You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> on 2002/10/30 13:01:58 UTC
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC ([Fwd: Re: Incubator, Jakarta, and new
projects])
Leo Simons wrote:
>All,
>
>based on a discussion still taking place on reorg@, it is now crystal
>clear that avalon committers nor avalon software enjoys any kind of
>legal protection from the ASF (I believed otherwise until like 2 weeks
>ago).
>
>This could be a rather important issue. For example, suppose an avalon
>committer steals code from microsoft and puts it into avalon cvs, and we
>all release that software into the world.
>Microsoft sues (of course). ASF will have a problem (by providing a
>distribution channel), all users will have a problem (because they use
>illegal software) and most committers will have a problem (by working on
>or aiding distribution of illegal software). We might then see users sue
>apache, and users sueing committers, committers sueing committers etc
>etc.
>
>It's all rather icky.
>
>options to make it less icky:
>- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>- destroy avalon (rather not)
>
>This sounds like a rather good argument for an avalon PMC.
>
+1
I had exactly the same thoughts when reading the email you quoted.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>just something to think about.
>
>cheers,
>
>Leo
>
>-----Forwarded Message-----
>
>From: Roy T. Fielding <fi...@apache.org>
>To: reorg@apache.org
>Subject: Re: Incubator, Jakarta, and new projects
>Date: 29 Oct 2002 19:26:45 -0800
>
>
>
>>Assuming there is some PMC structure in which not ever committer is also
>>on
>>the PMC, but for which the PMC can maintain "active oversight", are the
>>actions of commmiters, within the guidelines of a project, "actively
>>overseen" by the PMC, which is in turn acting within the guidelines set up
>>by the board,legally protected by the ASF?
>>
>>
>
>No. Actions of the PMC are protected. If code is being released to the
>public without a vote by the PMC for that release, then it isn't an
>action of the PMC.
>
>....Roy
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC ([Fwd: Re: Incubator, Jakarta, and new
projects])
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It's all rather icky.
>>>
>>>options to make it less icky:
>>>- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>>>- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>>>- destroy avalon (rather not)
>>>
>>>This sounds like a rather good argument for an avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>
>+1 from me, too. It would seem to be our only viable option except for
>pre-emptively countersuing Microsoft, Apache and our users.
>
>However: Let's not rush this. This is a very general problem for
>all of Apache. There should be some guidelines from Apache on what
>a project should do in order to be legally solid. I've run around on
>the apache.org website, but not found anything. Anyone?
>
Leo:
The following message from Stefano to the Cocoon community is worth
reading. The subject concerns the Cocoon as a top level PMC.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103599230901129&w=2
Cheers, Steve.
>
>/LS
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC ([Fwd: Re: Incubator, Jakarta, and new
projects])
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It's all rather icky.
>>>
>>>options to make it less icky:
>>>- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>>>- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>>>- destroy avalon (rather not)
>>>
>>>This sounds like a rather good argument for an avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>
>+1 from me, too. It would seem to be our only viable option except for
>pre-emptively countersuing Microsoft, Apache and our users.
>
>However: Let's not rush this. This is a very general problem for
>all of Apache. There should be some guidelines from Apache on what
>a project should do in order to be legally solid. I've run around on
>the apache.org website, but not found anything. Anyone?
>
I think to be legally solid we have to first address the ability to
be accountable. Accountable (to me) means that we can answer with
confidence any question concerning the development, release and license
status of any package in Avalon. It is only after that information in
place that we will be in a position to address "legally solid".
With that objective in mind, I could put together a document on the
Avalon CVS that lists all of the Avalon packages and we work together
to fill it out.
My initial suggestion on content per package is:
name: the package name
URL: the URL for on-line package documentation
cvs: the CVS repository
status: ALPHA | BETA | FINAL
release: <date>, <version>
license: <applicable-license>
dependencies: <list of Apache packages the the package is dependent on>
And for packages the use or are derived from non-Apache content
external: <list of non-apache depedencies together with license notes>
name: the external package name
URL: the site URL
type: BINARY | DIRIVED-SOURCE
license: short description of the license, e.g. LGPL
And finally, and and comments/actions that need to be taken to get the
package into a "legally solid" state.
Thoughts?
Steve.
>/LS
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>Direct action items that I would suggest:
>
>1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
>
>
+1
I'm much more in favour of this community taking control over its
future then leaving it up Jakarta or the Board.
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> The Board is meeting on November 18th after the Members meeting. It
>> would be
>> best to have any resolutions sent to board@ by Thursday the 14th to
>> give the
>> Board members ample time to review it and to suggest any changes, if
>> necssary.
>>
>> Direct action items that I would suggest:
>>
>> 1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
>
>
> +1 from me :-)
>
>> assuming so:
>> 2) craft a resolution; look at others in the Board minutes for an
>> example
>
>
> Who wants to take this up?
I've been reading through all of the board minutes - trust me when I
tell you that this is not exciting stuff! Anyway, I've seen enough to
put an early draft together.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> [ setting mail-followup-to to avalon-dev; people on the PMC should watch the
> -dev list to truly track this conversation ]
[...]
> So that wraps up the structural stuff: establish a PMC from the active
> Avalon people. Pretty straight forward. Then what?
>
> I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to steer
> the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above) that the
> Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck Avalon is
> and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly developed parts. But
> ignore the design from the past and come up with an "Avalon 2".
>
> I had even suggsted using org.apache.avalon2, although Sam pointed out that
> would pose backwards compat issues. It sure would :-). But if Avalon hasn't
> had a release, then it seems "okay" to just archive the old avalon and start
> a new one, under a new namespace. JAMES and other users can migrate.
Avalon means many things to many people ;-) but actually there is one
thing that has had many releases, is stable, and works very well: Avalon
Framework.
This is where Avalon *really* shines, and where the community seems to
actually be able to work together.
The fragmentation of Avalon is with the implementations of that
framework, that are numerous and ever-evolving.
When I came in Avalon I really wanted to see us unite in a single
design, and this brought me to try and move non-Avalon-dependent stuff
to Jakarta Commons (with a good response), to help discuss things to
unite implementations (Forrest and Merlin), and to seek to reunite all
under a single implementation.
