as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
> > (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
> That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST will be,
as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted.
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James
> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project)
That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBcHjJrNPMCpn3XdAQKo5AP+NlL85QgGEbDkEqXs2YJNT24AlqyYgOpz
lK2eZpZnzxJRcFO+CQxnhBk1jmnr7XvimR1ta2ume6M7UeI0LtedRLkApOU2n0Hu
M+3CMp62MuZqx1/eyh4642XWj+au0ycPFPn3wns/ZOv4+SUE7RDrksxyyYr1bqOn
rvK9O8mafjw=
=j9bx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a
> precondition being placed on where they land.
>
> A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process,
> and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with
> lots of abandoned projects. But that pretty much is the extent of
> sponsorship.
The only thing I'd like to add is that I feel that a sponsoring PMC
should take interest in the mentoring and development of the project it
sponsored...
geir
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>>> graduation.
>>
>>
>> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
>> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
>> Noel's opinion that
>
>
> If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that the
> new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So I hope
> you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point.
>
>>> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No
>>> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors.
>>
>>
>> These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the
>> need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF
>> community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion,
>> myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that
>> has occurred in ActiveMQ.)
>
>
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply
> use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home
> for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been rewritten
> several time and based on the emails I saw today, the current rules
> that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be approved by the
> incubator. I personally find this incredibly frustrating, so please
> take my comments with a grain of salt.
>
> If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
> incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
> between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
> these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
>
> I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my
> opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong
> place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to bring
> in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board should
> consider setting something else up.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if
they don't they never were"
I firmly believe that the destination for a code base should be
determined at the EXIT of incubation. If each and every one of these
ultimately ends up at Geronimo by general consent of all the parties
involved, then (by definition) everybody is happy.
What I am unconfortable with is codebases being proposed with a
precondition being placed on where they land.
A sponsor is needed to inject a bit of accountability into the process,
and to reduce the tendency towards the ASF becoming a sourceforge with
lots of abandoned projects. But that pretty much is the extent of
sponsorship.
Every code base should be looked at with the possibility of being a TLP.
And with the possibility of being incorporated within an existing project.
Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF", and saying "I think ActiveMQ would
make a fine addition to Geronimo" are both reasonable things to say.
Saying "I want ActiveMQ at the ASF, but only if it is destined to be a
part of Geronimo" is not.
- Sam Ruby
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Official policy documents would be really nice, especially
> considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would
> hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator.
Yup. Policy still evolving, though, makes that a bit problematic
as you've noted. Jean is doing a great job with what's there,
though.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBbMIJrNPMCpn3XdAQL0rQP9GoAY+PK1nKmOUD2on/5JSDqP/C0ZdEEk
QF/O6gFbFgxl/1Q+8xNOdzFIQmePxQwTv4h5Lh44zShMfL9tH35P991MKR8aKkfR
AGm9IBx0plZPbA3iKF2BeC6hjIKJE17Pdgt0s961uoxQu4iSinAsh5safPInBziz
Q6KeQVt9yfY=
=ttW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>>> graduation.
>>
>> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
>> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
>> Noel's opinion that
>
> If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
> the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation".
> So I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with
> that point.
I just realized the size of the cross posting on this thread. To be
specific, I am referring to the proposed new rules thread on the
general@incubator list (which isn't even on this cross post). Of
course, I can't point to a specific email that made this policy, but
that was my understanding at the time.
Official policy documents would be really nice, especially
considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would
hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator.
Sorry about that,
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never*
>>> been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed
>>> to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you
>>> (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC
>>> could serve for a podling?
>>
>> If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
>> was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
>> PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
>> the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
>> subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
>> with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure
>> we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
>> that acted as a single whole.
>
> So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should
> direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation?
That was the way it was when we were incubated, and I was not aware
of the change.
>> Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an
>> existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
>> is supposed merging communities with another.
>
> You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
> podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
I think a podling can change direction during incubation, but I think
they do and should always have a target in mind.
>> Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup
>> it will be hard to merge.
>
> I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC
> members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings
> have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby,
> for example.
I think Derby has done a great job integrating into DB, but I would
like to see even closer ties in the Geronimo project.
>> I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to
>> setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target
>> communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous
>> whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to
>> achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the
>> conversations I had with a some of the board members before the
>> email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what
>> everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator
>> and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to
>> prevent exactly this....
>
> One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations.
> 'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A
> group of people working on an external project, which comes
> wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the
> accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had
> a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the
> consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit
> heresy. :-)
That makes since.
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has *never*
>> been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling has supposed
>> to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct me; where did you
>> (and evidently others) read whatever it was that said a TLP PMC
>> could serve for a podling?
>
> If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
> was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
> PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
> the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
> subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
> with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure
> we weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
> that acted as a single whole.
So, basically, the idea that a sponsoring PMC could/should
direct a podling comes from the time of Geronimo's own incubation?
> Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for a project that has an
> existing community. Option 2 is not appropriate for a project that
> is supposed merging communities with another.
You disgree with the doctrine of 'we don't know where a
podling will go until graduation,' I take it.
> Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once that is setup
> it will be hard to merge.
I disagree. There's nothing preventing the TLP PMC
members from getting on the PPMC. And other podlings
have managed to merge with little or no pain. Derby,
for example.
> I think we need an incubation procedure that instead is designed to
> setup and assure that the new incubating group is merging the target
> communities and that incubation is only complete once continuous
> whole. This is exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to
> achieve. In originally email I sent out on this and the
> conversations I had with a some of the board members before the
> email, I asked if we can "consolidate" our communities. This is what
> everyone was excited about and thought was possible in the incubator
> and now I feel that the new incubation rules seem to be setup to
> prevent exactly this....
One of the purposes of the incubator is to normalise expectations.
