You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2007/02/25 18:16:53 UTC
Tuscany is still a podling ...
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sunday 25 February 2007 22:34, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> The vote below was held in the Tuscany podling to release two
>> artifacts that are used by other modules during the build process;
>> they are a podling-wide parent pom and configuration data for code
>> checking.
>>
>> There are four +1's from the PPMC but no binding votes and we would
>> like to ask the IPMC to approve the release.
>
> Can someone explain to me why http://ws.apache.org/ lists Tuscany as a
> su-project of WS, as well as the mailling lists are @ws.apache.org,
> yet the
> project is not graduated???
When the project was proposed, it was sponsored by the WS-PMC and
entered incubation. IIRC, at the time mailing lists were typically
associated with the sponsoring PMC and so were created under ws (AIUI
this policy has subsequently changed).
I believe the legal issues and such for the podling have been resolved
[1] but I also believe that community issues are such that the
podling is not yet ready to graduate.
>
> When I responded to the "veto" on the codedump, I got the
> impression (this is
> serious) that Tuscany had graduated, hence not really an Incubator
> issue
> anymore...
I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the
IP clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the
code here
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to
accept the code.
The second is that there has been *no* discussion about this
contribution in the community. One of the community issues Tuscany
has is dominance by a single vendor and the way this contribution is
being handled is symptomatic of that.
I think both of these reasons are relevant to the Incubator, although
responsibility for fixing them lies first with the podling.
From a technical perspective, I think this contribution could make a
useful addition to Tuscany.
>
> Is it only me that feels that something is not "standard" around
> here??
>
>
> And it goes for a couple of others as well; Woden, TSIK & Synapse.
Woden is still incubating, TSIK was withdrawn and Synapse has graduated.
--
Jeremy
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/tuscany.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> ...
>>> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP
>>> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the
>>> code
>>> here
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>> and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to
>>> accept the code.
>>
>> Here's one clarification because I think this can be confusing for
>> podlings, especially new ones.
>>
>> The ip clearance for the initial code import for a podling gets handled
>> via some of the "Incubation work items" on the podling status page.
>> Later imports of code developed outside Apache need to follow the ip
>> process [1].
>
> When Geir went through the motions of "initial" (not really, since we
> started with no codE) imports for harmony, he filled out IP templates
> for them. For triplesoup, I've been filling them out too. I find them
> more clear, clean and detailed than the general "work items" tracking, eg
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/triplesoup-1-contribution-
> mod_sparql.html
>
> the one thing that's a bit "different" is that the related VOTE is the
> incubator voting to accept the project, but otherwise the form hold up
> well.
Since there wasn't an initial code base for Harmony, I can't imagine how
else it might have been handled, especially with contributions coming
from a variety of contributors.
Hmmmmm .... I suppose the podling status report could be made to handle
multiple contributions by different entities, but an ip clearance form
for each contribution seems a lot more straight forward.
-jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> ...
>> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that
>> the IP
>> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of
>> the code
>> here
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>> and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to
>> accept the code.
>
> Here's one clarification because I think this can be confusing for
> podlings, especially new ones.
>
> The ip clearance for the initial code import for a podling gets
> handled
> via some of the "Incubation work items" on the podling status page.
> Later imports of code developed outside Apache need to follow the ip
> process [1].
When Geir went through the motions of "initial" (not really, since we
started with no codE) imports for harmony, he filled out IP templates
for them. For triplesoup, I've been filling them out too. I find them
more clear, clean and detailed than the general "work items"
tracking, eg
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/triplesoup-1-contribution-
mod_sparql.html
the one thing that's a bit "different" is that the related VOTE is
the incubator voting to accept the project, but otherwise the form
hold up well.
cheers,
- Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
ip clearance process (was Re: Tuscany is still a podling ...)
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
...
> I "vetoed" the codedump for two main reasons. The first is that the IP
> clearance process is not being followed: there is no record of the code
> here
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> and there has been no vote by the Tuscany PPMC or Incubator PMC to
> accept the code.
Here's one clarification because I think this can be confusing for
podlings, especially new ones.
The ip clearance for the initial code import for a podling gets handled
via some of the "Incubation work items" on the podling status page.
Later imports of code developed outside Apache need to follow the ip
process [1].
I didn't want the newer podlings wondering why they weren't listed on [1].
-jean
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org