You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2013/12/02 22:05:45 UTC
[DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Sorry, updating subjectŠ
On 12/2/13 1:03 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
Time for the next report. Please review and comment.
Thanks,
-Alex
-------------
Apache Flex is an application framework for easily building Flash-based
applications for mobile devices, the browser and desktop.
RELEASES
Apache Flex SDK 4.11.0 was released on 10/28/13.
Apache Flex Installer 2.7.0 was also released on 10/28/13.
ACTIVITY
Activity in Apache Flex continues to be in two main areas: improvements
To the existing Adobe Flash Platform-dependent code base, including the
releases listed above, and prototyping ways to create a version of Flex
that is independent from the Adobe Flash Platform. There is another group
working on Maven-related tools for the existing code base.
In the past three months we've seen:
- Continued JIRA activity (more bugs raised than resolved however)
- More folks contributing and eventually becoming committers.
Other highlights:
-Over 60 bugs were fixed in 4.11.0.
-We adopted a set of guidelines/by-laws. They are on our wiki at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
COMMUNITY
-Stephan Plath added as committer on 11/17/13.
-Benoit Wiart added as committer on 11/8/13.
-Cosma Colanicchia added as committer on 10/17/13.
-Tom Chiverton added as a committer on 9/30/13.
-Maurice Amsellem added as a committer on 9/28/13.
-Darrell Loverin added as a committer on 9/13/13.
-Maurice Amsellem promoted from committer to PMC on 11/9/13.
-Latest analytics include over 3000 hits per day on the website during the
work week (less on weekends).
-There were more than 3000 installs of 4.11.0 in
the month since its release.
AREAS OF CONCERN (FROM LAST REPORT)
-RELEASE EFFORT: In the last report we reported that "getting a release
out seems more difficult than it should be because folks don't start
serious testing on the first RCs so important bugs are found just before
the VOTE ends and another RC has to be made."
For the 4.11 release, we adopted "carry-over" voting based on a
suggestion from a board member. If there were minor changes to the
release artifacts, you could carry over your vote from the prior
release candidate. That, and I think just having more
experience in cutting releases made the 4.11 release go much more smoothly.
-NUMBER OF ACTIVE COMMITTERS: In the last report we reported that "even
though 200 bugs were fixed in 4.10.0, the majority were done by one
committer." Over the past 3 months, six new people made contributions and
were voted in as committers.
TRADEMARKS
-It was discovered that an external entity was using the apacheflex.com to
redirect to their web site. They were notified and have changed the
redirect to the Apache Flex website. They have offered to have Apache take
over the domain apacheflex.com. We need to figure out how to do this.
-It looks like the new version of Flex is going to be called FlexJS. We
need to find out if we need to trademark that name. We will be contacting
trademarks@ shortly.
INFRASTRUCTURE
* I'm still hoping to find time to resolve INFRA-4380 (attachments in old
Flex bugs).
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Lee Burrows <su...@leeburrows.com>.
Perhaps a periodic culling of JIRA issues is in order - my (very small)
sampling suggests a noticable percentage of open issues could be closed
(eg: poor understanding of flex = assumption of bug).
On 02/12/2013 21:05, Alex Harui wrote:
> In the past three months we've seen:
> - Continued JIRA activity (more bugs raised than resolved however)
--
Lee Burrows
ActionScripter
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I thought FlexUnit was in?
It's been donated but there no release.
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I thought FlexUnit was in?
On 12/2/13 2:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>All looks good to me.
>
>Perhaps add that the FlexUnit and Swiz donation seems to have stalled?
>
>> -There were more than 3000 installs of 4.11.0 in the month since its
>>release.
>
>Currently at 3,656 installs of 4.11 and we've had 10,502 install of 4.10
>since it's release.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
All looks good to me.
Perhaps add that the FlexUnit and Swiz donation seems to have stalled?
> -There were more than 3000 installs of 4.11.0 in the month since its release.
Currently at 3,656 installs of 4.11 and we've had 10,502 install of 4.10 since it's release.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
The report is to notify the board of changes. Like with the committer
that declined: Greg indicated that since nothing changed, there didn't
need to be anything in the report.
