AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Friday 23 December 2005 21:55, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> There are lots of bad reasons to come to the ASF and high on my list  
> is "to take advantage of the brand".

A safe bet is that there are a lot of "brand talks" involved in the
discussions "let's move to Apache".

I am sure that there are "brand leveraging" going on in existing projects and
their 'affiliated' companies. I am sure individuals leverage the brand for
private awards, be it speaker engagements, consultancy jobs or what not.

ASF can not escape "the brand" due to its success in various projects. It
needs to embrace that this is a reality, and deal with it in a dilligent
manner. Saying "fascination of the Apache brand" disqualifies a project for
Incubation is far too naive, leading to acceptance of those projects that
manages to mask or hide such "fascination". IMHO, rules that can be broken
without detection is effectively of no use.

A sidenote to that; It is interesting to notice that many projects seeking
incubation, make the assertion that "ASF is strong in building
communities" (which seems to sooth ASF a lot), yet projects are expected to
have strong communities prior to being accepted.



Cheers
Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
> approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
> created.  Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part
> of the ASF is a flat-out lie.

So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the
project to ASF??

Just curious.

Cheers
Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[David Crossley]

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> >IMHO it would be better to ask pmc'er to vote not for a passive sponsorship
> >but an active promise to commit resources to provide oversight for the
> >podling.
>
> When asked to vote for a new podling on the WS PMC, I never understood a
> +1 to mean something different?

Yes, i reckon that you are onto something there, Robert.

In my book, a +1 vote means "yes i want it to happen
and i will help to make it happen". Otherwise vote +0
to mean "i don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with it".

Reading between the lines of the definitions at
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
seems to support that.

I have never helped mentor a project, but imagine
that it would hard without more old-hands helping
to lead the way for the community and procedural
side of things.

-David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[David Crossley]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> That's why this talk about limiting growth is so dangerous.  The foundation
> should go where our PMCs and our members want.  -- justin

I reckon that the way to handle it is to document our
processes properly. If each new podling got involved
in fine-tuning the content of the Incubator site docs
then we would quickly streamline the process for those
that follow. Everything would organically get easier.

A lot of time seems to be wasted in confusion about
what it means to be in the Incubator, how to get in,
how to exit, what needs to be learned before getting out,
operating principles, etc. We need some dot points.

The existing website content is a start, but it is in
dire need of attention. Thanks to Jean for the new energy.

-David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[robert burrell donkin-2]

On 12/23/05, Erik Abele <erik@...> wrote:

> On 23.12.2005, at 16:57, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:11:55AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > ...
> >> I think that there's little downside to this.  A check on the
> >> Incubator PMC is the board - any member or PMC could appeal to the
> >> board in the event that they believed their proposals were not being
> >> treated fairly, or if the Incubator PMC was behaving in general in a
> >> way they disagreed with.
> >> And the board has to answer to the membership.
> >
> > I believe that there is *major* downside to having the Incubator PMC
> > second-guess the decisions of other PMCs.
>
> +1.
>
> > If someone doesn't like the decision of a PMC, they shouldn't be
> > able to
> > use the Inucbator PMC as cover for their attacks.  People who don't
> > like
> > what's going on in that PMC should confront that PMC directly.  If
> > they
> > don't like what's going on in that PMC and have tried to redress their
> > grievances directly, they can go to the Board.
>
> +1.

requiring a vote by the incubator pmc would not be about second
guessing the wishes of a pmc but applying a second set of criteria.
these would be a subset of the criteria that the incubator pmc applies
to graduation. in most cases, this should be a formality but i believe
that these is sufficient concern amongst the membership to justify
adding this additional bit of ceremony.

(and yes, i do know that this sucks in many ways and this extra
ceremony will hamper community based proposals but i think that our
hand has been forced. we should deal with the problems surrounding
innovation and ceremony separately.)

IMO given that podlings are being aggressively publicised
(unfortunately now sometimes even before they are born) and strongly
associated with the ASF in the minds of the public, there is now a
certain level of due diligence which can no longer be left to be
sorted out once the podling has been accepted for incubation.

in particular:

1 project names (it's no longer good enough to enter the incubator
with a legally suspect name)
2 lack of oversight energy
3 that the initial legal paperwork is in order
4 any other issues which would give the podling no hope of graduating

including a formal vote from the incubator pmc would have (i believe)
additional process advantages: it will give a clear line for
evangelists - no talking about a potential podlings as if it were an
apache project until this vote is passed.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Dec 23, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On December 23, 2005 12:47:26 PM -0500 Jim Jagielski  
> <jim@...> wrote:
>
>>    Q: The Incubator controls who leaves... who controls who
>>       enters? It seems like both are needed.
>>    A: Yes, and there are controls for who enters as well.
>>       Applicants must be sponsored by a current PMC, or
>>       the board. There is currently some discussion on
>
> I thought the Board delegated the initial proposal approval of new  
> TLP projects (i.e. no sponsoring PMC) to the Incubator PMC?  As a  
> checkpoint, the Board will certify the *exit* of podling's TLPs  
> after the Incubator certifies again.  When a project has PMC  
> approval, the Incubaotr PMC alone can do the certification of exit.
>

The board has always reserved the right to sponsor a new project. That
doesn't go away, even when we want the Incubator to do it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dain Sundstrom]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Ted Leung wrote:

> To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF.   To the majority  
> of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly)  
> is branding stamp.   You might not like it, but that's how many  
> people treat it.  And that's why one of the first things a company  
> wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release.