'Indoctrinate,' if you like, newcomers in the Apache ethos. A
group of people working on an external project, which comes
wholesale to Apache with that education being provided by the
accepting TLP, can lead to exactly the sort of problems we had
a few years ago. So the rules aren't there to prevent the
consolidation of communities; they're there (in part) to limit
heresy. :-)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBcUs5rNPMCpn3XdAQLA/AQAvkHNgfZ04zg4kdwMNQu7+b2GghWUu+nf
kHi8oCr9EAhI/LthNlX+BkrIk02Nrg6VbC+I0Gu5vwAB7D2/VnLeBKbwSAOYMfwp
CmOg9DPJ/lOsQQsD5fzb6T2hSp78foEdsLYwEItyVUPbRLhEwgC/Sv3ZQQbn5QPF
Do5jCKjEQhA=
=huxO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project.
>
> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has
> *never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling
> has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct
> me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it
> was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling?
If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure we
weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
that acted as a single whole.
>> If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
>> incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
>> between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
>> these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
>
> I believe there are two options:
>
> 1. Submit the code through the IP-vetting process. The people
> join the TLP dev mailing list and earn merit for commit over
> time like anyone else.
> 2. Submit the code+people for processing through the incubator
> as a podling. The committers get commit access right away,
> but now it's both the code and the community that's being
> vetted. And the eventual disposition of the podling is not
> a foregone conclusion.
>
> There is no fast-track to commit access.
I don't want a fast-track to commit either (I have a long history of
fighting that at Geronimo), but I believe we need a third option, in
between the two you present. Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for
a project that has an existing community. Option 2 is not
appropriate for a project that is supposed merging communities with
another. Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once
that is setup it will be hard to merge. I think we need an
incubation procedure that instead is designed to setup and assure
that the new incubating group is merging the target communities and
that incubation is only complete once continuous whole. This is
exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to achieve. In
originally email I sent out on this and the conversations I had with
a some of the board members before the email, I asked if we can
"consolidate" our communities. This is what everyone was excited
about and thought was possible in the incubator and now I feel that
the new incubation rules seem to be setup to prevent exactly this....
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 14, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project.
>
> AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has
> *never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling
> has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct
> me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it
> was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling?
If you remember back, Geronimo started in the incubator before there
was the concept of a PPMC. Geronimo was the first project to get a
PPMC because geronimo was target to be a top level project. All of
the other projects in the incubator at that time were targeted to be
subprojects to it made most since to get those sub projects working
with their sponsoring pmc and the incubator was there to make sure we
weren't ending up with umbrella subprojects, and instead projects
that acted as a single whole.
>> If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
>> incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
>> between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
>> these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
>
> I believe there are two options:
>
> 1. Submit the code through the IP-vetting process. The people
> join the TLP dev mailing list and earn merit for commit over
> time like anyone else.
> 2. Submit the code+people for processing through the incubator
> as a podling. The committers get commit access right away,
> but now it's both the code and the community that's being
> vetted. And the eventual disposition of the podling is not
> a foregone conclusion.
>
> There is no fast-track to commit access.
I don't want a fast-track to commit either (I have a long history of
fighting that at Geronimo), but I believe we need a third option, in
between the two you present. Option 1 is clearly not appropriate for
a project that has an existing community. Option 2 is not
appropriate for a project that is supposed merging communities with
another. Option 2 sets up a separate independent group, and once
that is setup it will be hard to merge. I think we need an
incubation procedure that instead is designed to setup and assure
that the new incubating group is merging the target communities and
that incubation is only complete once continuous whole. This is
exactly what the Geronimo incubation were suppose to achieve. In
originally email I sent out on this and the conversations I had with
a some of the board members before the email, I asked if we can
"consolidate" our communities. This is what everyone was excited
about and thought was possible in the incubator and now I feel that
the new incubation rules seem to be setup to prevent exactly this....
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
> the home for the project.
AFAIR, that was never *my* understanding. AFAIK, that has
*never* been the way the incubator has worked. Every podling
has supposed to have had a PPMC. If I'm wrong, please correct
me; where did you (and evidently others) read whatever it
was that said a TLP PMC could serve for a podling?
> If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
> incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
> between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
> these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
I believe there are two options:
1. Submit the code through the IP-vetting process. The people
join the TLP dev mailing list and earn merit for commit over
time like anyone else.
2. Submit the code+people for processing through the incubator
as a podling. The committers get commit access right away,
but now it's both the code and the community that's being
vetted. And the eventual disposition of the podling is not
a foregone conclusion.
There is no fast-track to commit access.
> I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my
> opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong
> place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to
> bring in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board
> should consider setting something else up.
See above. Code can come in quickly; people cannot.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBbJtZrNPMCpn3XdAQLy1wQAioqZdIRGZtBQCZbfHh7q4isKt6Wn1zPn
ZkLzMQloRlbBl+qN6Pmss9j/AAohak2nHmZ2NUO8yl75Is7koyb8p69ZI9ozXJfg
diki/C5pmVOeeXFqmWYqdgYtrgpjYGESFrME7dkfrvZkd82OPb1rhCkiBhWWuS1a
NQ7mlDm1Z88=
=eKpN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>>> graduation.
>>
>> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
>> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
>> Noel's opinion that
>
> If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
> the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation".
> So I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with
> that point.
I just realized the size of the cross posting on this thread. To be
specific, I am referring to the proposed new rules thread on the
general@incubator list (which isn't even on this cross post). Of
course, I can't point to a specific email that made this policy, but
that was my understanding at the time.
Official policy documents would be really nice, especially
considering they take a huge amount of time to develop and would
hopefully slow down the rate of change in the incubator.
Sorry about that,
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:
> > > I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> > > has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
>
> > my first pass definition is quite different:
> > an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal
> > organization structures do not coincide.
>
> > symptoms include divisions between committers (sub-projects with
> separate
> > karma and mailing lists) and the need for additional rules and
> management
> > due to the inability to provide oversight over the entire codebase.
>
> Robert, so you would want to ask the same question I asked Dain? To wit:
>
> - Are you going to make one community from the bunch,
> with everyone having access to work on every piece
> of code?
>
> - Are you going to have a large, single, PMC with everyone
> having binding decisions over every aspect of the project?
>
> Are those indicators for your definition?
