On 10/9/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you _really_ want to add this extra backdoor, then at least make it a
requirement that every bloody name has to be on the proposal and make
this backdoor expire at the end of incubation.
No argument on the "every bloody name has to be on th
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:50AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Those people can be seeded as an 'initial
> emeritus list' and can simply regain access by asking for it again without
> having to prove themselves all over again. -- justin
>
I still think that's a bad idea. If they don't act
--On October 9, 2006 8:51:29 AM +0200 Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So you want to give commit to people who don't even ask for it?
That seems like taking it a step too far for me.
If someone turns up 6 months down the line, I'm sure the people who came
with the podling will be quick to
On Oct 8, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initi
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:52:56PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> being contributed). I
On 10/8/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> bei
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I disagree with filtering even inactive old contributors to an
> incoming project (at least for open source projects, I'm not sure how
> I feel with regard to inactive contributors to proprietary code that's
> being contributed). I think it would be quite wrong if a former
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> However, in that case I would really like to see it that
>> if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
>> and
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:32:56AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> ---
> As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
> neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit. For the
> actual giving commit, I was much more cautious. I created a status
> file and gave
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 08:55:47AM -0500, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel and I were chatting about this last night, and my position is that I'm
> okay with 'piling on' by ASF folks *if* the podling community is happy with
> that. If the podling folks do not want them on the initial list and desir
Justin,
On Sunday October 08 2006 9:55 am, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, in that case I would really like to see it that
> > if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
> > and have a sincere interest in helping, that they
On 10/8/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In addition I would like to add the process used for OpenEJB as the
gold standard for creating this initial list:
---
As far as how we came up with the commit list, it's actually pretty
neat. For the proposal, I added everyone who had commit
On 8 Oct 06, at 8:55 AM 8 Oct 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it he
On 10/8/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, in that case I would really like to see it that
if committers from other ASF projects read the proposal
and have a sincere interest in helping, that they be
included in the initial list, since I think it helps
bootstrap the community
On Oct 7, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical
requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm,
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> What I believe we've found works best over the years is to consider
> the entire behavior of the project over its incubation and raise
> questions about any trends pushing it in the wrong direction.
I agree. It is about people making decisions, not rules making decisions
f
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while.
ROFLMAO.
This has been an even longer thread for those who haven't been absent! :-)
> If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely
editable
> Wiki), then isn't it very straight
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
> members (and I use the term advisedly)
which term?
> have binding votes. My belief is that only PPMC members have
> binding votes, and that all committers should automatically
> be on the PPMC.
Those are two s
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
>>> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
>>> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
>>> quorum of
--On October 6, 2006 5:38:37 AM -0700 Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I wish we could just have an objective list of numerical requirements,
but I think it has to come down to the judgement of the Incubator PMC
members.
Umm, we do. At least 3 legally independent (and active) committ
On 6 Oct 06, at 9:38 AM 6 Oct 06, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a
freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the estab
On 10/6/06, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the Proposer controls the Proposal (and not stick it on a freely editable
Wiki), then isn't it very straight forward?
+1, although I think a Wiki still *should* work if the established
etiquette was not to make edits to someone else's pro
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 02:46, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> And then we've got Roy's comment that the Incubator PMC
> isn't equipped to make those decisions, so that leaves us with what?
This has been a long thread to go thru for someone absent for a while...
It has been very interesting. I unde
clarification on the guidelines.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Eric,
> I realize we may have created some difficulties
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For some reason, I had the impression that there was
a phantom 'P' somewhere in the references to 'PMC'
going back and forth between Noel and Roy.
For the record, I disagree with Noel that only PMC
members (and I use the term advisedly) have binding
v
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
>> podling and the Mentors.
>
> this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronim
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
quorum of three PMC +1
Eric,
> I realize we may have created some difficulties in merging two existing
> projects - Celtix from ObjectWeb and Xfire from Codehaus
> But we are nonetheless simply trying to do the right thing, not
> stacking the deck to control the project.
OK, let's please stop right here. At least in
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> If the PPMC represents the *community* then I like it. But (for me) the
> mentors are *not* the community of the podling.
Of course not. They are there to provide guidance *AND* the necessary
official PMC oversight (AND VOTES) required for ASF decisions.
> Anything th
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The only question is what authority is granted to the PPMC by the
> Incubator, and every podling since Geronimo has acted according to
> the policy that all decisions are made by the PPMC with a minimal
> quorum of three PMC +1 votes.
