Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)

[Rodney Waldhoff]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Leo Simons wrote:

> It's a big thing to vote on all at once. I still have
> question marks with some points. What I'm looking
> for is some signal that we are moving in a direction
> where the TLPs will actually *want* to follow
> incubation procedure (which would be a good sign
> of good functioning), *and* where all the oversight /
> due deligence (sp?) stuff is taken care of as well.
>
> That's our common goal, innit?

Speaking for myself only, but being a member of the Jakarta and DB PMCs, I
welcome this sort of change.  It restores the individual projects's
ability to nuture and incorporate new development and new sub-communities,
as some did quite successfully before the creation of the incubator, while
ensuring all the legal i's are dotted and t's are crossed.

 - Rod 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Greg Stein wrote:
...
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 
It says we must help each new product. It seems to me that it talks 
about each new software artifact, ie each new distribution.

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.
It does not talk about putting in an existing PMC.

But wait, here is more:

RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC is responsible for
regularly evaluating products under its purview and making the
determination in each case of whether the product should be
abandoned, continue to receive guidance and support, or
proposed to the board for promotion to full project status as
part of an existing or new Foundation PMC; a
In particular:

  "full project status as part of an existing ... PMC"

This seems to mean that also "subprojects" should be incubated, contrary 
to what is porposed with this vote.

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].
Ok, then the PPMCs should be established also for "subprojects" that 
will be in an existing PMC.

Question: doesn't this go contrary to wanting 1Project == 1PMC?

--
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)

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Leo Simons wrote:

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

Hence I ask to vote
It's a big thing to vote on all at once.
Ok, got the message. In fact there are serious enough points to decide 
to split the vote.

I still have
question marks with some points. What I'm looking
for is some signal that we are moving in a direction
where the TLPs will actually *want* to follow
incubation procedure (which would be a good sign
of good functioning), *and* where all the oversight /
due deligence (sp?) stuff is taken care of as well.
That's our common goal, innit?
+1

...
Legally/officially, There are no *sub*projects in Apache, only Projects
that are usually called Top Level Projects or TLP. Incubation of new
communities that are intended to become a TLP is the responsibility of
the Incubator PMC.
For 'subprojects', the incubation responsibility is divided between the
Incubator PMC and the TLP PMC.
Given the latest comments also by others, this seems the correct definition.

Incubator Scope
 


too many complex words :D

The Incubator [scope is]:
...
rephrase:

 2 - working with existing TLPs that are bringing in new codebases and/or
   existing communities to help that TLP do its "subproject" "incubation"
Ok.

3 - definition of and maintainance of the policy projects should use
when importing external codebases, therefore creating a clear
audit trail for all donations 


rephrase:

3 - definition and maintainance of all policies and procedures that
   surround incubation
rephrase II:

 3 - definition and maintainance of all policies and procedures that
 projects should use when accepting code donations, therefore
 creating a clear audit trail
--
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]

[VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Given that there are still points to be discussed on the thread
'[VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)', I am dividing 
that vote by proposing the PPMC part that AFAIK has not yet recieved nays.

Below is the new PPMC proposal, edited to make it as short as possible.

My vote: +1

 8-<--8-<--8-<--8-<---

= PPMCs =

== Description ==

To make Incubating project learn to govern themselves and govern 
themselves at the same time, each project has a PPMC (a place where to 
practice having a PMC) that works similarly to a PMC but reports to the 
Incubator PMC instead of the board.

== Members of the PPMC ==

 * all members of the future PMC (committers + landing PMC members)
 * all Incubator PMC members
The Mentors are the only ones /required/ to participate on the -dev 
list. The other Incubator members would have to "catch up" to the extent 
that PPMC discussion requires external context.

Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development 
on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. They 
should refrain from voting on PPMC decisions unless really necessary, 
thus acting as vetoers of last resort.

== Reporting the the main Incubator PMC ==

Development and discussions go on the dev lists, where the Mentors are 
the ones doing active oversight.

The status update occurs on the PPMC list. Thus, the notion of reporting 
to the "main Incubator PMC" is a non-issue, as all Incubator PMC members 
are also on the PPMC.

If there is an issue to be addressed by the PPMC, and that issue is to 
be discussed in public, the PPMC would have to subscribe to the public 
list for discussion.  There would be a summary posting to the PPMC list 
letting everyone know of the issue, with references to the archives.

--
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)

[Vic Cekvenich]

I think you guys are talking around the "main issue" here, the one long 
e-mail I sent.
Just address the "main issue" direct and once; make it public and the 
rest is easy.

.V

ps: I think that the legal entity accountable for incubator.apache.org, 
as per DNS registar is ASF. It may not be a released project, but 
anything that is in  CVS of incubator ASF is legaly responsible. IP 
issues may need to be solved on sf.net or elsewhere before CVS initial 
import to incubator. Most projects including the "main issue" start 
there anyway.  To say, it's not Apache yet, it's in incubator may be 
wishful.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)

[Noel J. Bergman]

Vic Cekvenich wrote:

> I think you guys are talking around the "main issue" here, the
> one long e-mail I sent.  Just address the "main issue" direct
> and once; make it public and the rest is easy.