The fact that there are so many implementations is an indication of the
state of flux in which implementation decisions are; I thought that with
community discussion we could work things out on implementation; things
worked for some but somehow started degenerating with others... my
"famous" -1 that I retracted was an effort (albeit clumsy and uncorrect)
to help sparkle discussion on a common solution, that the commit was
somehow putting down.
I'd be more than glad to see it starting again.
> But hey... I know nothing about the ramifications of that :-). The question
> for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to create a design that
> is community driven? Another answer might be to break down Avalon into a
> list of component areas and put them individually through a vote. "is this
> good? bad? design okay? etc" Anything that is controversial gets ripped
> until a consensus is formed.
Let's start a new avalon repository with all the framework stuff.
Then add only things we vote positively on. One by one.
> Avalon is awfully big. Part of the review could be archiving pieces that no
> longer "fit" or are unmaintained or whatever.
>
> I might also suggest putting everything back into a single CVS, available to
> all committers. I'm not sure why multiple CVS repositories exist (there
> could be great reasons!), but one big CVS might help to create that "single
> community" concept. Not sure, but the PMC may want to think about it.
We have already been suggested to reunite the repos, and it has gotten a
non-negative reception.
I'm +1 to do it with the new Apache Avalon Project.
> I would also recommend that the PMC disallow forks or "revolutions." Get the
> community to work together, rather than individually. If somebody is peeved
> enough at the community's direction, they can put their fork in other parts
> of the ASF or outside the ASF. But don't allow internal forks until you've
> at least got one release behind you. This notion of personal playgrounds and
> forks and whatnot has been part of the "avalon problem".
+1
> As a comparison point, the httpd group has recently decided to create stable
> vs development branches. This "fork" of the code was done on a consensus
> basis rather than individuals going off to work on their stuff. There *have*
> been individual forks (apache-nspr being one, and apache-2.0 started off as
> one), but httpd already had a stable release that had a community to gather
> around it.
+1
> Well, I've rambled enough. As a Director of the ASF, I'd vote "yes" on an
> Avalon PMC resolution. I would want to see *all* active committers on that
> PMC, without exclusion. I'd want to see that PMC tasked with building and
> releasing Avalon (according to some definition that you guys come up with
> here). Once the Board establishes the PMC, then I'd hope its first task is
> to take Avalon down to its core and rebuild it, with the whole community in
> mind. As the Chairman, I'll be asking the PMC Chair for a report for the
> first few months while the new PMC and project gets restarted, then it would
> move back to quarterly.
+1
> The Board is meeting on November 18th after the Members meeting. It would be
> best to have any resolutions sent to board@ by Thursday the 14th to give the
> Board members ample time to review it and to suggest any changes, if
> necssary.
>
> Direct action items that I would suggest:
>
> 1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
+1 from me :-)
> assuming so:
> 2) craft a resolution; look at others in the Board minutes for an example
Who wants to take this up? Peter?
> 3) decide on the initial PMC and the Chair
I would like to be in the PMC, more because of my personal involvement
in the Avalon Community than for my code commits, which are not much.
I have learned a lot about Avalon recently and think that I can give a
positive contribution to Avalon by being on the PMC.
But I don't want to force it, and would like other committers to talk to
each other about it privately or publicly and let me know.
Not being on the PMC will not diminish my interest or future commitment
to Avalon in any way, nor my respect and collaboration with other
committers, so feel free not to want me in for now.
If you want, I'm willing, if not, I'll help anyway :-)
As for the chair, let's see who's willing first ;-)
> 4) send the resolution to board@apache.org
>
> Note that you don't have to have a detailed charter / rules / etc before
> submitting this to the Board. The Board resolution sets up the PMC and tells
> it "go make it happen", and part of *that* is to do the charter stuff.
>
> I'm not subscribed to avalon-dev@ cuz there is a lot of other traffic here
> that I just don't care to see :-), but I'm quite all right with being CC'd,
> and I'll watch the list via gmane and/or marc.theaimsgroup.com
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> (*) I say "voting committer" because it is possible that somebody was given
> commit access simply to apply some patches themselves, but they do not have
> input into the direction of the project
>
> (**) don't worry about "not being part of Jakarta"; Avalon can certainly
> still have links from jakarta.apache.org; in fact, its web pages could stay
> there, or move to avalon.apache.org; however you want -- top-level projects
> get to have a hostname like FOO.apache.org, but it isn't required.
>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 15:43, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Greg, PMC folks, Avaloners,
>
> I thought I might illustrate that our community *does* work. I have
> analysed the commit logs posted in jakarta-avalon* since 5th March this
> year (all I have in terms of postings). I have tried to eliminate some
> of PeterD's change of email address commits as well as some reverts that
> add to noise.
>
> *Exec* *summary* lots of us working feverishly on many aspects of
> Avalon. A truly massive project, with lofty goals.
>
> Here are the stats:
<snip/>
this is real cool :)
when you also add the fact that we have a grand total of 4 active
mailing lists, a rapidly growing user community, tons of synergy with
other OSS-projects....we truely deserve a pat on the back!
I think this massive community size also shows we're a 'bit' much to
oversee for the Jakarta PMC and hence further justifies formation of our
own PMC :P
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Folks,
Some of the stats were incorrect. I can only apologise.... and blame
Mozilla for not automatically deleting entries as they are moved to
adjacent folders. Having said that the numbers dont tally between
before and after so I must have made some other mistake too. C'est la
vie. Didn't write unit tests ;-)
The bizarre thing is that it appears that Peter has worked on Merlin,
and taken from the other mail, Stephen has worked on Phoenix. Feud
(wrong word, disagreement better) over? Well closer inspection shows
that Peter mostly prettied the Merlin sources (imports et al), and
Stephen made Javadoc corrections to Phoenix (and whole jar commits). Ho
hum!
Apologies again for the bad stats.
