Re: Incubator Roles revisited
+1 to snipped stuff. You're on the right track. On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 07:15:23PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > In addition, despite the "Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent member > of the Apache Software Foundation" portion of the description, we have > previously elected non-Members to the Incubator PMC, and asked them to serve > as Mentors. > > Following from the idea that a Mentor must be a PMC member, do we have a > need to require them to be an ASF Member, as per the current document, or > can we more simply drive the rule from the fact that a Mentor must be a PMC > member, which is effectively how we have been doing it? Again, I get back > to saying that Mentors are PMC Members who are providing active oversight > and guidance. Does anyone see any effective difference, since PMC members > have equal votes, and the only binding ones? Not really. > Other than apmember karma, > which means access to private information and the ability to contribute on > restricted infrastructure, what would an ASF Member have that isn't also > vested in someone whom we have otherwise chosen to vote onto the Incubator > PMC? Codified level of trust. With ASF members, it seems we kind-of feel that its ok to have the PMC membership be "all but automatic" (these people are pretty much assumed to understand what direction incubation is going in, usually have prior experience on another PMC, or whatever it is that creates this 'trust' thing), whereas with other people it is not so clear. I think its fine to have non-asf-member mentors and non-asf-member PMC members, but I think that should be a concious vote from the existing PMC (like with other ASF PMCs) since that is another way to establish enough 'trust'. Eg the positive vote from the existing PMC here is this 'codified trust'. Make sense? (...) The implication here is that you don't get to be a mentor by adding your name to an incubation proposal unless a) you're an ASF member, and/or b) you're an incubator PMC member and we vote on this "people thing" seperately. Interestingly, these people things are invitation-only for things like committership and (pmc) membership, whereas with the incubator it seems we're on a road to invite-one-self kind of thing. Is this concerning? What is going on here? - LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Proposal for Apache Ode
+1 from me. On 2/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > = PROJECT PROPOSAL = > > We are proposing an orchestration service that implements the WS-BPEL > > specification. The implementation will also support Message/Event to > > process correlation > > > The project proposal includes development of an orchestration engine > > abstraction to standard externally defined interfaces/bindings. The > > interface implementations and/or bindings will enable the orchestration > > service to be plugged into various service bus or component architectures. > > +1 > > --- Noel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unsorted projects in the "Currently in incubation" list
Jacopo Cappellato wrote, On 2/18/2006 10:44 PM: Hi all, just a side note... I've noticed that the projects recently accepted into the Incubator (Ode and Yoko) have been added to the top of the list of "Currently in incubation" projects (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html). I think that the convention there was to sort projects alphabetically. Should this be fixed? (Also the Tobago project is in the wrong position there). Fixed. Sorry about being so sloppy. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode proposal
Craig McClanahan wrote, On 2/18/2006 11:46 PM: On 2/18/06, Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan D. Cabrera wrote: OT: I dislike the current trend of people using +1, -1, for simple conversations. It confuses people and should be reserved for votes. The use of +1/-1 for conversations (as apposed to votes) is very common through the ASF. I've always rather liked it personally. It's a very "ASF" thing. +1. :-) What's been quite interesting is to see this convention being used in contexts outside the ASF as well ... the underlying message is that consensus building is important, plus the ability of contributors to consisely indicate "yes I agree" or "no, I disagree," plus the ability to express shades of opinion between these extremes. IMHO, that is absolutely the best social impact of this concept ... if you make a +1 or -1 comment, you have to be pretty totally commited to (or against) a particular approach. On the other hand, *not* expressing a +1 or -1 gives you lots of opportunities to build consensus in the middle, by recognizing that both extremes will often have perfectly valid points to have been made, and that compromise is a reasonable strategy. Nicely put Craig. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unsorted projects in the "Currently in incubation" list
Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > I think that the convention there was to sort projects alphabetically. Correct. > Should [the sorting errors] be fixed? Yes. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubator Roles revisited
Berin Lautenbach wrote: > I'd be happy for non-members who have met your criteria [with] > one caveat - I'd prefer to have at least one member on each > project to make sure there is someone in the podling that the > membership as a whole have agreed is looking out for the wider > interests of the ASF. Is this expressing concern that we would elect someone to the PMC who is more concerned about a specific podling, or a particular TLP, than the ASF? I suppose that is a fair concern, but doesn't that indicate whom should be elected to the PMC? Interstingly, when you look over the bullet lists associated with the role in http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html, you may notice that we have enumerated important oversight issues, but only one bullet even hints at the major responsibility of helping out with community building. And none talk about technical contributions. I feel that the former should be more explicit, but the latter is probably given as much emphasis (or lack thereof) as it deserves. Rich Bowen mentioned how he would like to be a Mentor, but doesn't know Java. Mentors need the ability to maintain the required oversight, and skill in community building. But I would rather have someone with those qualifications than someone skilled in the technical domain. A Mentor lacking the latter is likely to focus on community building, and helping the community to make its own decisions -- perhaps using the Socratic method -- rather than inserting himself or herself into the midst of technical issues. Helping the community to make collaborative decisions seems the right approach to me, especially with more and more sophisticated projects. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Proposal for Apache Ode
