Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
Aaron Bannert wrote: On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:16:49PM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: [snip everything above that I agree with] :-) 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. [...] Development and discussions go on the dev lists, where the Mentors are the ones doing active oversight. These two sub-sections are contradictory. Since technical decisions should not be occuring on any PMC list*, it is not necessary that PMCers be technical contributors. It is completely possible that non-technical contributions earn someone an invitation to a particular PMC (eg. document contributors). Hmmm, this is correct, in fact it's what I meant... I don't agree that Incubator PMC members should only be second-class PPMCers. If an Incubator PMC member wishes to volunteer their time to participate as a seed PMC member on the new PPMC, then they should be a first-class member. Hmmm... what I mean is that if an Incubator PMC member is not going to follow the project once it's out of incubation *and* the PPMC is functioning well without him, there is no need for him to necessarily intervene in every decision. Instead, if he participates in the project on the dev list, and this is not of course limited to codin, as you correctly remember, he should also be actively involved in the PPMC discussions. Such a figure is that of Mentors, hence my note. "Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. " This means that Incubator PMC members that are *not* involved in the project, hence ones that do not really wish to actively participate, do not have to vote on issues that they don't care about *unless* they feel it necessary. (*in some rare cases technical discussions might happen on some PMC list in order to avoid public disclosure of a sensitive topic -- eg. security vulnerabilities. In general, however, technical discussions should always stay on the development list.) 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. I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report is to present a condensed view of the happenings within a project so that others can see how things are going. If they are only posted to the PPMC list, then who will be the audience? These reports should be going to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, it makes sense. I would suggest that the dev and ppmc lists get a chance to see it before it's posting there, but I wouldn't make it a rule for now. -- 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] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:47:43PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > 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. > > > I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report is to present > > a condensed view of the happenings within a project so that others > > can see how things are going. If they are only posted to the PPMC > > list, then who will be the audience? These reports should be going > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The status report is a public document, unless there are private items, of > which you can imagine some few. Discussion and approval of the status > report can be on the PPMC list. Let's see how it plays out. Ok, maybe we're talking about different things. It doesn't matter where the report is discussed and approved of, but in the end it should simply be forwarded to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list so that PMCers who are not deeply involved in the reporting PPMC have a nice summary to read. That's all. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the final report be sent only to the PPMC list, which seems like the wrong audience to me. We want to emulate the relationship the PPMC will have with the board. -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:47:31AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >I don't agree that Incubator PMC members should only be second-class > >PPMCers. If an Incubator PMC member wishes to volunteer their time > >to participate as a seed PMC member on the new PPMC, then they > >should be a first-class member. > > Hmmm... what I mean is that if an Incubator PMC member is not going to > follow the project once it's out of incubation *and* the PPMC is > functioning well without him, there is no need for him to necessarily > intervene in every decision. > > Instead, if he participates in the project on the dev list, and this is > not of course limited to codin, as you correctly remember, he should > also be actively involved in the PPMC discussions. Such a figure is that > of Mentors, hence my note. > > "Incubator PMC members not engaged in active discussion and development > on a project are on the project PPMC in quality of observers. " > > This means that Incubator PMC members that are *not* involved in the > project, hence ones that do not really wish to actively participate, do > not have to vote on issues that they don't care about *unless* they feel > it necessary. Does this need to be called out explicitly? I don't think so. Also, it seems to me that any Incubator PMC member who has joined a PPMC list is already acting in the role of "Mentor"? Now that we have PPMCs, we don't need to have an explicit role of "Mentor" anymore. Can we get rid of these complicated rules and roles and terms now that we have a PPMC? > >I also disagree with this. The purpose of the report is to present > >a condensed view of the happenings within a project so that others > >can see how things are going. If they are only posted to the PPMC list, > >then who will be the audience? These reports should be going to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ok, it makes sense. I would suggest that the dev and ppmc lists get a > chance to see it before it's posting there, but I wouldn't make it a > rule for now. Yeah, whatever the PPMC wants to do to write up the report is fine, as long as they send it over to us (the Incubator PMC) when it's done. -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exiting Incubation - Status Check