- Paul
===========
Excalibur (without AltRMI, Fortress and Merlin)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 1194 | 38.21 % |
| 2 | leif@apache.org | 453 | 14.50 % |
| 3 | bloritsch@apache.org | 309 | 9.89 % |
| 4 | hammant@apache.org | 280 | 8.96 % |
| 5 | jefft@apache.org | 211 | 6.75 % |
| 6 | mcconnell@apache.org | 186 | 5.95 % |
| 7 | cziegeler@apache.org | 91 | 2.91 % |
| 8 | crafterm@apache.org | 88 | 2.82 % |
| 9 | proyal@apache.org | 65 | 2.08 % |
| 10 | mirceatoma@apache.org | 57 | 1.82 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 191 | 6.11 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 6648.3 |
| 2 | leif@apache.org | 3574.3 |
| 3 | hammant@apache.org | 3193.6 |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 2597.9 |
| 5 | bloritsch@apache.org | 2234.7 |
| 6 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1400.8 |
| 7 | crafterm@apache.org | 639.9 |
| 8 | cziegeler@apache.org | 617.3 |
| 9 | leosutic@apache.org | 290.4 |
| 10 | proyal@apache.org | 284.7 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
==========
Merlin (msgs taken out of Excalibur totals)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | mcconnell@apache.org | 520 | 91.23 % |
| 2 | bloritsch@apache.org | 18 | 3.16 % |
| 3 | donaldp@apache.org | 11 | 1.93 % |
| 4 | leosimons@apache.org | 7 | 1.23 % |
| 5 | nicolaken@apache.org | 5 | 0.88 % |
| 6 | proyal@apache.org | 4 | 0.70 % |
| 7 | crafterm@apache.org | 2 | 0.35 % |
| 8 | jefft@apache.org | 2 | 0.35 % |
| 9 | morpheus@apache.org | 1 | 0.18 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | mcconnell@apache.org | 6035.5 |
| 2 | donaldp@apache.org | 207.9 |
| 3 | bloritsch@apache.org | 111.7 |
| 4 | leosimons@apache.org | 83.9 |
| 5 | jefft@apache.org | 18.3 |
| 6 | proyal@apache.org | 9.6 |
| 7 | nicolaken@apache.org | 6.8 |
| 8 | crafterm@apache.org | 2.1 |
| 9 | morpheus@apache.org | 1.3 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Greg, PMC folks, Avaloners,
I thought I might illustrate that our community *does* work. I have
analysed the commit logs posted in jakarta-avalon* since 5th March this
year (all I have in terms of postings). I have tried to eliminate some
of PeterD's change of email address commits as well as some reverts that
add to noise.
*Exec* *summary* lots of us working feverishly on many aspects of
Avalon. A truly massive project, with lofty goals.
Here are the stats:
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon ... mainly Avalon-Framework, our core art.
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | nicolaken@apache.org | 92 | 28.31 % |
| 2 | donaldp@apache.org | 89 | 27.38 % |
| 3 | bloritsch@apache.org | 29 | 8.92 % |
| 4 | hammant@apache.org | 29 | 8.92 % |
| 5 | leosimons@apache.org | 27 | 8.31 % |
| 6 | proyal@apache.org | 14 | 4.31 % |
| 7 | colus@apache.org | 10 | 3.08 % |
| 8 | jefft@apache.org | 9 | 2.77 % |
| 9 | leif@apache.org | 8 | 2.46 % |
| 10 | leosutic@apache.org | 7 | 2.15 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 11 | 3.38 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 791.1 |
| 2 | nicolaken@apache.org | 522.7 |
| 3 | bloritsch@apache.org | 270.7 |
| 4 | leosimons@apache.org | 260.3 |
| 5 | mcconnell@apache.org | 229.1 |
| 6 | hammant@apache.org | 115.3 |
| 7 | colus@apache.org | 78.2 |
| 8 | proyal@apache.org | 51.2 |
| 9 | leosutic@apache.org | 35.4 |
| 10 | jefft@apache.org | 26.6 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-phoenix ... One of our excellent containers.
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 658 | 74.27 % |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 90 | 10.16 % |
| 3 | proyal@apache.org | 59 | 6.66 % |
| 4 | colus@apache.org | 43 | 4.85 % |
| 5 | huw@apache.org | 23 | 2.60 % |
| 6 | mcconnell@apache.org | 4 | 0.45 % |
| 7 | leif@apache.org | 4 | 0.45 % |
| 8 | leosimons@apache.org | 3 | 0.34 % |
| 9 | jefft@apache.org | 2 | 0.23 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+-------------------------Execution finished. Processed 886
messages in 3 seconds.
---------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 3291.4 |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 422.2 |
| 3 | proyal@apache.org | 250.8 |
| 4 | leosimons@apache.org | 142.0 |
| 5 | colus@apache.org | 140.0 |
| 6 | huw@apache.org | 97.6 |
| 7 | leif@apache.org | 15.3 |
| 8 | jefft@apache.org | 6.2 |
| 9 | mcconnell@apache.org | 3.7 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-cornerstone ... Reusable components for Phoenix
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 69 | 54.33 % |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 35 | 27.56 % |
| 3 | proyal@apache.org | 14 | 11.02 % |
| 4 | colus@apache.org | 5 | 3.94 % |
| 5 | leif@apache.org | 1 | 0.79 % |
| 6 | jefft@apache.org | 1 | 0.79 % |
| 7 | huw@apache.org | 1 | 0.79 % |
| 8 | rana_b@apache.org | 1 | 0.79 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by totaExecution finished. Processed 127 messages
in 0 seconds.
l size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 545.2 |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 152.3 |
| 3 | proyal@apache.org | 30.5 |
| 4 | rana_b@apache.org | 19.7 |
| 5 | colus@apache.org | 12.8 |
| 6 | jefft@apache.org | 4.8 |
| 7 | leif@apache.org | 1.3 |
| 8 | huw@apache.org | 1.1 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-apps ... Complete applications for Phoenix and demos
Execution finished. Processed 687 messages in 3 seconds.