EdB
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:48 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question here is whether Alex should state that he is in fact
> continuing as the Chair in the board report. I don't see any controversy
> in that.
> Or do folks think that it is not necessary?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> Alex: "... whether I should continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am)."
>>
>> Seems like a clear statement to me.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > IMO he's not clearly stated that he will stand for another year and yes
>> the choice is his. The board report seems to me to be a good place to state
>> that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair
>> should be for a year or reviewed every year. There may be other PMC members
>> who would also like to have a turn at being the chair.
>> >
>> > There does seem some support for changing the chair (see the other
>> discuss thread on that) but there's certainly not a consensus either way,
>> up to Alex to consider and decide. Again I think everyone can agree he's
>> done a good job and will continue to do so, but it may also be good to
>> change and spread the experience about.
>> >
>> > Looking back to when Alex was voted in it was pointed out by the mentors
>> that there should of been more discussion on who should be chair. [1] Now
>> seems a good time to have that discussion.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > 1. http://markmail.org/message/3cljrqmwfipsq7zn
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/2/13 11:48 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The question here is whether Alex should state that he is in fact
>continuing as the Chair in the board report. I don't see any controversy
>in that.
>Or do folks think that it is not necessary?
IMO, it isn't necessary. If we change chairs, a Notice goes to the board
whenever the vote concludes, even if it isn't in our reporting period.
-Alex
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
The question here is whether Alex should state that he is in fact
continuing as the Chair in the board report. I don't see any controversy
in that.
Or do folks think that it is not necessary?
Thanks,
Om
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Alex: "... whether I should continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am)."
>
> Seems like a clear statement to me.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMO he's not clearly stated that he will stand for another year and yes
> the choice is his. The board report seems to me to be a good place to state
> that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair
> should be for a year or reviewed every year. There may be other PMC members
> who would also like to have a turn at being the chair.
> >
> > There does seem some support for changing the chair (see the other
> discuss thread on that) but there's certainly not a consensus either way,
> up to Alex to consider and decide. Again I think everyone can agree he's
> done a good job and will continue to do so, but it may also be good to
> change and spread the experience about.
> >
> > Looking back to when Alex was voted in it was pointed out by the mentors
> that there should of been more discussion on who should be chair. [1] Now
> seems a good time to have that discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://markmail.org/message/3cljrqmwfipsq7zn
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Alex: "... whether I should continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am)."
Seems like a clear statement to me.
EdB
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMO he's not clearly stated that he will stand for another year and yes the choice is his. The board report seems to me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair should be for a year or reviewed every year. There may be other PMC members who would also like to have a turn at being the chair.
>
> There does seem some support for changing the chair (see the other discuss thread on that) but there's certainly not a consensus either way, up to Alex to consider and decide. Again I think everyone can agree he's done a good job and will continue to do so, but it may also be good to change and spread the experience about.
>
> Looking back to when Alex was voted in it was pointed out by the mentors that there should of been more discussion on who should be chair. [1] Now seems a good time to have that discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://markmail.org/message/3cljrqmwfipsq7zn
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Just to stir the pot a little more. Should we add to the guidelines a sort
> of calendar and every year we are required to review our by laws again.
No need IMO they can be changed at any time and then voted in.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Mark Kessler <ke...@gmail.com>.
Just to stir the pot a little more. Should we add to the guidelines a sort
of calendar and every year we are required to review our by laws again.
During that time we also have to acknowledge chair at least as far as keep
/ change?
-Mark
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if the board really does appoint the char as much as
> approves the PMC recommendation. If we change chairs, we only provide
> notice and wait 72 hours. AFAIK, there is no action from the board
> required. This could just be another copy/paste problem of bad text like
> the term "lazy majority".
No the chair is appointed by resolution of the board. The original
resolution that created the project named a chair and it requires
another resolution to change the chair.
The board normally does approve what the PMC recommends, but I have
seen a case or two where the board intervened.
Greg
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm wondering if the board really does appoint the char as much as
> approves the PMC recommendation.
There are legal implications as the PMC chair is made an ASF officer. [1] I'd be surprised if the PMC has the authority to remove an ASF officer.