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Andy Cutright wrote: > i'm interested in the web of trust as well. i've just started following > the incubator/ infrastructure lists. is there a summary of the proposals > some where? > > i imagine there are a number of apache committers in the SF bay area, > making it possible to physically verify identity.. I live in San Francisco (Haight District) and am fairly well-connected in the ASF WoT. Maybe we can get a few people together for drinks and keysigning. :) -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:49:10AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > This is not exactly how it should work. > > What happens ATM: if a problem has to be solved on the private PMC list, > we have to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is a *big* problem, as the future PMCers of the project in question > cannot participate in the discussion. I think you can remember the "pass > it on" that has been done by Mentors between the pmc and the developers. I do not believe this is a problem any longer now that we have PPMCs that include at least a couple Incubator PMCers. > If we make all developers come on the PMC list it may become at times a > really confusing thing, and all projects will know of all others. > Besides, the project is still not formed, and so the should not be on a > real PMC. Furthermore, we know that more eyes are there, the better it is. -1 to having all developers join the Incubator PMC list. > If we partition the incubator PMC list in many PPMC lists, we have the > *same* workload we had before, but are able to make developers > participate, and in practice we may even have to do less work, as we > will pass to become observers. There is no such thing as "making" someone participate in a volunteer organization. Having people volunteer to join a PPMC list (as a "mentor" in the old terminology) makes sense to me. If nobody on the Incubator PMC wants to join a new PPMC list, then that PPMC needs to find someone who cares to help them out. > For example, it's no secret that the incubator PMC has been discussing > some action items about Geronimo on the private pmc list. If we already > had a geronimo-ppmc, the discussion would have simply be done there, but > with the important participation of geronimo developers. That was a temporary problem that has now been solved. > Note that this is *not* generic mentoring, but the same identical issue > solving that we did till now, only that we get more help and get away > with useless indirections. > > Finally, the private pmc list should be a last resort mechanism, so we > will not be doing normal project mentoring there. Of course not. I'm subscribed to the Geronimo dev and ppmc lists for just that reason. > I think that the below proposal explains the PPMC in sufficient detail: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PpmcProposal This entire email and this whole Wiki thing has become overwhelmingly verbose for me. Maybe I'm oversensitive to complicated things, but this is too much. Can we please try and make things simpler, at least for those of us with poor short term memory. :) -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
Aaron Bannert wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > The status report is a public document, unless there are private items, of > which you can imagine some few. Discussion and approval of the status > report can be on the PPMC list. Let's see how it plays out. > Ok, maybe we're talking about different things. It doesn't matter > where the report is discussed and approved of, but in the end it > should simply be forwarded to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list so that PMCers > who are not deeply involved in the reporting PPMC have a nice summary > to read. That's all. It seems to me that you are suggesting that > the final report be sent only to the PPMC list, which seems like > the wrong audience to me. No, I never said anything of the kind. I agreed with what you said, although I would actually suggest that the status be posted to general@, once agreed upon. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
> This entire email and this whole Wiki thing has become overwhelmingly > verbose for me. Maybe I'm oversensitive to complicated things, but this > is too much. Can we please try and make things simpler, at least for > those of us with poor short term memory. :) In my opinion, we (the ASF) need to communicate with all Committers what few responsibilities and rules exist. There are *some*, but the fewer the better, to keep a high signal to noise ratio. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
Aaron Bannert wrote: Also, it seems to me that any Incubator PMC member who has joined a PPMC list is already acting in the role of "Mentor"? Now that we have PPMCs, we don't need to have an explicit role of "Mentor" anymore. Can we get rid of these complicated rules and roles and terms now that we have a PPMC? seems like it. I like! Q: what about 'external' mentors, who are not on the incubator PMC? A: they'll just subscribe to the PPMC and do their magic there (making their intention clear to pmc and/or ppmc). "Sure, I'll volunteer to make these folks feel at home here! Where do I subscribe?" is a good attitude :D we may even remove the idea from people's heads some day that being on a PMC is a scary thing, and these mentors will be happy to actually *be* on the incubator pmc :D Joe Developer: "So, how does this 'incubation' thing work then?" Website: "Well, we want to do our best to make new projects feel welcome at the ASF, and we want the ASF to feel comfortable bringing the new project under its hood. This requires a get-to-know-the-ropes period, which we call incubation. We establish something dubbed a PPMC, which is a mailing list where a project's core group learns how to deal with all those 'serious' intricacies that come with being a part of the ASF, like quarterly reports, voting in committers, STATUS file management, voting procedures, etc etc. Also, we'll take a good look at any IP/licensing/copyright/trademark issues that may exist during the incubation process. As soon as it is clear that a project has truely captured the ASF spirit and all legal issues are sorted out, the project leaves incubation and lives on on its own." Joe Developer: "So, what is this PPMC thing?" Website: "A mailing list where the project's core group learns what it means to be part of the ASF. To help them do that, there's a group of ASF people called the Incubator PMC. Also, there will often be other interested ASF members to help out and answer questions." Joe PPMC Member: "So how do I...?" Website: "We don't have clean answers to most of those questions (yet). Just post an e-mail about the question/issue/problem, and we'll figure things out together." Joe PPMC Member: "I don't have any more questions!" Website: "Well, good! Go on then, out of the womb, go and manage things on your own. By the way, would you be interested in a position on the Incubator PMC to help out new projects?" yep. Sounds like something Joe would understand, even learn to like :D - LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
Leo Simons wrote: [ a lot of good stuff] Care to start that as a QA page, and we'll polish it? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[STATUS] (incubator) Wed Dec 17 23:45:24 EST 2003
APACHE INCUBATOR PROJECT STATUS: -*-indented-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/11/11 00:01:00 $]
Web site: http://Incubator.Apache.Org/
Wiki page: http://Nagoya.Apache.Org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheIncubatorProjectPages
[note: the Web site is the 'official' documentation; the wiki pages
are for collaborative development, including stuff destined for the
Web site.]