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 199 | 28.97 % |
| 2 | mcconnell@apache.org | 164 | 23.87 % |
| 3 | rana_b@apache.org | 135 | 19.65 % |
| 4 | proyal@apache.org | 54 | 7.86 % |
| 5 | bloritsch@apache.org | 48 | 6.99 % |
| 6 | donaldp@apache.org | 44 | 6.40 % |
| 7 | colus@apache.org | 25 | 3.64 % |
| 8 | leosimons@apache.org | 12 | 1.75 % |
| 9 | huw@apache.org | 3 | 0.44 % |
| 10 | vinayc@apache.org | 2 | 0.29 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 1 | 0.15 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 1360.7 |
| 2 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1333.9 |
| 3 | rana_b@apache.org | 1027.8 |
| 4 | donaldp@apache.org | 484.8 |
| 5 | bloritsch@apache.org | 292.5 |
| 6 | leosimons@apache.org | 291.7 |
| 7 | proyal@apache.org | 249.7 |
| 8 | colus@apache.org | 177.6 |
| 9 | huw@apache.org | 5.8 |
| 10 | jefft@apache.org | 2.2 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
Stephen's 'enterprise (CORBA ORB) is in here. Destined for top level
status?
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-exalibur ... Reusable beans for any project (Merlin,
Fortress and AltRMI listed separately)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 652 | 25.37 % |
| 2 | mcconnell@apache.org | 444 | 17.28 % |
| 3 | hammant@apache.org | 354 | 13.77 % |
| 4 | leif@apache.org | 328 | 12.76 % |
| 5 | jefft@apache.org | 221 | 8.60 % |
| 6 | bloritsch@apache.org | 220 | 8.56 % |
| 7 | cziegeler@apache.org | 90 | 3.50 % |
| 8 | proyal@apache.org | 72 | 2.80 % |
| 9 | crafterm@apache.org | 62 | 2.41 % |
| 10 | colus@apache.org | 47 | 1.83 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 80 | 3.11 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 4198.3 |
| 2 | mcconnell@apache.org | 4123.3 |
| 3 | donaldp@apache.org | 3938.7 |
| 4 | leif@apache.org | 2516.7 |
| 5 | jefft@apache.org | 2498.5 |
| 6 | bloritsch@apache.org | 1354.0 |
| 7 | cziegeler@apache.org | 615.6 |
| 8 | crafterm@apache.org | 417.0 |
| 9 | proyal@apache.org | 286.7 |
| 10 | colus@apache.org | 241.9 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
This has been massively package refactored over this time. It is
actually
more stable than it looks. We've also be shoving things to Commons in
this
timescale.
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-exalibur/fortress ... Fortress (an A-F compliant
container for servlet context)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 140 | 44.73 % |
| 2 | bloritsch@apache.org | 73 | 23.32 % |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 46 | 14.70 % |
| 4 | proyal@apache.org | 18 | 5.75 % |
| 5 | leif@apache.org | 11 | 3.51 % |
| 6 | mcconnell@apache.org | 7 | 2.24 % |
| 7 | jefft@apache.org | 6 | 1.92 % |
| 8 | hammant@apache.org | 5 | 1.60 % |
| 9 | giacomo@apache.org | 2 | 0.64 % |
| 10 | cziegeler@apache.org | 1 | 0.32 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 4 | 1.28 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | bloritsch@apache.org | 793.9 |
| 2 | donaldp@apache.org | 749.6 |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 396.0 |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 97.4 |
| 5 | leif@apache.org | 88.1 |
| 6 | proyal@apache.org | 63.5 |
| 7 | mcconnell@apache.org | 14.8 |
| 8 | colus@apache.org | 7.2 |
| 9 | cziegeler@apache.org | 6.7 |
| 10 | hammant@apache.org | 6.5 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-exalibur/assembly ... Merlin (an advanced A-F compliant
container)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | mcconnell@apache.org | 224 | 98.68 % |
| 2 | bloritsch@apache.org | 2 | 0.88 % |
| 3 | leosimons@apache.org | 1 | 0.44 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1754.7 |
| 2 | bloritsch@apache.org | 48.2 |
| 3 | leosimons@apache.org | 0.5 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
This incorporates commits from the 'merlin' folder, before it was merged
into 'assembly'
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-exalibur/altrmi ... AltRMI (a replacement for RMI)
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 136 | 77.27 % |
| 2 | vinayc@apache.org | 15 | 8.52 % |
| 3 | leif@apache.org | 13 | 7.39 % |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 4 | 2.27 % |
| 5 | proyal@apache.org | 4 | 2.27 % |
| 6 | donaldp@apache.org | 2 | 1.14 % |
| 7 | bloritsch@apache.org | 2 | 1.14 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 1822.5 |
| 2 | vinayc@apache.org | 147.9 |
| 3 | leif@apache.org | 60.4 |
| 4 | proyal@apache.org | 38.7 |
| 5 | jefft@apache.org | 12.4 |
| 6 | bloritsch@apache.org | 11.2 |
| 7 | donaldp@apache.org | 0.5 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-logkit ... Our cool logging package.
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 47 | 73.44 % |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 6 | 9.38 % |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 4 | 6.25 % |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 2 | 3.12 % |
| 5 | colus@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 6 | leosimons@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 7 | leif@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 8 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 9 | proyal@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 319.6 |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 19.3 |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 11.9 |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 5.2 |
| 5 | leif@apache.org | 3.4 |
| 6 | leosimons@apache.org | 1.8 |
| 7 | proyal@apache.org | 1.2 |
| 8 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1.1 |
| 9 | colus@apache.org | 0.8 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-logkit ... Our cool logging package.