+1
though i would prefer to think of three dimensions: legal, formal and social
(community).
the second is IMO a decisive indicator: legally, decisions must be taken by
the pmc as a whole. if that's not true in the formal structure of the
project we have a definite umbrella.
the first question is about the community dimension. a community does not
have to accord with the formal legal organisational structure. ATM it just
mostly happens to do so.
i would definitely still ask it, though. community needs to be a superset of
the formal legal divisions or it is inevitable that the project will drift
towards a disjunction between the legal and formal structures as separate
communities pull apart and establish their own social territories.
so, it's important to establish a esprit de corps.
Sounds like you'd have those, and additional ones.
not sure that i would - maybe fewer with more consequences :)
the legal situation here is pretty simple: TLPs with all pmc'ers having an
equal binding vote on all decisions binding on the ASF and each being
responsible for oversight.
the formal structure of a project includes karma. so, pmc'ers need to have
karma for the entire codebase so that they can act (where necessary) to
address legal issues.
mailing lists are another formal structure. one of the ways that oversight
is exercised is through reviewing commits. therefore, pmc'ers need to be fed
every commit email: anything else is a legal fiction. the same goes for
issues and wiki changes. the easiest and most transparent way to achieve
this is through a single mailing list for legally important messages for a
TLP to which all pmc'ers are obliged to subscribe. IMHO this needs to extend
to VOTEs as well.
this arrangement is self-limiting factor in terms of scaling: if a project
becomes so large that pmc'ers struggle to read these important messages then
the legal project needs to be split. if there is still sufficient esprit de
corps then federative solution is needed. this means that the legal entities
are split but the communities are not changed.
- robert
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
> > rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
>
> Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
> developers),
the developers wouldn't but IIRC misguided and slightly users asked
for one from time to time. ("take two java libraries into the shower?
i just jakarta and go!" ;)
> so you are right: Roys's definition may be formally
> wrong. In practice, I believe he's got a point. The common deliverable
> (like Geronimo, or httpd) is well suited to bind people together.
that's true enough: moving to more focussed projects is an improvement.
but jakarta managed to be pretty cohesive with a very noisy community
even without a single master product.
it would have been easy to come up with some sort of reasonable
charter and focus: but that would have done nothing to address the
issue of the mismatch between the legal structure (TLP) and the formal
organizational one (sub-projects, sub-sub-projects).
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
> rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
Most likely, noone would have used it (in particular, not the
developers), so you are right: Roys's definition may be formally
wrong. In practice, I believe he's got a point. The common deliverable
(like Geronimo, or httpd) is well suited to bind people together.
Jochen
--
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the
majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
(Mark Twain)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> > has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
> my first pass definition is quite different:
> an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal
> organization structures do not coincide.
> symptoms include divisions between committers (sub-projects with separate
> karma and mailing lists) and the need for additional rules and management
> due to the inability to provide oversight over the entire codebase.
Robert, so you would want to ask the same question I asked Dain? To wit:
- Are you going to make one community from the bunch,
with everyone having access to work on every piece
of code?
- Are you going to have a large, single, PMC with everyone
having binding decisions over every aspect of the project?
Are those indicators for your definition? Sounds like you'd have those, and
additional ones.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
> > area.
>
> I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
> There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella.
> There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't.
> Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements,
> of course, but that's my working definition.
would jakarta have been any less an umbrella if three years ago we'd started
rolling a huge jakarta.jar?
my first pass definition is quite different:
an umbrella is a project where there is the legal and formal organization
structures do not coincide.
symptoms include divisions between committers (sub-projects with separate
karma and mailing lists) and the need for additional rules and management
due to the inability to provide oversight over the entire codebase.
IMO ken's comments do apply but in a slightly different context. jakarta
also had the problem of a lack of scope and definition (in addition to the
problems caused by being an umbrella). there is now a preference for tightly
defined and scoped top level projects. the incubation process now bars
projects without a defined scope so this shouldn't be something that needs
to be worried about in the future.
- robert
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
I couldn't have said it better myself.
-dain
On Mar 15, 2006, at 4:27 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
> on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
> goal eventually.
>
> We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
> the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
> that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
> while and see what shakes out. We're all ready for a change in the
> status-quo.
>
> The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
> integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
> completely disappeared. We have too little integration with
> ActiveMQ such that the things you can do with standalone ActiveMQ
> you can't do with the Geronimo ActiveMQ. We have parts of Geronimo
> which could very well become separately reusable components, like
> the transaction manager or the XBean code. We're aren't
> successfully leveraging each other's communities to the fullest.
> All in all, we don't make decisions together and lean on each other
> as much as we could.
>
> I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out,
> then split up again along possibly different lines with potentially
> more standalone pieces than we see now.
>
> TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
>
> -David
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
> If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
> on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
> goal eventually.
> We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
> the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
> that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
> while and see what shakes out.
> The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
> integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
> completely disappeared [, and too little integration with ActiveMQ.]
> We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities
> to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together
> and lean on each other as much as we could.
How is merging the communities into the Geronimo TLP going to correct these
problems? Is the Geronimo PMC prepared to add all of you as Committers on
the TLP, and add all or most of you to the Geronimo PMC? Is this going to
result in a single community, or more integrated, better, meeting place for
multiple communities? If the latter, that would indicate to me that you
really should be a TLP. See Henri's e-mails for a fuller discussion of
Federation.
And what about community growth? When TLPs have sub-projects, how do they
go about building up each sub-project? How quick would the target PMC be to
grant TLP karma and PMC status to people interested in working on just one
of these disjoint projects? Or would it have disjoint karma, and a smaller
number of people with binding votes? See Henri's and Robert's comments on
these issues.
> I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then
> split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more
> standalone pieces than we see now.
So you see putting everything together in Geronimo as a first step towards a
significant reorganization, with multiple TLPs?
> TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
So do I. The question appears to be where/how to take that journey. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
> If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
> on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
> goal eventually.
> We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
> the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
> that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
> while and see what shakes out.
> The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
> integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
> completely disappeared [, and too little integration with ActiveMQ.]
> We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities
> to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together
> and lean on each other as much as we could.
How is merging the communities into the Geronimo TLP going to correct these
problems? Is the Geronimo PMC prepared to add all of you as Committers on
the TLP, and add all or most of you to the Geronimo PMC? Is this going to
result in a single community, or more integrated, better, meeting place for
multiple communities? If the latter, that would indicate to me that you
really should be a TLP. See Henri's e-mails for a fuller discussion of
Federation.
