[Discuss] Accept Rio into River

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

Hi all:

Dennis has indicated that he’d be willing to contribute the Rio container to River.  I suspect we all agree that this is a “Good Thing”.  Feel free to discuss if you have any reservations.

I suggest that Rio would be setup as an additional deliverable alongside the JTSK and any other sub projects we might create.  It would be under the same governance and PMC as River (hence isn’t really a “sub-project” per se), but would be released separately from the core JTSK.  We can figure out repositories, continuous integration, etc, as time goes on.

So, what’s required? I for one, am not sure.  Here’s what we know…

- Rio is currently licensed under Apache Software License v2
- Dennis is the primary author, and as a River Committer and PMC member, he has an ICLA on file
- Large code donations may be subject to IP clearance (I think there may be some interpretation room here, since Dennis is the main author and he’s under ICLA).
- IP Clearance policy at Apache is covered here http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html and here: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

Here’s what we don’t know…
- The other authors are who?  Does any corporation (Oracle, GigaSpaces?) have any potential claim?
- Do we need to go through the Incubator to accept this code contribution?

Anyone on the list have experience in this?  Should we ask the Incubator (officially that’s who does IP clearance)?

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk.

Re: [Discuss] Accept Rio into River

[Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com>]

On Feb 18, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> I suggest that Rio would be setup as an additional deliverable alongside the JTSK and any other sub projects we might create.  It would be under the same governance and PMC as River (hence isn’t really a “sub-project” per se), but would be released separately from the core JTSK.  
> 
> Humm, I'm thinking it might be better as a sub-project. 

I’m not sure exactly how “sub-projects” work at Apache, except that the foundation has tried to get away from “umbrella” projects like the old Jakarta project.  PMCs are chartered by the Board, so if you wanted a different PMC, I think that would mean a new top-level project, which means going through the Incubator and setting up a completely different project from River.  And then the Incubator will ask “Why not just contribute the code to River?”  And the answer would be?

Could we setup a “Rio subcommittee”?  I’m not sure.  The policy requires that releases are signed off by three or more PMC members.  I kind of doubt that we can have different classes of PMC members.  Some projects differentiate between committers and PMC members.  We might be able to grant commit privileges to different areas of the repo, but I wonder if it’s worth the extra admin overhead.  It’s not like we’re overflowing with active committers.

I would certainly imagine that Rio would get its own Git repository, and Rio’s release cadence wouldn’t necessarily be tied to the JSK, so that wouldn’t be an issue.

In other words, could you expand on what you’d like to see that’s different from “another package distributed by the River project”?  Do you envision that the committer base would be wildly different from River?  Are you worried that River might negatively affect the progress of Rio?  (Just to be clear, I’m not positive or negative on “it might be better as a sub-project” - I just want to know what that means to you).

>> 
> 
> All who have contributed are listed http://www.rio-project.org/team-list.html, as well as in the NOTICE.txt

From those pages, it looks like you’re the only one with commit access to Rio, and others have contributed patches, suggestions and documentation.  Is that also true of the project before GitHub (i.e. at Sun and then GigaSpaces?)  Would it be fair to say that everyone who provided patches has assigned copyright to the project, and that they had the requisite rights to do so? (that’s what the Apache ICLA accomplishes).
 
> 
>> - Do we need to go through the Incubator to accept this code contribution?
>> 

I’m becoming convinced that that we will need to pass it through the incubator for IP clearance, but it looks more and more like a slam-dunk.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk.

Re: [Discuss] Accept Rio into River

[Dennis Reedy <de...@gmail.com>]

Greg,

Thanks for starting this.

On Feb 18, 2014, at 534PM, Greg Trasuk <tr...@stratuscom.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi all:
> 
> Dennis has indicated that he’d be willing to contribute the Rio container to River.  

Just to be clear, Rio is not just a container (its one small part of it). Rio proves alot of other capabilities that assist not only in the instantiation/deployment of services, but also in the development, testing, monitoring & management of services. Please check out http://www.rio-project.org for details. I'll be glad to answer questions here or over on Rio's mailing list if interested.

> I suspect we all agree that this is a “Good Thing”.  Feel free to discuss if you have any reservations.
> 
> I suggest that Rio would be setup as an additional deliverable alongside the JTSK and any other sub projects we might create.  It would be under the same governance and PMC as River (hence isn’t really a “sub-project” per se), but would be released separately from the core JTSK.  

Humm, I'm thinking it might be better as a sub-project. 

> We can figure out repositories, continuous integration, etc, as time goes on.
> 
> So, what’s required? I for one, am not sure.  Here’s what we know…
> 
> - Rio is currently licensed under Apache Software License v2
> - Dennis is the primary author, and as a River Committer and PMC member, he has an ICLA on file
> - Large code donations may be subject to IP clearance (I think there may be some interpretation room here, since Dennis is the main author and he’s under ICLA).
> - IP Clearance policy at Apache is covered here http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html and here: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> 
> Here’s what we don’t know…
> - The other authors are who?  Does any corporation (Oracle, GigaSpaces?) have any potential claim?

All who have contributed are listed http://www.rio-project.org/team-list.html, as well as in the NOTICE.txt

> - Do we need to go through the Incubator to accept this code contribution?
> 
> Anyone on the list have experience in this?  Should we ask the Incubator (officially that’s who does IP clearance)?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Greg Trasuk.
> 
> 
>