***** People who have written most messages:
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 47 | 73.44 % |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 6 | 9.38 % |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 4 | 6.25 % |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 2 | 3.12 % |
| 5 | colus@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 6 | leosimons@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 7 | leif@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 8 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
| 9 | proyal@apache.org | 1 | 1.56 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | donaldp@apache.org | 319.6 |
| 2 | hammant@apache.org | 19.3 |
| 3 | crafterm@apache.org | 11.9 |
| 4 | jefft@apache.org | 5.2 |
| 5 | leif@apache.org | 3.4 |
| 6 | leosimons@apache.org | 1.8 |
| 7 | proyal@apache.org | 1.2 |
| 8 | mcconnell@apache.org | 1.1 |
| 9 | colus@apache.org | 0.8 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
======================================================================
jakarta-avalon-site ... Our site @ jakarta
***** People who have written most messages
+----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 583 | 71.18 % |
| 2 | bloritsch@apache.org | 99 | 12.09 % |
| 3 | mcconnell@apache.org | 54 | 6.59 % |
| 4 | donaldp@apache.org | 45 | 5.49 % |
| 5 | leosimons@apache.org | 23 | 2.81 % |
| 6 | nicolaken@apache.org | 10 | 1.22 % |
| 7 | proyal@apache.org | 5 | 0.61 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
| | other | 0 | 0.00 % |
+----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+
***** Best authors, by total size of their messages (w/o quoting):
+----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+
| 1 | hammant@apache.org | 3125.6 |
| 2 | leosimons@apache.org | 1144.9 |
| 3 | bloritsch@apache.org | 1042.9 |
| 4 | donaldp@apache.org | 808.9 |
| 5 | mcconnell@apache.org | 330.3 |
| 6 | nicolaken@apache.org | 315.7 |
| 7 | proyal@apache.org | 27.6 |
+----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+
Don't ya know that getting people to work on docs is hard ;-)
======================================================================
-ph
PS - MLS is the tool I used for the stats.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Paul Hammant <ha...@apache.org>.
Greg, PMC folks,
A short & sweet reply, dwelling largely on factual corrections if I may:
Avalon does have to chaff amongst the wheat. Some of it is mine, which
we agree should be deleted or moved to incubator.
* Avalon-Framework is rock solid and should not be written as it is at
version 4.1.3 (released).
* Avalon-Excalibur produces multiple products that are at different
levels. Some are moving to commons, some will be firmed up in-situ, some
will be deleted as they are no longer used. 1.0 is a common version
number for the 10-15 prominent projects in there. A couple of comps are
worthy of promotion to a jakarta front page level (Merlin and AltRMI ?)
Some repackaging/rewrite may be needed here. The angle for Excalibur
sub projects is that they are plain beans designed along a component
model - as reusable as commons comps.
* Avalon-Logkit is at 1.1.1 level (released) and very solid. No rewrite
needed here
* Avalon-Phoenix is at 4.0.2 (released) with 4.1 being worked on. This
does not need a rewrite, especially as multiple companies are using it
for internal projects.
* Avalon-Cornerstone is a set of comps for Phoenix. It is uses as much
as Phoenix is but needs to be pushed forward to a release. There is a
dependency on Phoenix or Phoenix-compatible projects (we voted recently
that projects like Merlin should import the phoenix-client jar for
compatibility with designed-for-phoenix comps).
* Avalon-Apps is a set of Phoenix applications. Some have been dead for
a while and will be blasted out of CVS. Others like FtpServer
(FtpLets?) are worthy of being made more prominent projects at Jakarta.
These are mostly unreleased. We need to address that.
---
What characterizes Avalon and Avaloners is a belief in the
Avalon-Framework lifecycle interfaces and the Inversion of Control
pattern for component designs. We'd love to see these two push out
further into other Jakarta projects. Particularly projects like
Catalina :-) We do juggle multiple containers (Phoenix, ECM, Fortress,
Merlin, Tweety). The Turbine team, with our full blessing, develop one
of their own. I and others have one too that honors the lifecycle
interfaces, but aims at a being a replacement for EJB called Enterprise
Object Broker. Like most in this familiy it has its way of lacing comps
together. These containers all favor the A-F lifecycle interfaces, but
have different ways of lacing their components together and handling
configuration. This is completely fine.
In summary, the need for wholescale rewrite / startover is not there.
The need for chaff elimination and continued binary releases is there.
Regards,
- Paul
>[ setting mail-followup-to to avalon-dev; people on the PMC should watch the
> -dev list to truly track this conversation ]
>
>On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:07:38AM +0100, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's all rather icky.
>>>>>
>>>>>options to make it less icky:
>>>>>- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>>>>>- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>>>>>- destroy avalon (rather not)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>Yup, great, and shouldn't be necessary.
>
>
>
>>...
>>Leo and Leo and everyone else:
>>
>>Earlier today some interesting emails have been crossing the Incubator
>>and Jakarta PMCs in which the Avalon project is part of the subject
>>material.
>>
>>
>
>In short, my request to the Jakarta PMC was "something needs to be done". Of
>the PMC people who responded, the general tendency seemed to be supportive
>of creating an Avalon PMC, provided the community was amenable to doing so.
>IOW, the PMC deferred first-rights to the community to take some action.
>
>This means the community needs to reach a consensus on what to do. If that
>can't happen, then the Jakarta PMC or the Board will Do Something(tm) :-)
>
>
>
>>... snip good stuff about reorg@, accountability, etc ...
>>
>>Now that the noise has settled down, there is discussion within a
>>bunch of Jakarta projects concerning escalation.
>>
>>
>
>The primary motivation is to create a more direct path from those
>accountable and responsible (the PMC) and the code. Without a direct,
>obvious, and demonstrable oversight, it will be impossible for the ASF to
>show that the code was developed and released according to *its* desires.
>IOW, it was done by individuals, so the liability falls to those
>individuals.
>
>Yes, the risk associated with that liability is awfully low, but the ASF
>exists to make it zero. (the ASF exists for other reasons, of course, but
>I'm trying to stay focused here :-)
>
>
>
>>...
>>One of these problems has been identified as Avalon due primarily to a
>>lack of oversight by a PMC member. Without oversight it clear can
>>the members of the Jakarta PMC cannot reasonably represent this
>>commmunity towards the board.
>>
>>
>
>That is part of it, yes. My own opinion is also that the PMC did not manage
>the community properly. From my point, I see a highly contentious and
>divided community. From some correspondence with Peter, it even sounds like
>"each person is working on their own stuff" -- a bunch of personal
>playgrounds, only loosely falling under some concept called "Avalon". This
>is where that other part of the ASF comes in: providing rules, patterns, and
>a framework for communites to exist, evolve, and (at the direction of the
>PMC) to produce kickass code. Avalon has been described as being in
>"perenial alpha", which isn't surprising considering its divided nature.
