Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:20, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: The "Incubator Reorg" threads have brought the Incubator to the definition of a new set of rules, that aim to simplify, streamline and generally make the process of incubation more effective. It's time to wrap it up. Hence I ask to vote on the acceptance of this scope definition, which is the start of our charter, and on the proposed line of action, specifically on the project spinoffs and on the creation of PPMCs. My Vote: +1 What's the time frame for the vote? My response to the proposal is lengthy so would a span of a week from now be reasonable? There has been a RT, then a PROPOSAL, and after much more than one week, a vote. It's a bit late to reply, isn't it? In any case, you are free to post anything at any time, but this vote will of course go on (and yes, it will last more than a couple of days, being so important). In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 12:20, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > > >>The "Incubator Reorg" threads have brought the Incubator to the > >>definition of a new set of rules, that aim to simplify, streamline and > >>generally make the process of incubation more effective. > >> > >>It's time to wrap it up. Hence I ask to vote on the acceptance of this > >>scope definition, which is the start of our charter, and on the proposed > >>line of action, specifically on the project spinoffs and on the creation > >>of PPMCs. > >> > >>My Vote: +1 > > > > What's the time frame for the vote? My response to the proposal is > > lengthy so would a span of a week from now be reasonable? > > There has been a RT, then a PROPOSAL, and after much more than one week, > a vote. It's a bit late to reply, isn't it? I would expect that it isn't given the impact the proposal could have it accepted. > In any case, you are free to post anything at any time, but this vote > will of course go on (and yes, it will last more than a couple of days, > being so important). > > In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules > and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my response. I have no idea what the voting procedures are or what my vote actually counts for it at all but it's tentatively -1. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: ... In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my response. It's not that I don't want your proposal on this, it's the very opposite. I'm just concerned that if we keep on dragging this, projects like Axion that are coming in now (of which you are part AFAIK) will remain in a limbo or use old procedures that we already don't want to see applied anymore. IMHO there is no reason why we can't vote on this and then vote on something better after a couple of weeks. In any case, send it in, I'm really interested to see it. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:45, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > ... > >>In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules > >>and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. > > > > No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive > > and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my > > response. > > It's not that I don't want your proposal on this, it's the very > opposite. I'm just concerned that if we keep on dragging this, projects > like Axion that are coming in now (of which you are part AFAIK) will > remain in a limbo or use old procedures that we already don't want to > see applied anymore. Well that's just too bad. Things have dragged on around here forever anyway. Another week isn't going to do any harm. > IMHO there is no reason why we can't vote on this > and then vote on something better after a couple of weeks. In any case, > send it in, I'm really interested to see it. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >... > > In any case, you are free to post anything at any time, but this vote > > will of course go on (and yes, it will last more than a couple of days, > > being so important). Any vote should be at least 72 hours. > > In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules > > and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. > > No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive Votes should never be held up for any individual. That is the equivalent of "filibustering" :-) There are many people involved, and it would be inappropriate for individuals to hold up what all the rest are doing. If you want to have a say, then sit down and take the time to do it. Otherwise, the project moves along without your input. > and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my > response. I have no idea what the voting procedures are or what my vote > actually counts for it at all but it's tentatively -1. Given that this is a non-technical issue, that -1 is a simple "no" vote (no such thing as vetoes for non-tech issues). However, it is also a non-binding vote as you are not part of the PMC. Given your Membership status and your involvement so far in incubator issues, I would support your request to join the PMC if you wanted (and were willing to continue your activity beyond the current issue). Even without your joining the PMC, I consider your input valuable and would absolutely take your vote into consideration. Cheers, -g -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 06:20:04PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >... > Project spinoffs > == > > We have to reassess the status of all incubating projects WRT the new > rules, and add the needed PPMCs. > > - AltRMI: decide where it wants to land > - FTPServer: decide where it wants to land > - Geronimo: make PPMC > - JaxMe: pass it on to the Webservices PMC > - Juddi: pass it on to the Webservices PMC > - Lenya: pass it on to the Cocoon PMC > - Pluto + Wsrp4j: pass it on to their sponsoring PMCs and suggest >them to form a TLP when possible > - XmlBeans: move to Xml PMC > - Directory: create PPMC > - Ruper: create PPMC I'm unclear on this part. When you say "pass it on" or "move", are you saying "jettison from Incubator; let the other PMC deal with it" ?? That seems contrary to the purpose of the Incubator. The Incubator is for *all* projects. It doesn't decide which ones stay with Incubator and which go to other PMCs -- it takes them all until they are "done". Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 09:28, Greg Stein wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >... > > > In any case, you are free to post anything at any time, but this vote > > > will of course go on (and yes, it will last more than a couple of days, > > > being so important). > > Any vote should be at least 72 hours. > > > > In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules > > > and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. > > > > No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive > > Votes should never be held up for any individual. I did expect it which is why I asked if it would be acceptable to hold off. > That is the equivalent > of "filibustering" :-) There are many people involved, and it would be > inappropriate for individuals to hold up what all the rest are doing. I don't think I have a history of trying to hold things up! :-) > If you want to have a say, then sit down and take the time to do it. > Otherwise, the project moves along without your input. That's exactly what I doing but a couple days isn't quite long enough in this case. I have already shuffled a couple things around to try and make some time. > > and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my > > response. I have no idea what the voting procedures are or what my vote > > actually counts for it at all but it's tentatively -1. > > Given that this is a non-technical issue, that -1 is a simple "no" vote > (no such thing as vetoes for non-tech issues). However, it is also a > non-binding vote as you are not part of the PMC. Given your Membership > status and your involvement so far in incubator issues, I would support > your request to join the PMC if you wanted (and were willing to continue > your activity beyond the current issue). Certainly. > Even without your joining the > PMC, I consider your input valuable and would absolutely take your vote > into consideration. Much appreciated. > Cheers, > -g -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 09:42, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 09:28, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 03:23, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > >... > > > > In any case, you are free to post anything at any time, but this vote > > > > will of course go on (and yes, it will last more than a couple of days, > > > > being so important). > > > > Any vote should be at least 72 hours. > > > > > > In any case, if the vote is positive, we can start using the new rules > > > > and continue discussing your proposal as a next step. > > > > > > No, I would ask that you don't continue as my vote will not be positive > > > > Votes should never be held up for any individual. > > I did expect it which is why I asked if it would be acceptable to hold > off. I meant to say I didn't expect it ... (dyslexia is fun). > > That is the equivalent > > of "filibustering" :-) There are many people involved, and it would be > > inappropriate for individuals to hold up what all the rest are doing. > > I don't think I have a history of trying to hold things up! :-) > > > If you want to have a say, then sit down and take the time to do it. > > Otherwise, the project moves along without your input. > > That's exactly what I doing but a couple days isn't quite long enough in > this case. I have already shuffled a couple things around to try and > make some time. > > > > and at the very least I would like to spend a couple days finishing my > > > response. I have no idea what the voting procedures are or what my vote > > > actually counts for it at all but it's tentatively -1. > > > > Given that this is a non-technical issue, that -1 is a simple "no" vote > > (no such thing as vetoes for non-tech issues). However, it is also a > > non-binding vote as you are not part of the PMC. Given your Membership > > status and your involvement so far in incubator issues, I would support > > your request to join the PMC if you wanted (and were willing to continue > > your activity beyond the current issue). > > Certainly. > > > Even without your joining the > > PMC, I consider your input valuable and would absolutely take your vote > > into consideration. > > Much appreciated. > > > Cheers, > > -g -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
Greg Stein wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Project spinoffs > > [Move all non-TLP projects to a destination PMC] > I'm unclear on this part. When you say "pass it on" or "move", are you > saying "jettison from Incubator; let the other PMC deal with it" ?? Nicola Ken appears to have decided that the Incubator will incubate only projects intended for TLP status, and is otherwise a recording service for other PMCs to use. In that model, it would be the Cocoon PMC's responsibility to incubate the Lenya Community, and to record the IP issues in the Incubator. I am concerned that this relinquishes the oversight role, although I agree that when a project is expected to merge into an existing TLP, we need a more collaborative and streamlined relationship with the existing community. > That seems contrary to the purpose of the Incubator. The Incubator is for > *all* projects. It doesn't decide which ones stay with Incubator and which > go to other PMCs -- it takes them all until they are "done". Would you please share both the Board's intent for the Incubator (at least to refresh everyone's mind, and to inform those who haven't read the archives), and your vision? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:28:53PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >... > Nicola Ken appears to have decided that the Incubator will incubate only > projects intended for TLP status, and is otherwise a recording service for > other PMCs to use. In that model, it would be the Cocoon PMC's > responsibility to incubate the Lenya Community, and to record the IP issues > in the Incubator. I am concerned that this relinquishes the oversight role, Yup. > although I agree that when a project is expected to merge into an existing > TLP, we need a more collaborative and streamlined relationship with the > existing community. Sure. The PPMC thing is looking like that should help. > > That seems contrary to the purpose of the Incubator. The Incubator is for > > *all* projects. It doesn't decide which ones stay with Incubator and which > > go to other PMCs -- it takes them all until they are "done". > > Would you please share both the Board's intent for the Incubator (at least > to refresh everyone's mind, and to inform those who haven't read the > archives), and your vision? Just read the first part of the Board resolution which established the Incubator: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with accepting new products into the Foundation, providing guidance and support to help each new product engender their own collaborative community, educating new developers in the philosophy and guidelines for collaborative development as defined by the members of the Foundation, and proposing to the board the promotion of such products to independent PMC status once their community has reached maturity. Individual PMCs should be *very* wary about bringing in code to the ASF. There is a grey area between "a hunk of code" and a new "product" (that term was used to differentiate between "project" as in PMC). If a PMC brings in a product without going through the Incubator, then they are not abiding by the wishes of the Board [defined by the construction of the Incubator project]. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