> Because there should be some discussion first. Ant is using 2/3 Majority
> in order to start a new vote.
Which may have it own issues eg no -1 vetos and also assumes a single candidate.
>> So you think the language we have is clear enough?
I sure it could be tweaked and perhaps added to but I think it's reasonable. Unless we want to change the rules eg to be more like cloudstack [3] where the chair terms is only for one year and each each year a vote is taken on the new chair.
No set of guidelines will cover every situation imaginable, but I think we're in a better state than the "default' which is unclear and says noting about a chair term or voting in chairs.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#why-are-PMC-chairs-officers
2. https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/3/13 2:38 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> OK, but how does the PMC "oust" the current chair?
>The PMC would only have to oust the chair in extreme circumstances. I
>don't think the PMC actually can remove the chair as the chair is
>appointed by the board. In practise I would assume that the process would
>be that a PMC member (or more) would need to contact the board and ask
>for the chair to be replaced along with a very good reason.
I'm wondering if the board really does appoint the char as much as
approves the PMC recommendation. If we change chairs, we only provide
notice and wait 72 hours. AFAIK, there is no action from the board
required. This could just be another copy/paste problem of bad text like
the term "lazy majority".
>
>> We can't require consensus in order to start a vote or else a
>>power-hungry chair would just
>> veto that attempt.
>A veto is not valid unless it's a good reason. Consensus is not required
>to start a vote but having an open discussion is certainly more
>beneficial and makes the vote more likely to succeed.
>
>> I don't think a single PMC member should be able to start a vote either
>Why not and what's the alternative?
Because there should be some discussion first. Ant is using 2/3 Majority
in order to start a new vote.
>
>> We don't say what kind of vote is going to be used to select a new
>>chair either.
>The guidelines state it is Consensus Approval (ie 3+1 and no -1s) but
>that assumes only one candidate. Most other projects I've seen use single
>transferable vote voting ie number the candidates in the order you want.
OK, I missed that earlier. So you think the language we have is clear
enough?
-Alex
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> OK, but how does the PMC "oust" the current chair?
The PMC would only have to oust the chair in extreme circumstances. I don't think the PMC actually can remove the chair as the chair is appointed by the board. In practise I would assume that the process would be that a PMC member (or more) would need to contact the board and ask for the chair to be replaced along with a very good reason.
> We can't require consensus in order to start a vote or else a power-hungry chair would just
> veto that attempt.
A veto is not valid unless it's a good reason. Consensus is not required to start a vote but having an open discussion is certainly more beneficial and makes the vote more likely to succeed.
> I don't think a single PMC member should be able to start a vote either
Why not and what's the alternative?
> We don't say what kind of vote is going to be used to select a new chair either.
The guidelines state it is Consensus Approval (ie 3+1 and no -1s) but that assumes only one candidate. Most other projects I've seen use single transferable vote voting ie number the candidates in the order you want.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/3/13 12:34 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> should do a better job of explaining the details. The way the words are
>> currently written, I could just keep saying I want to renew every year
>> forever. It should not just be up to me to decide whether to continue,
>
>As keeps being pointed out to me: once you merit a position in the
>Apache hierarchy, you get that position until you resign or until the
>PMC/Board strips you of that position. If that goes for committers and
>PMC members, it should certainly go for the chair. The way the
>guideline is written (chair can stay unless ousted by the PMC) seem to
>me to be a reflection of the Apache Way.
OK, but how does the PMC "oust" the current chair? We can't require
consensus in order to start a vote or else a power-hungry chair would just
veto that attempt. I don't think a single PMC member should be able to
start a vote either. We don't say what kind of vote is going to be used
to select a new chair either.
I'm thinking we should try to put some words about this in the guidelines.
-Alex
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
> should do a better job of explaining the details. The way the words are
> currently written, I could just keep saying I want to renew every year
> forever. It should not just be up to me to decide whether to continue,
As keeps being pointed out to me: once you merit a position in the
Apache hierarchy, you get that position until you resign or until the
PMC/Board strips you of that position. If that goes for committers and
PMC members, it should certainly go for the chair. The way the
guideline is written (chair can stay unless ousted by the PMC) seem to
me to be a reflection of the Apache Way.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/2/13 11:46 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines
>>together consensus was that the chair should
>> be for a year or reviewed every year.