>
>
>
>>Sam Ruby posted a message earlier today (copied with Sam's
>>permission):
>>
>> > My opinion is that Avalon with its various sub-subprojects,
>> > including excalibur with its sub-sub-subprojects requires a
>> > dedicated PMC for oversight.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>
>>Greg Stein posted a follow-up in which he recommeded a new Avalon
>>PMC chartered to rain-in everything in, sort it out, and basically
>>start from scratch. Greg also committed to posting his thoughts
>>on an Avalon PMC directly to this list.
>>
>>
>
>The role of a PMC member does not incur any overhead relative to what you
>are already doing. In fact, Roy Fielding has stated that the division
>between a voting committer(*) and a PMC member is not supposed to exist.
>IOW, if you have voting rights, then you should be on the PMC.
>
>The Chair has a duty to provide the Board with a quarterly report, but has
>no other additional time overhead. The Chair *is* an officer of the
>corporation, which incurs certain responsibilities and accountability, but
>an officer also happens to receive more legal protection than the PMC
>members :-)
>
>In the Ant group, I've been somewhat disappointed to see most people
>avoiding stepping up to be the Chair (thankfully, Conor threw his hat in the
>ring). I'd like to avoid that here by explaining that it isn't a scary
>thing... In fact, I would hope that everybody would be all right with acting
>as the Chair.
>
>
>So that wraps up the structural stuff: establish a PMC from the active
>Avalon people. Pretty straight forward. Then what?
>
>I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to steer
>the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above) that the
>Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck Avalon is
>and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly developed parts. But
>ignore the design from the past and come up with an "Avalon 2".
>
>I had even suggsted using org.apache.avalon2, although Sam pointed out that
>would pose backwards compat issues. It sure would :-). But if Avalon hasn't
>had a release, then it seems "okay" to just archive the old avalon and start
>a new one, under a new namespace. JAMES and other users can migrate.
>
>But hey... I know nothing about the ramifications of that :-). The question
>for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to create a design that
>is community driven? Another answer might be to break down Avalon into a
>list of component areas and put them individually through a vote. "is this
>good? bad? design okay? etc" Anything that is controversial gets ripped
>until a consensus is formed.
>
>Avalon is awfully big. Part of the review could be archiving pieces that no
>longer "fit" or are unmaintained or whatever.
>
>I might also suggest putting everything back into a single CVS, available to
>all committers. I'm not sure why multiple CVS repositories exist (there
>could be great reasons!), but one big CVS might help to create that "single
>community" concept. Not sure, but the PMC may want to think about it.
>
>I would also recommend that the PMC disallow forks or "revolutions." Get the
>community to work together, rather than individually. If somebody is peeved
>enough at the community's direction, they can put their fork in other parts
>of the ASF or outside the ASF. But don't allow internal forks until you've
>at least got one release behind you. This notion of personal playgrounds and
>forks and whatnot has been part of the "avalon problem".
>
>As a comparison point, the httpd group has recently decided to create stable
>vs development branches. This "fork" of the code was done on a consensus
>basis rather than individuals going off to work on their stuff. There *have*
>been individual forks (apache-nspr being one, and apache-2.0 started off as
>one), but httpd already had a stable release that had a community to gather
>around it.
>
>
>Well, I've rambled enough. As a Director of the ASF, I'd vote "yes" on an
>Avalon PMC resolution. I would want to see *all* active committers on that
>PMC, without exclusion. I'd want to see that PMC tasked with building and
>releasing Avalon (according to some definition that you guys come up with
>here). Once the Board establishes the PMC, then I'd hope its first task is
>to take Avalon down to its core and rebuild it, with the whole community in
>mind. As the Chairman, I'll be asking the PMC Chair for a report for the
>first few months while the new PMC and project gets restarted, then it would
>move back to quarterly.
>
>The Board is meeting on November 18th after the Members meeting. It would be
>best to have any resolutions sent to board@ by Thursday the 14th to give the
>Board members ample time to review it and to suggest any changes, if
>necssary.
>
>Direct action items that I would suggest:
>
>1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
>
>assuming so:
>2) craft a resolution; look at others in the Board minutes for an example
>3) decide on the initial PMC and the Chair
>4) send the resolution to board@apache.org
>
>Note that you don't have to have a detailed charter / rules / etc before
>submitting this to the Board. The Board resolution sets up the PMC and tells
>it "go make it happen", and part of *that* is to do the charter stuff.
>
>I'm not subscribed to avalon-dev@ cuz there is a lot of other traffic here
>that I just don't care to see :-), but I'm quite all right with being CC'd,
>and I'll watch the list via gmane and/or marc.theaimsgroup.com
>
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>(*) I say "voting committer" because it is possible that somebody was given
>commit access simply to apply some patches themselves, but they do not have
>input into the direction of the project
>
>(**) don't worry about "not being part of Jakarta"; Avalon can certainly
>still have links from jakarta.apache.org; in fact, its web pages could stay
>there, or move to avalon.apache.org; however you want -- top-level projects
>get to have a hostname like FOO.apache.org, but it isn't required.
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 07:19, Greg Stein wrote:
<snip/>
> In short, my request to the Jakarta PMC was "something needs to be done". Of
> the PMC people who responded, the general tendency seemed to be supportive
> of creating an Avalon PMC, provided the community was amenable to doing so.
> IOW, the PMC deferred first-rights to the community to take some action.
>
> This means the community needs to reach a consensus on what to do. If that
> can't happen, then the Jakarta PMC or the Board will Do Something(tm) :-)
I am for not having a Do Something(tm) invocation :)
IIUC, the board, the PMC, and the president want to see the avalon
community take action, and between them there is some sort of consensus
that it would be 'a good idea' for the avalon community to form an
Avalon PMC?
some loose comments and a few questions below...
<snip/>
> That is part of it, yes. My own opinion is also that the PMC did not manage
> the community properly. From my point, I see a highly contentious and
> divided community.
aside: I do think (as Paul Hammant said) that the division is maybe not
as big as it appears to some 'outsiders' at the moment. There's some
very solid common ground.