EXACTLY! A minimum of three PMC +1 v
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> bootstrapping is simply a description of the only process available
> ATM. the mentors (as incubator pmc members) are the only ones on the
> project who have the binding votes required to take decisions (such as
> appointed PPMC members).
> if this process isn't goo
Roy wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I wholeheartedly agree that Mentors have no right to make decisions
>> as if they owned the project. They are there to help and be part of
>> the community decision making process. However, Mentors have the only
>> binding votes. You have many times decrie
On Tuesday October 03 2006 2:09 pm, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> BTW, somewhere along the line people started calling this project CXF.
> That is a fine name, but isn't the one in the proposal.
All of the "apache resources" (svn repository, email lists, JIRA, etc...) are
using the abbreviation CXF.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is
natural for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
ator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
> the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were
convinced
> that the individual ha
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:22:36PM -0400, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> I do not think there has been any piling on. We reviewed each name on
> the list carefully and a name only went on the list if we were convinced
> that the individual had either (1) contributed previously to either
> Celtix or Xfire
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- We want a podling to generate a community, but the first bit of
community they build (the communal decision in a proposal as to who is
allowed to commit) we decide we want to ignore. Even worse, we now
don't even want to allow them to even suggest that list - we want to
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing
On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:55 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
That's why we created the PPMC == the entire set of committers of the
podling and the Mentors.
this is not policy ATM
Yes it is -- it was formally voted on during the Geronimo incubation.
They do have binding votes on everything
*exce
On 10/3/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
>> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
>> mailing list. Ment
Ok, fair enough - ;-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
> Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, altho
> Once again, no piling on.
Opinions appear to differ, although I'll accept that "a lot of" was
incorrect.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
decisions on behal
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Putting the process of Committership into the hands of the people managing
> the project is the best solution to both.
-1. Putting initial committership, in the hands of the proposer and
people they accept on educated trust is the right answer, along with
the mentors.
ke committer status for people not actively doing
anything.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 3:25 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
O
Once again, no piling on.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> &
IL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:47 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process,
and
> > then stating as a
006 2:09 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
> for
> a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't care what the PPMC decides to do provided that it is the
> PPMC that makes the decisions and that decision is made on an Apache
> mailing list. Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
Eric Newcomer:
> No, let's be clear, this discussion is all about how someone knows the
> right thing to do, which is very hard when the rules keep changing.
Actually, no. There is relatively little (some, not much) debate on what is
the right thing to do. The real discussion is on HOW to do th
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> commit privs have always been a relatively high bar for people to
> meet
Although we've often suggested a relatively low barrier to entry for
projects in the Incubation. Low != none.
As for who should be a Committer, who better to decide than the active
community for whic
Mark Little wrote:
> Sure, but isn't that the process for if you join AFTER the project
> has started? If you're on the list of initial supporters/committers
> then it's a different policy I believe. It's certainly not the
> approach we were lead to believe when we were approach by IONA to
> suppo
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> I agree with Roy's approach -- let the podling deal with the
> committer issue during incubation.
Uh ... everyone is saying that we should let the podling deal with the
Committer issue during Incubation. We're only dickering over how. :-)
--- Noel
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> -1 from Jim.
> I t
Berin Lautenback wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
> > project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
> > in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
> > with the results.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> I would say this is pa
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
> >
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > - The PPMC elects Committers
> >
> > This als
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > I disagree. You're conflating process with application of process, and
> > then stating as assured a case when your fellow PMC Members would act in
> > a manner you find offensive.
> >
> > Why would the PMC not elect "the people who contribu
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on
> the verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> communities (like Wicket) where people have earne
On Oct 3, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
As we have also seen in the discussions on this topic it is natural
for
a project to review and revise the committers list as it progresses.
But let's at least get CXF off to a good start!
Or kill it now and let the proposers compile a list o
Newcomer, Eric wrote:
>
> A couple of things stand out to me from this: it is important to follow
> the process and treat approval of a proposal in terms of the agreement
> it represents (and carry it out accordingly) and that as Roy said
> although it may take some time in the end the right thing
;s at least get CXF off to a good start!
Thanks,
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How co
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:14 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned th
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Mentors have NO RIGHT and NO RESPONSIBILITY to make
> decisions on behalf of a project as if they owned the project. The
> Mentors are only there to help the project govern itself and, in
> some cases, be counted as one of the people on the PPMC.
>
++1. And I certainly
+1
On 2 Oct 2006, at 22:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors
are the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't alwa
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
-1. Of the people participating in a new project, the Mentors are
the
least capable of selecting a PPMC.