+1 Paul On 2/19/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 from me. > > On 2/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > = PROJECT PROPOSAL = > > > We are proposing an orchestration service that implements the WS-BPEL > > > specification. The implementation will also support Message/Event to > > > process correlation > > > > > The project proposal includes development of an orchestration engine > > > abstraction to standard externally defined interfaces/bindings. The > > > interface implementations and/or bindings will enable the > orchestration > > > service to be plugged into various service bus or component > architectures. > > > > +1 > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Re: svn commit: r378938 - /incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml
thanks for the catch, Noel. I'll revise the wording on the index page as well. -jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Author: noel > Date: Sun Feb 19 10:25:29 2006 > New Revision: 378938 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=378938&view=rev > Log: > Revise cancellation comment. > > Modified: > incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml > > Modified: incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml?rev=378938&r1=378937&r2=378938&view=diff > == > --- incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml (original) > +++ incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/axion.xml Sun Feb 19 10:25:29 > 2006 > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ > > > 2006-01-23 > -href="http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED]">Project closed for lack of development. > +href="http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200601.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED]">Cancelled at request of Sponsoring TLP. The axion project never > moved to the ASF from tigris.org. > > >2003-12-19 > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubator Roles revisited
Leo Simons wrote: > The implication here is that you don't get to be a mentor by adding > your name to an incubation proposal unless > a) you're an ASF member, and/or > b) you're an incubator PMC member Seems so. We would vote in public for the project, and in private for mentors. > these people things are invitation-only for things like committership > and (pmc) membership, whereas with the incubator it seems we're on a > road to invite-one-self kind of thing. Is this concerning? Yes, in the sense that we want to avoid to potential embarrassment for people who are not elected. Perhaps nominations should be kept to PMC lists? Any other thoughts? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubator Roles revisited
I thought it was a good question Leo. I'm also wondering about the PPMC and the relationship to mentors, champions, etc. I assumed the PPMC was the proverbial fisherman's committee being taught how to manage the project of fishermen under Apache rules. For Ode, Sybase asked James and Allen to mentor us and join the project. Dims was also invited by James to mentor due to his level of energy :-). Along came Ismael with Intalio's offering. All good so far but I'd have expected that the incubator PMC would have asked the proposal authors to pair down the committer list to something manageable and form the PPMC from the group that offered the proposal (presumably James, Allen, me, and then Ismael). At that point committer's would be added by the PPMC. Another reading is that Karma has less to to with a project and is Apache wide. That reading sounds like it could lead to problems for a podling. I'll claim ignorance if my assumptions were off :-). Bill On 2/19/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to snipped stuff. You're on the right track. > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 07:15:23PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > In addition, despite the "Mentor is a role undertaken by a permanent > member > > of the Apache Software Foundation" portion of the description, we have > > previously elected non-Members to the Incubator PMC, and asked them to > serve > > as Mentors. > > > > Following from the idea that a Mentor must be a PMC member, do we have a > > need to require them to be an ASF Member, as per the current document, > or > > can we more simply drive the rule from the fact that a Mentor must be a > PMC > > member, which is effectively how we have been doing it? Again, I get > back > > to saying that Mentors are PMC Members who are providing active > oversight > > and guidance. Does anyone see any effective difference, since PMC > members > > have equal votes, and the only binding ones? > > Not really. > > > Other than apmember karma, > > which means access to private information and the ability to contribute > on > > restricted infrastructure, what would an ASF Member have that isn't also > > vested in someone whom we have otherwise chosen to vote onto the > Incubator > > PMC? > > Codified level of trust. > > With ASF members, it seems we kind-of feel that its ok to have the PMC > membership > be "all but automatic" (these people are pretty much assumed to understand > what > direction incubation is going in, usually have prior experience on another > PMC, or > whatever it is that creates this 'trust' thing), whereas with other people > it is > not so clear. I think its fine to have non-asf-member mentors and > non-asf-member > PMC members, but I think that should be a concious vote from the existing > PMC > (like with other ASF PMCs) since that is another way to establish enough > 'trust'. > Eg the positive vote from the existing PMC here is this 'codified trust'. > > Make sense? > > (...) > > The implication here is that you don't get to be a mentor by adding your > name to > an incubation proposal unless > > a) you're an ASF member, and/or > b) you're an incubator PMC member > > and we vote on this "people thing" seperately. > > Interestingly, these people things are invitation-only for things like > committership and (pmc) membership, whereas with the incubator it seems > we're on a > road to invite-one-self kind of thing. Is this concerning? What is going > on here? > > - LSD > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Incubator Roles revisited
Bill Flood wrote: > I thought it was a good question Leo. Which one? > I'm also wondering about the PPMC and the relationship to mentors, > champions, etc. The PPMC would be PMC members mentoring the project, plus others who are voted on to help manage it. So your fisherman's committee analogy isn't too bad. > All good so far but I'd have expected that the incubator PMC would have > asked the proposal authors to pair down the committer list to something > manageable and form the PPMC from the group that offered the proposal The PPMC started with Dims, James, et al, and their first order of business is adding you and Ismael to the PPMC. At which point, I do expect that the group of you will do precisely what you've suggested. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