<snip/>
> The role of a PMC member does not incur any overhead relative to what you
> are already doing. In fact, Roy Fielding has stated that the division
> between a voting committer(*) and a PMC member is not supposed to exist.
> IOW, if you have voting rights, then you should be on the PMC.
>
> The Chair has a duty to provide the Board with a quarterly report, but has
> no other additional time overhead. The Chair *is* an officer of the
> corporation, which incurs certain responsibilities and accountability, but
> an officer also happens to receive more legal protection than the PMC
> members :-)
Does the accountability imply some sort of authority? If the chair is
accountable for actions taken by the PMC, how does that work legally?
I've reread http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html once more, but
couldn't find an answer.
What's the preferred way to suggest a chair? Do we vote on that?
<snip/>
> I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to steer
> the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above) that the
> Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck Avalon is
> and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly developed parts. But
> ignore the design from the past and come up with an "Avalon 2".
aaaaargh!! ;)
I don't think anyone who uses or develops avalon wants that...
<snip/>
> I had even suggsted using org.apache.avalon2, although Sam pointed out that
> would pose backwards compat issues. It sure would :-). But if Avalon hasn't
> had a release, then it seems "okay" to just archive the old avalon and start
> a new one, under a new namespace. JAMES and other users can migrate.
>
> But hey... I know nothing about the ramifications of that :-). The question
> for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to create a design that
> is community driven?
I'm perfectly okay with "starting over" regarding rules, bylaws, project
organisation, setup, etc etc. I don't think starting over completely
from a code perspective is a good idea. Some parts of avalon are of
solid enterprise quality and have been released as such and should be
supported. But this is again an aside; it's the proposed PMCs job to
decide all that, innit? ;)
<snip/>
> I might also suggest putting everything back into a single CVS, available to
> all committers. I'm not sure why multiple CVS repositories exist (there
> could be great reasons!)
technical reasons. Avalon is a bit too big to work with comfortably in a
single CVS....a chicken-and-egg style problem perhaps...
<snip/>
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>Direct action items that I would suggest:
>
>1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
>
>
+1
I'm much more in favour of this community taking control over its
future then leaving it up Jakarta or the Board.
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@apache.org>.
[ setting mail-followup-to to avalon-dev; people on the PMC should watch the
-dev list to truly track this conversation ]
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:07:38AM +0100, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>> > It's all rather icky.
>>> >
>>> > options to make it less icky:
>>> > - jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>>> > - avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>>> > - destroy avalon (rather not)
Yup, great, and shouldn't be necessary.
>...
> Leo and Leo and everyone else:
>
> Earlier today some interesting emails have been crossing the Incubator
> and Jakarta PMCs in which the Avalon project is part of the subject
> material.
In short, my request to the Jakarta PMC was "something needs to be done". Of
the PMC people who responded, the general tendency seemed to be supportive
of creating an Avalon PMC, provided the community was amenable to doing so.
IOW, the PMC deferred first-rights to the community to take some action.
This means the community needs to reach a consensus on what to do. If that
can't happen, then the Jakarta PMC or the Board will Do Something(tm) :-)
>... snip good stuff about reorg@, accountability, etc ...
>
> Now that the noise has settled down, there is discussion within a
> bunch of Jakarta projects concerning escalation.
The primary motivation is to create a more direct path from those
accountable and responsible (the PMC) and the code. Without a direct,
obvious, and demonstrable oversight, it will be impossible for the ASF to
show that the code was developed and released according to *its* desires.
IOW, it was done by individuals, so the liability falls to those
individuals.
Yes, the risk associated with that liability is awfully low, but the ASF
exists to make it zero. (the ASF exists for other reasons, of course, but
I'm trying to stay focused here :-)
>...
> One of these problems has been identified as Avalon due primarily to a
> lack of oversight by a PMC member. Without oversight it clear can
> the members of the Jakarta PMC cannot reasonably represent this
> commmunity towards the board.
That is part of it, yes. My own opinion is also that the PMC did not manage
the community properly. From my point, I see a highly contentious and
divided community. From some correspondence with Peter, it even sounds like
"each person is working on their own stuff" -- a bunch of personal
playgrounds, only loosely falling under some concept called "Avalon". This
is where that other part of the ASF comes in: providing rules, patterns, and
a framework for communites to exist, evolve, and (at the direction of the
PMC) to produce kickass code. Avalon has been described as being in
"perenial alpha", which isn't surprising considering its divided nature.
> Sam Ruby posted a message earlier today (copied with Sam's
> permission):
>
> > My opinion is that Avalon with its various sub-subprojects,
> > including excalibur with its sub-sub-subprojects requires a
> > dedicated PMC for oversight.
Agreed.
> Greg Stein posted a follow-up in which he recommeded a new Avalon
> PMC chartered to rain-in everything in, sort it out, and basically
> start from scratch. Greg also committed to posting his thoughts
> on an Avalon PMC directly to this list.
The role of a PMC member does not incur any overhead relative to what you
are already doing. In fact, Roy Fielding has stated that the division
between a voting committer(*) and a PMC member is not supposed to exist.
IOW, if you have voting rights, then you should be on the PMC.
The Chair has a duty to provide the Board with a quarterly report, but has
no other additional time overhead. The Chair *is* an officer of the
corporation, which incurs certain responsibilities and accountability, but
an officer also happens to receive more legal protection than the PMC
members :-)
In the Ant group, I've been somewhat disappointed to see most people
avoiding stepping up to be the Chair (thankfully, Conor threw his hat in the
ring). I'd like to avoid that here by explaining that it isn't a scary
thing... In fact, I would hope that everybody would be all right with acting
as the Chair.
So that wraps up the structural stuff: establish a PMC from the active
Avalon people. Pretty straight forward. Then what?
I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to steer
the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above) that the
Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck Avalon is
and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly developed parts. But
ignore the design from the past and come up with an "Avalon 2".
I had even suggsted using org.apache.avalon2, although Sam pointed out that
would pose backwards compat issues. It sure would :-). But if Avalon hasn't
had a release, then it seems "okay" to just archive the old avalon and start
a new one, under a new namespace. JAMES and other users can migrate.