And what about community growth? When TLPs have sub-projects, how do they
go about building up each sub-project? How quick would the target PMC be to
grant TLP karma and PMC status to people interested in working on just one
of these disjoint projects? Or would it have disjoint karma, and a smaller
number of people with binding votes? See Henri's and Robert's comments on
these issues.
> I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then
> split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more
> standalone pieces than we see now.
So you see putting everything together in Geronimo as a first step towards a
significant reorganization, with multiple TLPs?
> TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
So do I. The question appears to be where/how to take that journey. :-)
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-)
> If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
> on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good
> goal eventually.
> We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
> the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
> that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
> while and see what shakes out.
> The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
> integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
> completely disappeared [, and too little integration with ActiveMQ.]
> We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities
> to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together
> and lean on each other as much as we could.
How is merging the communities into the Geronimo TLP going to correct these
problems? Is the Geronimo PMC prepared to add all of you as Committers on
the TLP, and add all or most of you to the Geronimo PMC? Is this going to
result in a single community, or more integrated, better, meeting place for
multiple communities? If the latter, that would indicate to me that you
really should be a TLP. See Henri's e-mails for a fuller discussion of
Federation.
And what about community growth? When TLPs have sub-projects, how do they
go about building up each sub-project? How quick would the target PMC be to
grant TLP karma and PMC status to people interested in working on just one
of these disjoint projects? Or would it have disjoint karma, and a smaller
number of people with binding votes? See Henri's and Robert's comments on
these issues.
> I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then
> split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more
> standalone pieces than we see now.
So you see putting everything together in Geronimo as a first step towards a
significant reorganization, with multiple TLPs?
> TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
So do I. The question appears to be where/how to take that journey. :-)
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal
eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
while and see what shakes out. We're all ready for a change in the
status-quo.
The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
completely disappeared. We have too little integration with ActiveMQ
such that the things you can do with standalone ActiveMQ you can't do
with the Geronimo ActiveMQ. We have parts of Geronimo which could
very well become separately reusable components, like the transaction
manager or the XBean code. We're aren't successfully leveraging each
other's communities to the fullest. All in all, we don't make
decisions together and lean on each other as much as we could.
I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then
split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more
standalone pieces than we see now.
TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
> > (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
> > they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
> > from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
> > and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
> > for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
> > Geronimo. -- justin
> Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing
> lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking,
Something in that realm, sure. I am sure that there are a variety of ways
to structure Federation. People are still exploring them. We also talked
about how ontology might be addressed to support cross-project discussion.
And the work that Dave & Co are doing with projects.apache.org can help.
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
> > (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
> > they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
> > from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
> > and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
> > for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
> > Geronimo. -- justin
> Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing
> lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking,
Something in that realm, sure. I am sure that there are a variety of ways
to structure Federation. People are still exploring them. We also talked
about how ontology might be addressed to support cross-project discussion.
And the work that Dave & Co are doing with projects.apache.org can help.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion
on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal
eventually.
We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for
the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how
that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a
while and see what shakes out. We're all ready for a change in the
status-quo.
The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight
integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that
completely disappeared. We have too little integration with ActiveMQ
such that the things you can do with standalone ActiveMQ you can't do
with the Geronimo ActiveMQ. We have parts of Geronimo which could
very well become separately reusable components, like the transaction
manager or the XBean code. We're aren't successfully leveraging each
other's communities to the fullest. All in all, we don't make
decisions together and lean on each other as much as we could.
I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then
split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more
standalone pieces than we see now.
TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey.
-David
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...snip good stuff..
> > Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> > Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
> >...snip good stuff..
>
> Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
> 'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more
> sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python).
>
> The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
> (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
> they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
> from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
> and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
> for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
> Geronimo. -- justin
Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing
lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking,
brand-logo [Geronimo federation image on each of the other TLP sites]
and with the Geronimo PMC providing space (open to the other TLPs) on
the Geronimo website for the integration details of each of these
plugins.
Just an idea though :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...snip good stuff..
> > Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> > Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
> >...snip good stuff..
>
> Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
> 'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more
> sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python).
>
> The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
> (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
> they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
> from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
> and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
> for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
> Geronimo. -- justin
Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing
lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking,
brand-logo [Geronimo federation image on each of the other TLP sites]
and with the Geronimo PMC providing space (open to the other TLPs) on
the Geronimo website for the integration details of each of these
plugins.
Just an idea though :)
Hen
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...snip good stuff..
> Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
>...snip good stuff..
Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more
sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python).
The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
(although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
Geronimo. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 3/15/06, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...snip good stuff..
> Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
> Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
>...snip good stuff..
Jakarta and XML have gone that 'federation' route with a bunch of
'friendly' TLPs. HTTP Server may eventually spin off more
sub-projects to TLP status as well (such as mod_python).
The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation
(although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and
they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but
from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs
and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made
for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with
Geronimo. -- justin
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
>
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
> at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
> be' statement. Right? :-)
>
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
> > area.
>
> I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
> There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella.
> There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't.
> Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements,
> of course, but that's my working definition.
Ah, a subject dear to my heart. Here are some definitions I've been working to:
* An umbrella. A collection of communities under a single community.
* A disjoint umbrella. The situation in which the subcommunities of
an umbrella have low overlap - this is synonymous with the negative
meaning of "Jakartization" and the thing the board are trying to avoid
occuring in more than one place.
* The ASF. A disjoint umbrella.
* Jakarta Commons. A non-disjoint umbrella - works well, though it's
always a struggle to avoid entropy's slow pull towards disjoint.
History:
Jakarta: by means of being a disjoint umbrella - started to mimic the
foundation it was meant to be a part of. This is a redundancy problem
- we don't need N groups of people being foundations at the ASF - the
idea is for the foundation to be as small as it can be and still
support the communities for which it exists.
No more umbrellas: thus umbrellas became passe. The Incubator was
created as a managed umbrella to be a proto-foundation; the ASF
remains the primary umbrella. All the problems inherent in Jakarta and
other umbrellas remain; but they are now being dealt with by one group
- the board.