>
>When I voted I took the guideline to mean: for at least a year and
>automatically extended by a year if the chair chose to stay on, unless
>the PMC took a vote to replace him/her.
And that's why I mentioned that I think this wording needs fixing. It
should do a better job of explaining the details. The way the words are
currently written, I could just keep saying I want to renew every year
forever. It should not just be up to me to decide whether to continue,
the rest of the PMC should have a say.
The Ant guidelines say: "The PMC may consider the position of PMC chair
annually and if supported by 2/3 Majority may recommend a new chair to the
board" but doesn't really say how they decide who to recommend (also 2/3
or consensus?). We don't say that either, but I think it should be
consensus minus the candidates?
Anyway, my work day is over. If others agree the words need fixing I'll
propose some ideas in a new thread tomorrow.
-Alex
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
> me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair should
> be for a year or reviewed every year.
When I voted I took the guideline to mean: for at least a year and
automatically extended by a year if the chair chose to stay on, unless
the PMC took a vote to replace him/her.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
- Alex is currently the chair and would volunteer to continue, but never
> has stated that he would aktually like to stay in that Position (It's more
> the others stating that they would want him to stay)
>
Actually, he has said he wanted to stay. A few times now.
-Nick
AW: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Just to understand the current Position:
- Alex is currently the chair and would volunteer to continue, but never has stated that he would aktually like to stay in that Position (It's more the others stating that they would want him to stay)
- Justin actively would like to be the chair and would also be capable of doing so
Currently it Looks as if Alex wouldn't mind passing on the Position to Justin and Justin would really like to do the Job? And if the chair Position has nothing to do with Alex' involvement with the Flex Project, wouldn't this give him even more time to do non-beaurocratic stuff? Then he could concentrate his time on delivering code and not for delivering reports?
Just my thoughts to the discussion.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Justin Mclean [justin@classsoftware.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 08:16
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Hi,
IMO he's not clearly stated that he will stand for another year and yes the choice is his. The board report seems to me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair should be for a year or reviewed every year. There may be other PMC members who would also like to have a turn at being the chair.
There does seem some support for changing the chair (see the other discuss thread on that) but there's certainly not a consensus either way, up to Alex to consider and decide. Again I think everyone can agree he's done a good job and will continue to do so, but it may also be good to change and spread the experience about.
Looking back to when Alex was voted in it was pointed out by the mentors that there should of been more discussion on who should be chair. [1] Now seems a good time to have that discussion.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/message/3cljrqmwfipsq7zn
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
IMO he's not clearly stated that he will stand for another year and yes the choice is his. The board report seems to me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines together consensus was that the chair should be for a year or reviewed every year. There may be other PMC members who would also like to have a turn at being the chair.
There does seem some support for changing the chair (see the other discuss thread on that) but there's certainly not a consensus either way, up to Alex to consider and decide. Again I think everyone can agree he's done a good job and will continue to do so, but it may also be good to change and spread the experience about.
Looking back to when Alex was voted in it was pointed out by the mentors that there should of been more discussion on who should be chair. [1] Now seems a good time to have that discussion.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/message/3cljrqmwfipsq7zn
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Now, that same rule says you can call a vote to remove Alex from office and take the seat yourself
Let me assure everyone here that that is certainly not my intention. If that was to happen there would need to be a vote by the PMC to elect someone as chair and that may not be me and the ASF board would have the final say on who the chair is.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Justin, you're trying too hard. It feels like you're pushing Alex out.
You keep referring to our guidelines, so here is the relevant part
(emphasis mine):
"The term of chair is for one one year or UNTIL THEY RETIRE. After one
year THE CHAIR CAN ELECT TO STAND FOR ANOTHER YEAR or a vote by the
PMC be taken for a new chair."
Alex just indicated that he doesn't intend to retire, thereby electing
to stand for another year.
Now, that same rule says you can call a vote to remove Alex from
office and take the seat yourself, sure. But I don't think that would
be in the best interest of the project and the best interest of the
project should be the prime directive for a (would be) chair...