But hey... I know nothing about the ramifications of that :-). The question
for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to create a design that
is community driven? Another answer might be to break down Avalon into a
list of component areas and put them individually through a vote. "is this
good? bad? design okay? etc" Anything that is controversial gets ripped
until a consensus is formed.
Avalon is awfully big. Part of the review could be archiving pieces that no
longer "fit" or are unmaintained or whatever.
I might also suggest putting everything back into a single CVS, available to
all committers. I'm not sure why multiple CVS repositories exist (there
could be great reasons!), but one big CVS might help to create that "single
community" concept. Not sure, but the PMC may want to think about it.
I would also recommend that the PMC disallow forks or "revolutions." Get the
community to work together, rather than individually. If somebody is peeved
enough at the community's direction, they can put their fork in other parts
of the ASF or outside the ASF. But don't allow internal forks until you've
at least got one release behind you. This notion of personal playgrounds and
forks and whatnot has been part of the "avalon problem".
As a comparison point, the httpd group has recently decided to create stable
vs development branches. This "fork" of the code was done on a consensus
basis rather than individuals going off to work on their stuff. There *have*
been individual forks (apache-nspr being one, and apache-2.0 started off as
one), but httpd already had a stable release that had a community to gather
around it.
Well, I've rambled enough. As a Director of the ASF, I'd vote "yes" on an
Avalon PMC resolution. I would want to see *all* active committers on that
PMC, without exclusion. I'd want to see that PMC tasked with building and
releasing Avalon (according to some definition that you guys come up with
here). Once the Board establishes the PMC, then I'd hope its first task is
to take Avalon down to its core and rebuild it, with the whole community in
mind. As the Chairman, I'll be asking the PMC Chair for a report for the
first few months while the new PMC and project gets restarted, then it would
move back to quarterly.
The Board is meeting on November 18th after the Members meeting. It would be
best to have any resolutions sent to board@ by Thursday the 14th to give the
Board members ample time to review it and to suggest any changes, if
necssary.
Direct action items that I would suggest:
1) decide if creation of an Avalon PMC is agreeable (**)
assuming so:
2) craft a resolution; look at others in the Board minutes for an example
3) decide on the initial PMC and the Chair
4) send the resolution to board@apache.org
Note that you don't have to have a detailed charter / rules / etc before
submitting this to the Board. The Board resolution sets up the PMC and tells
it "go make it happen", and part of *that* is to do the charter stuff.
I'm not subscribed to avalon-dev@ cuz there is a lot of other traffic here
that I just don't care to see :-), but I'm quite all right with being CC'd,
and I'll watch the list via gmane and/or marc.theaimsgroup.com
Cheers,
-g
(*) I say "voting committer" because it is possible that somebody was given
commit access simply to apply some patches themselves, but they do not have
input into the direction of the project
(**) don't worry about "not being part of Jakarta"; Avalon can certainly
still have links from jakarta.apache.org; in fact, its web pages could stay
there, or move to avalon.apache.org; however you want -- top-level projects
get to have a hostname like FOO.apache.org, but it isn't required.
--
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: thoughts on Avalon PMC
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Sutic wrote:
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It's all rather icky.
>>>
>>>options to make it less icky:
>>>- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
>>>- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
>>>- destroy avalon (rather not)
>>>
>>>This sounds like a rather good argument for an avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>
>+1 from me, too. It would seem to be our only viable option except for
>pre-emptively countersuing Microsoft, Apache and our users.
>
>However: Let's not rush this. This is a very general problem for
>all of Apache. There should be some guidelines from Apache on what
>a project should do in order to be legally solid. I've run around on
>the apache.org website, but not found anything. Anyone?
>
Leo and Leo and everyone else:
Earlier today some interesting emails have been crossing the Incubator
and Jakarta PMCs in which the Avalon project is part of the subject
material.
I've attempted to put together my take on things (and keep
in mind that anything I say here is simply my impressions of the
comments made by different individuals on the respective PMCs).
I've already asked the guys on those list to push their opinions
down here where the action is.
On the reorg list, we basically learnt that there were issue concerning
accountability across Apache as far as the Board was concerned and in
that discussion, the role and structure of Jakarta PMC came under the
microscope. In parrallel a lot of good stuff surfaced about what
Apache is, its approach, policies, structure, and people.
Now that the noise has settled down, there is discussion within a
bunch of Jakarta projects concerning escalation. At the same time,
there are some opinions surfacing from some Jakarta PMC members
concerning their own assesment of problems that need to be addressed
into order to bring Jakarta in-line with Board requirements for
accountability.
One of these problems has been identified as Avalon due primarily to a
lack of oversight by a PMC member. Without oversight it clear can
the members of the Jakarta PMC cannot reasonably represent this
commmunity towards the board.
Sam Ruby posted a message earlier today (copied with Sam's
permission):
> My opinion is that Avalon with its various sub-subprojects,
> including excalibur with its sub-sub-subprojects requires a
> dedicated PMC for oversight.
Greg Stein posted a follow-up in which he recommeded a new Avalon
PMC chartered to rain-in everything in, sort it out, and basically
start from scratch. Greg also committed to posting his thoughts
on an Avalon PMC directly to this list. Costin Manolache posted
a message a few minutes ago supporting Avalon excalation and
asking the question "What can the Jakarta PMC do to help us".
Just for reference, I've cc'ed this message to Greg, the Jakarta
PMC and the Incubator PMC with the intent of shifting discussion
here.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>/LS
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: thoughts on Avalon PMC ([Fwd: Re: Incubator, Jakarta, and new projects])
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >It's all rather icky.
> >
> >options to make it less icky:
> >- jakarta PMC votes on releases (not really a practical option)
> >- avalon gets a board-installed PMC which votes on releases
> >- destroy avalon (rather not)
> >
> >This sounds like a rather good argument for an avalon PMC.
> >
>
> +1
+1 from me, too. It would seem to be our only viable option except for
pre-emptively countersuing Microsoft, Apache and our users.
However: Let's not rush this. This is a very general problem for
all of Apache. There should be some guidelines from Apache on what
a project should do in order to be legally solid. I've run around on
the apache.org website, but not found anything. Anyone?
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>