----
Speaking as an Incubator PMC member, I am currently -1 towards
Geronimo ActiveMQ and +1 towards Apache ActiveMQ. This is because I've
not yet heard much about how Geronimo plans to avoid disjointedness.
I do really like the point that Geronimo has a common product - but
I'm not sure it's enough. Plus how will it affect the use of the
subprojects (because subprojects they would be) as stand alones?
---
Lastly, speaking as someone who has used up the last couple of years
of his Apache time dealing with the problem of being the bridge
between a disjoint umbrella, and a board/foundation which is not
organized for dealing with disjoint umbrellas, I recommend not
creating a large umbrella.
Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
However do not give yourself the pain of trying to funnel it all
through a single chair. TLPs are not firewalled from each other
(though it's not very obvious that that's the case); so investigate
what it is you really want to achieve and don't focus on the single
TLP part of things.
TLPs are more about delegated oversight from the members/board, than community.
Hen
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/15/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
>
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
> at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
> be' statement. Right? :-)
>
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
> > area.
>
> I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
> There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella.
> There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't.
> Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements,
> of course, but that's my working definition.
Ah, a subject dear to my heart. Here are some definitions I've been working to:
* An umbrella. A collection of communities under a single community.
* A disjoint umbrella. The situation in which the subcommunities of
an umbrella have low overlap - this is synonymous with the negative
meaning of "Jakartization" and the thing the board are trying to avoid
occuring in more than one place.
* The ASF. A disjoint umbrella.
* Jakarta Commons. A non-disjoint umbrella - works well, though it's
always a struggle to avoid entropy's slow pull towards disjoint.
History:
Jakarta: by means of being a disjoint umbrella - started to mimic the
foundation it was meant to be a part of. This is a redundancy problem
- we don't need N groups of people being foundations at the ASF - the
idea is for the foundation to be as small as it can be and still
support the communities for which it exists.
No more umbrellas: thus umbrellas became passe. The Incubator was
created as a managed umbrella to be a proto-foundation; the ASF
remains the primary umbrella. All the problems inherent in Jakarta and
other umbrellas remain; but they are now being dealt with by one group
- the board.
----
Speaking as an Incubator PMC member, I am currently -1 towards
Geronimo ActiveMQ and +1 towards Apache ActiveMQ. This is because I've
not yet heard much about how Geronimo plans to avoid disjointedness.
I do really like the point that Geronimo has a common product - but
I'm not sure it's enough. Plus how will it affect the use of the
subprojects (because subprojects they would be) as stand alones?
---
Lastly, speaking as someone who has used up the last couple of years
of his Apache time dealing with the problem of being the bridge
between a disjoint umbrella, and a board/foundation which is not
organized for dealing with disjoint umbrellas, I recommend not
creating a large umbrella.
Have TLPs and have each TLP's website be at geronimo.apache.org.
Investigate federations. Even investigate sharing mailing lists.
However do not give yourself the pain of trying to funnel it all
through a single chair. TLPs are not firewalled from each other
(though it's not very obvious that that's the case); so investigate
what it is you really want to achieve and don't focus on the single
TLP part of things.
TLPs are more about delegated oversight from the members/board, than community.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
Which part of "Personally, I believe" wasn't clear? ;-)
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella
> > is a gray area.
> I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
So Geronimo would not be, DB would be?
> that's my working definition.
Not at all bad for a first cut. Certainly thought provoking.
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
> Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
Which part of "Personally, I believe" wasn't clear? ;-)
> > What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella
> > is a gray area.
> I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
> has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
So Geronimo would not be, DB would be?
> that's my working definition.
Not at all bad for a first cut. Certainly thought provoking.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
be' statement. Right? :-)
> What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
> area.
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella.
There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't.
Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements,
of course, but that's my working definition.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf065rNPMCpn3XdAQKD9wQA3KqhUOsk9WG2OAvFyGmZF+e9mbQTq9O/
aXOa4qVFWfNns/rc2NpPwO6jewSepneo+uVKMBk/5MCjczuwFZSmq9uMyE9LJ/Na
czsKVChEYYrHJnrDoKXoQqmaIxnDLBtYU/SEHggzWH8L9RuryFUXPV5/HGSCSLKu
EvPHDljpWJU=
=dSia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP.
Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion
at this time, and in no way a 'dis is how t'ings is gonna
be' statement. Right? :-)
> What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray
> area.
I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that
has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects.
There's no 'Apache Jakarta' package, so it's an umbrella.
There *is* an 'Apache HTTP Server' package, so that isn't.
Subject to exceptions, clarifications, and further refinements,
of course, but that's my working definition.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf065rNPMCpn3XdAQKD9wQA3KqhUOsk9WG2OAvFyGmZF+e9mbQTq9O/
aXOa4qVFWfNns/rc2NpPwO6jewSepneo+uVKMBk/5MCjczuwFZSmq9uMyE9LJ/Na
czsKVChEYYrHJnrDoKXoQqmaIxnDLBtYU/SEHggzWH8L9RuryFUXPV5/HGSCSLKu
EvPHDljpWJU=
=dSia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
> communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
> they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
> where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
> and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
> unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
> happen.
Why do you say that? Noel has stated his current *personal* opinion,
and his *personal* opinion of board policy as
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
> decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects.
IMHO, a podling that was envisioned as joining an existing TLP
will end up doing so unless there are really good reasons for it
to go TLP instead. The only time (again IMHO) that the collective
desires of the specific communities involved (in this case,
AMQ and Geronimo) would be overruled is if the determination
is made that such a merger would not make sense or would not
be in the best interests of the ASF. As an hypothetical
example, I very much doubt that a podling for a pattern
recognition filtering package would be allowed to join the HTTP
Server project, despite being originally intended for filtering
server logs. A traffic-filtering module written to the httpd
API would be unlikely to go anywhere else. An IRC server based
on the httpd framework might go either way.
It's not just rhe podling's and sponsor's communities that need
to be considered, although they're by far the biggest part. It's
also the overall Apache community that needs to be factored in.
If going subproject is considered to be likely to be harmful to
the ASF, it won't happen. Otherwise it probably will.