I don't think that's true. At least not in the case of CXF.
You mean it isn't always true. I agree. In general, however, it is
almost
On Oct 2, 2006, at 2:19 PM, James Margaris wrote:
The project was approved with a certain committer list. What more
can be
said? The project was approved, the committer list was part of the
project proposal, hence everyone on the list should be committers. It
could not be more straightforwa
It is useful information and thanks for it. I was simply trying to
point out that there are other ways of managing an open source
project and probably no one right way of doing things.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 18:44, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
edge, use it or lose it. Just my two
cents as a lurker/observer.
James Margaris
-Original Message-
From: Mladen Turk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 1:50 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
I was against that project
PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
> circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
> be do
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I was thinking I was living in a world with defined procedures for
submitting a project with a list of initial committers, getting the
project approved, and then arranging to have the committers on the list
participate in the project.
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example al
: Policy on Initial Committership
On Monday October 02 2006 10:54 am, Newcomer, Eric wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given access?
The same way any non-commiter contributor contributes to a project:
1) JIRA - creating JIRA items, submitting patches, etc... I admit, the
CXF
J
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett
Rooney
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:05 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How could they contribute when they were not given acces
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only be
done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked.
Right,
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
I said nothing about what constitutes a "true" open source project,
simply about what constitutes a suc
I understand that (now). Different approaches to the same problem.
Variety is good. However, where we have issue is in the definition of
"earning" I suppose: being on the initial committers list when the
proposal was formed was supposed to be good enough. Turns out it
wasn't. It only took 2
Like I said before: "Without wanting to open up flames about what
constitutes a true "open" source project." Your statements are
subjective.
Mark.
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:57, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to no
On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Mark Little wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
That's not how the ASF works or has ever worked. It's for
this exact reason w
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights.
If that was the impression people were under, then they should break
themselves
That kind of depends what you're used to now doesn't it? In some
circles really getting involved actively can best be done (can only
be done) with committer rights. Even if that wasn't the case, the
interactions weren't "when's my commit coming" but "we're really
anxious to get involved" an
On 10/2/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there
4.daniel.kulp%40iona.com>
These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to
contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Kulp, John Daniel
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin
Without wanting to open up flames about what constitutes a true
"open" source project: if you're trying to build up a community then
not erecting artificial barriers to entry is a good start. I've used
the Redhat/JBoss example already, but there are others where the
communities thrive and g
allowed to contribute, and
> in some cases did not even receive a reply.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kulp, John Daniel
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
> Subject: Re: Policy on I
On 10/2/06, Newcomer, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How could they contribute when they were not given access? These guys
have been asking for two weeks or more to be allowed to contribute, and
in some cases did not even receive a reply.
Uhh, what kind of world are you living in where the on
@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Justin Erenkrantz
Subject: Re: Policy on Initial Committership
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're waiting
for
> an explanation (as those discussions did not
+1
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Berin Lautenbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:18 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Policy on Initial Committership
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> The people listed in the proposal as committers are
There are, as I see it, 2 issues being discussed:
1. Is the Initial PPMC the Initial list of
committers noted in the proposal. I think
we've all expressed views in one way or
another.
2. The CXF-specific issue: that the initial list of
committers was not only NOT t
On 10/1/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do too. And with the number of projects coming in with sizeable numbers of
committers these days, I wonder how long it will be before the committers
coming in this way will outnumber those whose committership is based on (ASF
earned) merit.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
That's not it. The issue is they have been barred access to a
project they
have only expressed interest in contributed to. They have not yet
contributed anything (no code, no patches, little to no
communication on the
dev list, etc...)
On Oct 1, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide
On 1 Oct 06, at 6:38 PM 1 Oct 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing t
On 1 Oct 2006, at 21:16, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Justin,
On Sunday October 01 2006 3:22 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We've seen an example of this with Celtixfire. So far, we're
waiting for
an explanation (as those discussions did not occur in a place
where the
Incubator PMC could provide an
Hmpf.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 8:26 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
I would say this is pa
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The people listed in the proposal as committers are the PPMC. If some
project allows too many people to jump on the proposal at the beginning
in order to make the proposal look better to Apache, then they are stuck
with the results. Don't like that answer? Then dissolve
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:01:31PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Yes, we do not accept a project if we're not prepared to grant commit access
> to those who have worked on the code. Again, the perception we are on the
> verge of fostering is that the meritocracy only happens here and for
> com
On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Taken from the "Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire" thread:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This also implies changing t
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