EdB
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Hmm. Maybe there's need for some improvement to the guideline's wording.
>> It really should only be my call to say if I don't want to continue in the
>> role and up to the PMC with community input as to whether I should
>> continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am).
>
> Sorry but I have to disagree there. Back when we first discussed the bylaws (now guidelines) and what the chairs term should be consensus was that the chair should be for a year/reviewed every year. A lot of other Apache projects use the one year term for chairs [1][2][3][4] (+ more) - although the exact wording/rules vary a little. IMO having the chair commit to the role for a year (every year) is important - as is having the role rotated.
>
> You can certainly propose a change to the guidelines and have it voted on if you want it changed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
> 2. http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
> 3. http://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Bylaws
> 4. http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Hmm. Maybe there's need for some improvement to the guideline's wording.
> It really should only be my call to say if I don't want to continue in the
> role and up to the PMC with community input as to whether I should
> continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am).
Sorry but I have to disagree there. Back when we first discussed the bylaws (now guidelines) and what the chairs term should be consensus was that the chair should be for a year/reviewed every year. A lot of other Apache projects use the one year term for chairs [1][2][3][4] (+ more) - although the exact wording/rules vary a little. IMO having the chair commit to the role for a year (every year) is important - as is having the role rotated.
You can certainly propose a change to the guidelines and have it voted on if you want it changed.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
2. http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
3. http://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Bylaws
4. http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/2/13 2:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Actually the report would be a good time for Alex to say if he's
>continuing in the role or chair for a year or if we ask going to ask for
>other nominations and vote on a new chair.
Hmm. Maybe there's need for some improvement to the guideline's wording.
It really should only be my call to say if I don't want to continue in the
role and up to the PMC with community input as to whether I should
continue if I'm willing to do so (which I am).
-Alex
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Actually the report would be a good time for Alex to say if he's continuing in the role or chair for a year or if we ask going to ask for other nominations and vote on a new chair.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
The URLS under tradmarks are mistyped, but otherwise looks good on my side.
Once corrections are done and this is submitted, I'll write a wrap-up blog
post and get that online on the public side too.
-Nick
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Sorry, updating subjectŠ
>
>
> On 12/2/13 1:03 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Time for the next report. Please review and comment.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> -------------
> Apache Flex is an application framework for easily building Flash-based
> applications for mobile devices, the browser and desktop.
>
> RELEASES
> Apache Flex SDK 4.11.0 was released on 10/28/13.
> Apache Flex Installer 2.7.0 was also released on 10/28/13.
>
> ACTIVITY
> Activity in Apache Flex continues to be in two main areas: improvements
> To the existing Adobe Flash Platform-dependent code base, including the
> releases listed above, and prototyping ways to create a version of Flex
> that is independent from the Adobe Flash Platform. There is another group
> working on Maven-related tools for the existing code base.
>
> In the past three months we've seen:
> - Continued JIRA activity (more bugs raised than resolved however)
> - More folks contributing and eventually becoming committers.
>
> Other highlights:
> -Over 60 bugs were fixed in 4.11.0.
> -We adopted a set of guidelines/by-laws. They are on our wiki at:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
>
> COMMUNITY
> -Stephan Plath added as committer on 11/17/13.
> -Benoit Wiart added as committer on 11/8/13.
> -Cosma Colanicchia added as committer on 10/17/13.
> -Tom Chiverton added as a committer on 9/30/13.
> -Maurice Amsellem added as a committer on 9/28/13.
> -Darrell Loverin added as a committer on 9/13/13.
> -Maurice Amsellem promoted from committer to PMC on 11/9/13.
> -Latest analytics include over 3000 hits per day on the website during the
> work week (less on weekends).
> -There were more than 3000 installs of 4.11.0 in
> the month since its release.
>
> AREAS OF CONCERN (FROM LAST REPORT)
> -RELEASE EFFORT: In the last report we reported that "getting a release
> out seems more difficult than it should be because folks don't start
> serious testing on the first RCs so important bugs are found just before
> the VOTE ends and another RC has to be made."