All IMHO.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf8a5rNPMCpn3XdAQL5VwP9E/nNpdNA3CHD4jjLrCqwSRy7dgXUjzQj
OCCujB5mm2H8LMVhNYgHSfRYlrQAAayXrizwTwUT5zZIOstbX9scUSGM5MCnHOg8
ZakW6O/+N41EaNkdWhBBdwPHVNl9PmTqbwb5sMW1Abo+RKtPEVUG1gnheoFyqd4M
6w82VLeqVi0=
=NVCO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
> communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
> they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
> where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
> and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
> unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
> happen.
Why do you say that? Noel has stated his current *personal* opinion,
and his *personal* opinion of board policy as
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
> decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects.
IMHO, a podling that was envisioned as joining an existing TLP
will end up doing so unless there are really good reasons for it
to go TLP instead. The only time (again IMHO) that the collective
desires of the specific communities involved (in this case,
AMQ and Geronimo) would be overruled is if the determination
is made that such a merger would not make sense or would not
be in the best interests of the ASF. As an hypothetical
example, I very much doubt that a podling for a pattern
recognition filtering package would be allowed to join the HTTP
Server project, despite being originally intended for filtering
server logs. A traffic-filtering module written to the httpd
API would be unlikely to go anywhere else. An IRC server based
on the httpd framework might go either way.
It's not just rhe podling's and sponsor's communities that need
to be considered, although they're by far the biggest part. It's
also the overall Apache community that needs to be factored in.
If going subproject is considered to be likely to be harmful to
the ASF, it won't happen. Otherwise it probably will.
All IMHO.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBf8a5rNPMCpn3XdAQL5VwP9E/nNpdNA3CHD4jjLrCqwSRy7dgXUjzQj
OCCujB5mm2H8LMVhNYgHSfRYlrQAAayXrizwTwUT5zZIOstbX9scUSGM5MCnHOg8
ZakW6O/+N41EaNkdWhBBdwPHVNl9PmTqbwb5sMW1Abo+RKtPEVUG1gnheoFyqd4M
6w82VLeqVi0=
=NVCO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
>> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
>> community.
>
> Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to
> see a
> number of those projects at the ASF.
>
>> The vision was to have a single community focused on building a
>> modular
>> server architecture based on a single core.
>
> No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are
> you
> going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone
> having
> access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large,
> single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every
> aspect of the
> project?
>
> THAT is a TLP.
Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about.
>> each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone
>> (basically the core with one plugin installed).
>
> Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the
> last point.
> What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB,
> or I
> just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo
> stuff,
> too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if
> there have
> been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with
> OpenEJB.
> Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other
> non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get
> the code
> that was apparently separable earlier?
The problem is not sharing a single core, it is that the core we
have, GBean, is too intrusive. XBean was designed to not be intrusive.
>> end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
>> unknown apache rules.
>
> I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better
> off as
> TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told,
> that is not
> an uncommon view within those communities, although there are
> questions as
> to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought
> to be put
> forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly
> answer?
> :)
I think you are starting to see the responses. :)
-dain
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
> community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
> The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular
> server architecture based on a single core.
No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you
going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having
access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large,
single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the
project?
THAT is a TLP.
> each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone
> (basically the core with one plugin installed).
Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point.
What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I
just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff,
too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have
been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB.
Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other
non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code
that was apparently separable earlier?
> end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
> unknown apache rules.
I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as
TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not
an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as
to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put
forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer?
:)
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
> community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
> The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular
> server architecture based on a single core.
No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you
going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having
access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large,
single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the
project?
THAT is a TLP.
> each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone
> (basically the core with one plugin installed).
Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point.
What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I
just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff,
too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have
been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB.
Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other
non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code
that was apparently separable earlier?
> end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
> unknown apache rules.
I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as
TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not
an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as
to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put
forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer?
:)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Noel,
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community. The vision was to have a single community focused on
building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The
global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the
sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core
with one plugin installed). This is what we pitched to the external
projects and what they agreed to.
Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
happen.
We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this
goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore? If this no
longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the
incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue
incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were.
-dain
On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
>> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
>
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
> changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding
> Yoko that
> "this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just
> that:
> Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at
> graduation"
> were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty
> much the
> same thing.
>
> It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the
> case that
> a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a
> sponsoring PMC,
> it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
> Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new
> projects into
> the ASF.
>
> Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of
> Derby.
> The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went
> into DB
> (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is
> clearly the
> case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an
> independently
> usable, separately releasable project with its own community that
> happens to
> have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a
> number of
> projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which
> ought to be
> separate TLPs in my view.
>
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
> decision
> for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
> "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a
> project
> with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
>
> --- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Noel,
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community. The vision was to have a single community focused on
building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The
global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the
sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core
with one plugin installed). This is what we pitched to the external
projects and what they agreed to.
Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
happen.
We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this
goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore? If this no
longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the
incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue
incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were.
-dain
On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
>> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
>
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
> changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding
> Yoko that
> "this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just
> that:
> Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at
> graduation"
> were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty
> much the
> same thing.
>
> It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the
> case that
> a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a
> sponsoring PMC,
> it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
> Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new
> projects into
> the ASF.
>
> Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of
> Derby.
> The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went
> into DB
> (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is
> clearly the
> case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an
> independently
> usable, separately releasable project with its own community that
> happens to
> have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a
> number of
> projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which
> ought to be
> separate TLPs in my view.
>
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
> decision
> for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
> "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a
> project
> with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
>
> --- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Noel,
Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
community. The vision was to have a single community focused on
building a modular server architecture based on a single core. The
global deliverable would be Geronimo the J2EE server, but each of the
sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core
with one plugin installed). This is what we pitched to the external
projects and what they agreed to.
Just to make sure this was allowed, before pitching it to the
communities, I asked a few of the Board members at Euro OS con and
they said it was possible. I didn't want to get into a situation
where we do all of the work to uproot and move exiting communities
and then end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
unknown apache rules. Now it seem like that is exactly what will
happen.
We (the communities) want to form a single community focused on this
goal, are you saying that this is not possible anymore? If this no
longer the case, I think we have an obligation to inform the
incubating communities, so they can decide if they want to continue
incubation and become an Apache TLP or go back to where they were.