Here are all of the e-mails you've ever posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
che.org&by=author&from=71175&to=71175&first=1

This is the only message you've sent on the subject, so I have no idea what
"one long e-mail" you mean, or what "main issue" you think you have raised.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)

[Vic Cekvenich]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
... I have no idea what
"one long e-mail" you mean, or what "main issue" you think you have raised.

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=2592



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects

[Noel J. Bergman]

Nicola Ken,

+1 on forming a PPMC for each project.

I feel that we should let the PPMC concept evolve organically, and impose
order only if we see it becoming disordered.  The key issues are addressed
just by forming the PPMC: direct oversight and community participation.

A PMC policy to be determined is whether the PPMC mailing list is optional
for PMC members.  The one mailing list created to date (geronimo-ppmc) is
opt-in, although I did pre-subscribe you (along with myself, Geir and
James).

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] New Incubator rules and scope definition (long)

[Noel J. Bergman]

Vic Cekvenich wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > ... I have no idea what "one long e-mail" you mean, or what
> > "main issue" you think you have raised.

>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.org&msgNo=2592

Ah.  I had asked in case there was some germaine "main issue" that I had
missed.  Thanks for putting my mind at rest.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exiting Incubation - Status Check

[Jochen Wiedmann]

Hi,

I have a couple of questions concerning

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ExitingIncubator

Some of them have already been asked (with no reply), some haven't.

*  No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base

   In the case of JaxMe, there are several unit tests, which
   depend on hsqldb. hsqldb is not in the CVS repository, but
   the developer is expected to download it from the hsqldb
   site (hsqldb.sf.net) and put it into a certain subdirectory.
   Likewise, Gump is configured to load hsqldb from another
   location. hsqldb is required to build the sources. The
   binary distribution contains no references to hsqldb.
   Does that match the above terms or does it not?

* Check of project name for trademark issues

   How do I do that? In particular, how do I record that I have
   checked and found no issues?
* Demonstrate an active and diverse development community

   I know what I consider an "active and diverse" development
   community. But I am not the one to decide. Who can give me
   a clue whether the community is supposed to be sufficiently
   "active and diverse"?
* Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the community.

   I understand and approve the desire. However, to fulfill the words,
   I would possibly have to force a conflict.
* Developers tied into ASF PGP web of trust

   I do not know what is required to conform to this part.

For the record, I would like to note, that IMO the other requirements
are fulfilled by JaxMe.
Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exiting Incubation - Status Check

[Jochen Wiedmann]

Forgot something:

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

* Check of project name for trademark issues

   How do I do that? In particular, how do I record that I have
   checked and found no issues?
*When* do I check? At the time the project wishes to exit incubation
status? Or as soon as possible, in order to avoid conflicts with
trademarks that are upcoming later?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exiting Incubation - Status Check

[Stephen McConnell]

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

Hi,

I have a couple of questions concerning

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ExitingIncubator

Some of them have already been asked (with no reply), some haven't.

*  No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base

   In the case of JaxMe, there are several unit tests, which
   depend on hsqldb. hsqldb is not in the CVS repository, but
   the developer is expected to download it from the hsqldb
   site (hsqldb.sf.net) and put it into a certain subdirectory.
   Likewise, Gump is configured to load hsqldb from another
   location. hsqldb is required to build the sources. The
   binary distribution contains no references to hsqldb.
   Does that match the above terms or does it not?


Sounds to me like it does. 



* Check of project name for trademark issues

   How do I do that? In particular, how do I record that I have
   checked and found no issues?


No idea.



* Demonstrate an active and diverse development community

   I know what I consider an "active and diverse" development
   community. But I am not the one to decide. Who can give me
   a clue whether the community is supposed to be sufficiently
   "active and diverse"?


Can you provide some indicators of the community engagement, 
independence, and empathy?

* engagement - meaning is there at least three committers active in the 
process?
* independence - are developers aligned to a particular corporate entity 
or are they independent?
* empathy - the extent to which the community has adapted to the apache 
way (process, policy, etc.)?

* Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the 
community.

   I understand and approve the desire. However, to fulfill the words,
   I would possibly have to force a conflict. 


:-)

Setup a secret PPMC mailing list, plot a staged dispute, resolve it 
professionally and with respect for everyone involved, then tick the 
issue off the list. It's a stupid requirement. Ignore it.

* Developers tied into ASF PGP web of trust

   I do not know what is required to conform to this part.


Me neither.
Ignore it - but maybe get someone in the community to hock up with the 
incubator group to track what is happening in that area.

For the record, I would like to note, that IMO the other requirements
are fulfilled by JaxMe. 


Then rerquest an exit.
Remeber that things happen in open source because you make them happen.
Don't wait for the PMC to make a decision. Push for exit - make it 
happen - get on with the prime objective.

Cheers, Stephen.



Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Exiting Incubation - Status Check

[Stephen McConnell]

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

Forgot something:

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

* Check of project name for trademark issues

   How do I do that? In particular, how do I record that I have
   checked and found no issues?


*When* do I check? At the time the project wishes to exit incubation
status? Or as soon as possible, in order to avoid conflicts with
trademarks that are upcoming later? 


Do whatever you can to clear the item off the agenda.
It's an obsticle to incubator exit - clear the obsticle using whatever 
means that are available to you.

Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]