Pending Issues
==
o We need to be very very clear about what it takes to be accepted
into the incubator. It should be a very low bar to leap, possibly
not much more than 'no problematic code' and the existence of a
healthy community (we don't want to become a dumping ground).
o We need to be very very clear about what it takes for a podling
to graduate from the incubator. The basic requirements obviously
include: has a home, either as part of another ASF project or as
a new top-level project of its own; needs to be a credit to the
ASF and function well in the ASF framework; ...
o Moving the bylaw documentation from the Wiki to the main site
o Merge the README.txt info on site management and the info on the
"How to Participate" page into a single place
o fix formatting of the project status pages
Resolved Issues
===
o The policy documentation does not need ratification of changes
if there seems consensus. Accordingly, the draft status of these
documents can be removed and we will use the lazy "commit first,
discuss later" mode common across the ASF for documentation
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=517190)
o Coming up with a set of bylaws for the project
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=517190)
o All projects under incubation must use a STATUS file (or a
status.xml file if the project prefers XML) that contains
information the PMC needs about the project. This file must
live at the root of the project cvs module
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=504543)
o Projects under incubation should display appropriate "disclaimers"
so that it is clear that they are, indeed, under incubation
(http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&by=thread&from=504543)
The Incubation Process
==
This tries to list all the actions items that must be complete for a project
before it can graduate from the incubator. It is probably incomplete.
Identify the project to be incubated:
-- Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist
and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not
already trademarked for an existing software product.
-- If request from an existing Apache project to adopt an external
package, then ask the Apache project for the cvs module and mail
address names.
-- If request from outside Apache to enter an existing Apache project,
then post a message to that project for them to decide on acceptance.
-- If request from anywhere to become a stand-alone PMC, then assess
the fit with the ASF, and create the lists and modules under the
incubator address/module names if accepted.
Interim responsibility:
-- Who has been identified as the mentor for the incubation?
-- Are they tracking progress in the file
incubator/projects/{project_name}/STATUS
Copyright:
-- Have the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received?
It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the
core code, and any new code produced by the project.
-- Have the files been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright?
Verify distribution rights:
-- For all code included with the distribution that is not under the
Apache license, do we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed
code and redistribute?
-- Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more
of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X,
MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?
Establish a list of active committers:
-- Are all active committers in the STATUS file?
-- Do they have accounts on cvs.apache.org?
-- Have they submitted a contributors agreement?
Infrastructure:
-- CVS modules created and committers added to avail file?
-- Mailing lists set up and archived?
-- Problem tracking system (Bugzilla)?
-- Has the project migrated to our infrastructure?
Collaborative Development:
-- Have all of the active long-term volunteers been identified
and acknowledged as committers on the project?
-- Are there three or more independent committers?
[The legal definition of independent is long and boring, but basically
it means that there is no binding relationship between the individuals,
such as a shared employer, that is capable of over
Re: [VOTE] PPMCs for Incubating Projects
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:40:58PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > No, I never said anything of the kind. I agreed with what you said, > although I would actually suggest that the status be posted to general@, > once agreed upon. Sounds good to me. +1 -aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