-dain
On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:54 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
>> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
>> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
>> the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
>> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
>
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
> changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding
> Yoko that
> "this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just
> that:
> Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at
> graduation"
> were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty
> much the
> same thing.
>
> It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the
> case that
> a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a
> sponsoring PMC,
> it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
> Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new
> projects into
> the ASF.
>
> Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of
> Derby.
> The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went
> into DB
> (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
>
> Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is
> clearly the
> case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an
> independently
> usable, separately releasable project with its own community that
> happens to
> have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a
> number of
> projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which
> ought to be
> separate TLPs in my view.
>
> Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious
> decision
> for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
> "Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a
> project
> with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
>
> --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
> the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding Yoko that
"this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that:
Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation"
were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the
same thing.
It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that
a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a sponsoring PMC,
it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new projects into
the ASF.
Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of Derby.
The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went into DB
(although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is clearly the
case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an independently
usable, separately releasable project with its own community that happens to
have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a number of
projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which ought to be
separate TLPs in my view.
Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious decision
for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
"Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a project
with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
> the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
> simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
> the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
> rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today
I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was
changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding Yoko that
"this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that:
Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation"
were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the
same thing.
It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that
a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a sponsoring PMC,
it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the
Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new projects into
the ASF.
Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of Derby.
The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went into DB
(although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP).
Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is clearly the
case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an independently
usable, separately releasable project with its own community that happens to
have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a number of
projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which ought to be
separate TLPs in my view.
Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious decision
for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The
"Jakartaization of" is not considered a compliment. What makes a project
with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>> graduation.
>
> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
> Noel's opinion that
If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So
I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point.
>> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No
>> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors.
>
> These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the
> need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF
> community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion,
> myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that
> has occurred in ActiveMQ.)
When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today, the
current rules that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be
approved by the incubator. I personally find this incredibly
frustrating, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.
If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my
opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong
place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to
bring in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board
should consider setting something else up.
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
>> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
>> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
>> graduation.
>
> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
> Noel's opinion that
If you read the email history, you will see that it was stated that
the new rules would only apply to "projects close to gradation". So
I hope you can see my point, regardless of if you agree with that point.
>> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No
>> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors.
>
> These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the
> need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF
> community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion,
> myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that
> has occurred in ActiveMQ.)
When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo,
the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would
simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be
the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been
rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today, the
current rules that Noel is promoting (3+ mentors) hasn't even be
approved by the incubator. I personally find this incredibly
frustrating, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.
If you ask me setting up a separate pmc for these projects is an
incrediably bad idea. Our objective is to create a single community
between Geronimo, ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix and WADI. Putting
these projects into separate boxes makes this very difficult.
I would like to know, why have the incubator rules changed to, in my
opinion, force all projects TLP? Maybe the incubator is the wrong
place to bring these types projects. Is there another process to
bring in a project we plan on integrating? If not, maybe the board
should consider setting something else up.
-dain
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly
> given Noel's opinion that [...]
Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may
not agree.
For a guy who is seriously independent, I'll put it this way: *I* will fight
to ensure *our* *collective* decision making process.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
> proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly
> given Noel's opinion that [...]
Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may
not agree.
For a guy who is seriously independent, I'll put it this way: *I* will fight
to ensure *our* *collective* decision making process.
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation.
'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that
proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given
Noel's opinion that
> .. and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No
> PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors.
These have nothing to do with when it entered incubation; the
need for a PPMC has been there right along, and the 'ASF
community building' is a sine qua non. (I have no opinion,
myself, about the degree of 'ASF community building' that
has occurred in ActiveMQ.)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRBYW95rNPMCpn3XdAQJuJwP8Cv+Waz8q0lTJMeHM72nTNNzeyBBjczGf
y+2l6vKrY65ueZLXOOCEZ4lBEScfsYMaiZ/YuHBgd25Gq//SVqH6fnkRUK8V63JC
4ArlE4+ZKg/lvt1msCC2YeNiFZxG1nC1OB3iK4M+QncNDEJaDhFWxT7Vqz7vt1vY
iN5arjQ6Mzc=
=pzI1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: JIRA & Incubation
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI I believe that the open API and plugin system is sufficent to write a JIRA to JIRA import.
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: "David N. Welton" <da...@dedasys.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:17:35
To:pmc@incubator.apache.org
Cc:dev@geronimo.apache.org, pmc@geronimo.apache.org, "David E. Jones" <jo...@ofbiz.org>, activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: JIRA & Incubation
John Sisson wrote:
> I don't like holding up progress, but my concern is how much incentive
> the project would have to move JIRA after incubation and whether it
> would be better to do it now? Also no date has been given by Atlassian
> for when JIRA will have a better import tool - we could be waiting a
> while. The "Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?" item on
> the status page seems misleading/pointless if a number of the project's
> services are running on external systems.
OFBiz has this problem too:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713
Pity it's not open source so we could fix it ourselves:->
David - did your contacts at Atlassian give you any useful information?
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
Re: JIRA & Incubation
Posted by "David N. Welton" <da...@dedasys.com>.
John Sisson wrote:
> I don't like holding up progress, but my concern is how much incentive
> the project would have to move JIRA after incubation and whether it
> would be better to do it now? Also no date has been given by Atlassian
> for when JIRA will have a better import tool - we could be waiting a
> while. The "Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?" item on
> the status page seems misleading/pointless if a number of the project's
> services are running on external systems.
OFBiz has this problem too:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-713
Pity it's not open source so we could fix it ourselves:->
David - did your contacts at Atlassian give you any useful information?
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate
>> for
>> ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing
>> that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in
>> several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I
>> have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from
>> JIRA as
>> it does from Bugzilla.
>
> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that
> infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects
> hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the new
> possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we should
> work on having one big import for everything that is moving or has
> moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ, ServiceMix,
> OpenEJB, and XBean jiras.
>
Is ActiveMQ and ServiceMix's JIRAs running at codehaus, it doesn't
appear to be (tracert showed a different network path compared with
codehaus)?
> As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for
> one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't think
> we should hold this against the AMQ community.