> For the 4.11 release, we adopted "carry-over" voting based on a
> suggestion from a board member. If there were minor changes to the
> release artifacts, you could carry over your vote from the prior
> release candidate. That, and I think just having more
> experience in cutting releases made the 4.11 release go much more smoothly.
> -NUMBER OF ACTIVE COMMITTERS: In the last report we reported that "even
> though 200 bugs were fixed in 4.10.0, the majority were done by one
> committer." Over the past 3 months, six new people made contributions and
> were voted in as committers.
>
> TRADEMARKS
> -It was discovered that an external entity was using the apacheflex.com to
> redirect to their web site. They were notified and have changed the
> redirect to the Apache Flex website. They have offered to have Apache take
> over the domain apacheflex.com. We need to figure out how to do this.
> -It looks like the new version of Flex is going to be called FlexJS. We
> need to find out if we need to trademark that name. We will be contacting
> trademarks@ shortly.
>
>
> INFRASTRUCTURE
> * I'm still hoping to find time to resolve INFRA-4380 (attachments in old
> Flex bugs).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RE:[DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Posted by Maurice Amsellem <ma...@systar.com>.
Maybe it should be stated that Benoit has declined the offer
________________________________________
De : Alex Harui [aharui@adobe.com]
Envoyé : lundi 2 décembre 2013 22:05
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : [DRAFT] Apache Flex December 2013 Report
Sorry, updating subjectŠ
On 12/2/13 1:03 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
Time for the next report. Please review and comment.
Thanks,
-Alex
-------------
Apache Flex is an application framework for easily building Flash-based
applications for mobile devices, the browser and desktop.
RELEASES
Apache Flex SDK 4.11.0 was released on 10/28/13.
Apache Flex Installer 2.7.0 was also released on 10/28/13.
ACTIVITY
Activity in Apache Flex continues to be in two main areas: improvements
To the existing Adobe Flash Platform-dependent code base, including the
releases listed above, and prototyping ways to create a version of Flex
that is independent from the Adobe Flash Platform. There is another group
working on Maven-related tools for the existing code base.
In the past three months we've seen:
- Continued JIRA activity (more bugs raised than resolved however)
- More folks contributing and eventually becoming committers.
Other highlights:
-Over 60 bugs were fixed in 4.11.0.
-We adopted a set of guidelines/by-laws. They are on our wiki at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Guidelines
COMMUNITY
-Stephan Plath added as committer on 11/17/13.
-Benoit Wiart added as committer on 11/8/13.
-Cosma Colanicchia added as committer on 10/17/13.
-Tom Chiverton added as a committer on 9/30/13.
-Maurice Amsellem added as a committer on 9/28/13.
-Darrell Loverin added as a committer on 9/13/13.
-Maurice Amsellem promoted from committer to PMC on 11/9/13.
-Latest analytics include over 3000 hits per day on the website during the
work week (less on weekends).
-There were more than 3000 installs of 4.11.0 in
the month since its release.
AREAS OF CONCERN (FROM LAST REPORT)
-RELEASE EFFORT: In the last report we reported that "getting a release
out seems more difficult than it should be because folks don't start
serious testing on the first RCs so important bugs are found just before
the VOTE ends and another RC has to be made."
For the 4.11 release, we adopted "carry-over" voting based on a
suggestion from a board member. If there were minor changes to the
release artifacts, you could carry over your vote from the prior
release candidate. That, and I think just having more
experience in cutting releases made the 4.11 release go much more smoothly.
-NUMBER OF ACTIVE COMMITTERS: In the last report we reported that "even
though 200 bugs were fixed in 4.10.0, the majority were done by one
committer." Over the past 3 months, six new people made contributions and
were voted in as committers.
TRADEMARKS
-It was discovered that an external entity was using the apacheflex.com to
redirect to their web site. They were notified and have changed the
redirect to the Apache Flex website. They have offered to have Apache take
over the domain apacheflex.com. We need to figure out how to do this.
-It looks like the new version of Flex is going to be called FlexJS. We
need to find out if we need to trademark that name. We will be contacting
trademarks@ shortly.
INFRASTRUCTURE
* I'm still hoping to find time to resolve INFRA-4380 (attachments in old
Flex bugs).