>
I don't like holding up progress, but my concern is how much incentive
the project would have to move JIRA after incubation and whether it
would be better to do it now? Also no date has been given by Atlassian
for when JIRA will have a better import tool - we could be waiting a
while. The "Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?" item on
the status page seems misleading/pointless if a number of the project's
services are running on external systems.
Glad to see Hiram has started a thread on Infrastructure to discuss the
migration.
John
>> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
>> (James
>> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and
>> the ASF
>> community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for
>> which we
>> need more Mentors.
>>
>> There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
>> Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but
>> scalable,
>> limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains,
>> because
>> projects are already here, and lack the resources.
>
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to be
> mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify due
> to the member restriction.
>
> -dain
>
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
>> Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate
>> for
>> ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing
>> that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in
>> several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I
>> have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from
>> JIRA as
>> it does from Bugzilla.
>
> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that
> infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects
> hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the new
> possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we should
> work on having one big import for everything that is moving or has
> moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ, ServiceMix,
> OpenEJB, and XBean jiras.
>
Is ActiveMQ and ServiceMix's JIRAs running at codehaus, it doesn't
appear to be (tracert showed a different network path compared with
codehaus)?
> As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for
> one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't think
> we should hold this against the AMQ community.
>
I don't like holding up progress, but my concern is how much incentive
the project would have to move JIRA after incubation and whether it
would be better to do it now? Also no date has been given by Atlassian
for when JIRA will have a better import tool - we could be waiting a
while. The "Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?" item on
the status page seems misleading/pointless if a number of the project's
services are running on external systems.
Glad to see Hiram has started a thread on Infrastructure to discuss the
migration.
John
>> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
>> (James
>> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and
>> the ASF
>> community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for
>> which we
>> need more Mentors.
>>
>> There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
>> Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but
>> scalable,
>> limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains,
>> because
>> projects are already here, and lack the resources.
>
> I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
> remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
> for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
> graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to be
> mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify due
> to the member restriction.
>
> -dain
>
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Noel,
I see this as a big source of my frustration, and I hope we can do
something about this. From the perspective of anyone in an
incubating project, you represent the incubator. So when you express
"just your opinion" it very difficult if not impossible for someone
to see the distinction. This is compounded by the fact that you get
to vote on a lot of issues related to an incubating project, and
given your ability to influence others, your opinion quickly becomes
incubator policy or in the absence of policy, failed votes.
I would like to see the incubator encourage communities to make their
own decisions via an open community oriented process based within the
guidelines of the ASF. I think there is a conflict of interest when
those there to help incubate new projects and indoctrinate them in
the apache way also pushing a personal agenda, and I think we should
avoid this at all costs.
-dain
On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
>> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread
>> here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for
>> imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better
>> import tool.
>
> Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin
> speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would
> assume that
> someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless
> otherwise
> indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org
> address when
> posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e-
> mail
> address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice
> someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are
> wearing. When
> the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or
> may not
> coincide with the individual views of all of its members.
>
> Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes
> decisions
> and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list.
> The ASF
> is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to
> say that
> collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we
> argue
> about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this
> across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what
> Incubation is
> supposed to do, in my view.
>
> --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread
> here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for
> imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better
> import tool.
Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin
speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would assume that
someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless otherwise
indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org address when
posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e-mail
address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice
someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are wearing. When
the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or may not
coincide with the individual views of all of its members.
Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes decisions
and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list. The ASF
is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to say that
collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we argue
about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this
across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what Incubation is
supposed to do, in my view.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
> hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread
> here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for
> imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better
> import tool.
Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin
speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would assume that
someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless otherwise
indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org address when
posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e-mail
address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice
someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are wearing. When
the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or may not
coincide with the individual views of all of its members.
Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes decisions
and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list. The ASF
is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to say that
collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we argue
about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this
across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what Incubation is
supposed to do, in my view.
--- Noel
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the
> plate for
> ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is
> proposing
> that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to
> pull in
> several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and
> elsewhere. I
> have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports
> from JIRA as
> it does from Bugzilla.
I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here,
that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects
hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the
new possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we
should work on having one big import for everything that is moving or
has moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ,
ServiceMix, OpenEJB, and XBean jiras.
As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for
one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't
think we should hold this against the AMQ community.
> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
> (James
> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project),
> and the ASF
> community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for
> which we
> need more Mentors.
>
> There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
> Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but
> scalable,
> limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains,
> because
> projects are already here, and lack the resources.
I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to
be mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify
due to the member restriction.
-dain
Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the
> plate for
> ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is
> proposing
> that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to
> pull in
> several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and
> elsewhere. I
> have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports
> from JIRA as
> it does from Bugzilla.
I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache
hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here,
that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects
hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. With the
new possibility that Jeff Turner laid for an import, I think we
should work on having one big import for everything that is moving or
has moved from codehaus. This would let us grab the ActiveMQ,
ServiceMix, OpenEJB, and XBean jiras.
As with the other issues here, this is a NEW possibility that I for
one wasn't even aware existed until John brought it up. I don't
think we should hold this against the AMQ community.
> On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ
> (James
> is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project),
> and the ASF
> community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for
> which we
> need more Mentors.
>
> There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
> Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but
> scalable,
> limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains,
> because
> projects are already here, and lack the resources.
I understand this concern and agree with the solution, but we should
remember that AMQ entered the incubator before this was a rule, so I
for one didn't think it appled to them, since they are so close to
graduation. Anyway, I think we can easily get a few more people to
be mentors. I certainly will volunteer, but I don't think I qualify
due to the member restriction.
-dain
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan,
Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for
ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing
that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in
several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I
have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as
it does from Bugzilla.
On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James
is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF
community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we
need more Mentors.
There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator.
Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable,
limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because
projects are already here, and lack the resources.
--- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of
> ActiveMQ from the Incubator.
And should have been on general@incubator.apache.org, not pmc@i.a.o.
Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate
question of netiquette. And the Geronimo PMC can address the use of
pmc@g.a.o. In the meantime, since this was cross-posted to at least two
public lists, I am replying to general@i.a.o.
Now, on to the main topic:
----------------------------
Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it
should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately
releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server,
and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The
Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view.
Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like
the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the
project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before
it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still
has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one
issue, and is being addressed.
Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects
should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them.
--- Noel