I keep seeing this sentiment repeated on this list and I think we  
should address this concern directly.

I've dealt with a few companies involved with projects being  
incubated, and everyone of them was very concerned about doing the  
right thing.  The last thing they want to do is anger the ASF right  
when they are getting involved.  The problem I have found is that  
they are just not familiar with the incubator, and make bad  
assumption.  I bet that if we let the corporations know the "Dos and  
Don'ts" of working with the incubator, they will be followed (at  
least more often then they are now :)

I suggest we add a "For corporations" section to the "Incubator  
Guidelines Documentation" which would contain things, like:

Don't do a press release.  An incubating project is not officially  
part of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is  
part of the ASF.  This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't  
go here.

Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating  
project's logo.  See "Don't do a press release" for reasons.

Do move copyright notices from all source files to the NOTICE file.

Do donate to the ASF :)

I'm sure there are many more.

What do you think?

-dain

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Martin Sebor]

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
[...]
> I suggest we add a "For corporations" section to the "Incubator  
> Guidelines Documentation" which would contain things, like:

+1 so far. I agree that better, more detailed guidelines would help
organizations or communities not familiar with the process prevent
confusion and avoid misunderstanding.

>
> Don't do a press release.  An incubating project is not officially  part
> of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is  part of
> the ASF.  This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't  go here.

-1

Press releases are a means for companies to announce noteworthy
events to the public. Certainly, donating a substantial code base
and committing to maintaining and typically also supporting that
code base free of charge while at the same time taking on the task
of building a diverse community around the donated project and
shepherding it through the incubation process is a noteworthy
event and can be a significant financial undertaking on the part
of the donating organization that the public has the right to know
about.

If there is a perceived problem with these types of announcements
wouldn't a better approach be for the Apache PRC to anticipate and
proactively try to prevent them, perhaps by offering to help with
the press release? A set of guidelines describing what is and isn't
appropriate for such a press release would be helpful as well.

>
> Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating  
> project's logo.  See "Don't do a press release" for reasons.

-1

I see nothing wrong with printing T-shirts or other promotional
items as long as their design is approved by the ASF. Companies
need to be able to make use of their resources to promote the
donated projects in an honest effort to build a community around
them. It doesn't just help the project, it's also free advertising
for the ASF. Since the ASF gets to approve or reject a request
for the use of its trademarks I don't see any risk here.

>
> Do move copyright notices from all source files to the NOTICE file.

+1

I'm not sure exactly what this means but I am certainly in favor
of documenting the process of copyright transfer even better than
it is now.

>
> Do donate to the ASF :)

And they do -- their software :)

Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 13:00 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Don't do a press release.  An incubating project is not officially  part
> > of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is  part of
> > the ASF.  This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't  go here.
>
> -1
>
> Press releases are a means for companies to announce noteworthy
> events to the public.
...
> > Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating  
> > project's logo.  See "Don't do a press release" for reasons.
>
> -1
>
> I see nothing wrong with printing T-shirts or other promotional
> items as long as their design is approved by the ASF.

I disagree on both counts - while going thru incubation it is important
to recognize that a project is *not* part of the ASF until it completes
incubation. If we allow people to do press releases, print t-shirts and
coffee mugs etc., then the rest of the world has no way to distinguish
between a real ASF project and an incubating one.

We don't allow code releases from the incubator except with carefully
minted words. Given we can't do that with t-shirts, its best to just say
no. Press releases could have the disclaimer text- but the reality is
that when the story gets carried by various folks they drop that stuff-
the story simply isn't powerful enough with a disclaimer. So we end up
losing.

So I agree with Dain's proposals!

Sanjiva.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Steven Noels]

On 24 Dec 2005, at 21:00, Martin Sebor wrote:

> Press releases are a means for companies to announce noteworthy
> events to the public. Certainly, donating a substantial code base
> and committing to maintaining and typically also supporting that
> code base free of charge while at the same time taking on the task
> of building a diverse community around the donated project and
> shepherding it through the incubation process is a noteworthy
> event and can be a significant financial undertaking on the part
> of the donating organization that the public has the right to know
> about.

Snif. "the right to know about"

IMHO, actually very _few_ companies issue PR around their ASF
involvement, considering the fact that the ASF biosphere is one of a
myriad of tiny (one-person), small (a few people), and then larger
companies employing individuals which contribute to ASF projects, quite
a few of them during company hours.

Just for starters, crosscheck the affiliations listed on
http://www.apache.org/foundation/members.html against a PR News search
tool. And that's only ASF members.

Are the companies not issuing PR lazy asses, or plain dumb? Not willing
to inform the public?

> And they do -- their software :)

Sorry to say, but: big deal. Compare that with the value of the ASF
brand for the donating entity. Lines of code are a side-effect of
developer team-work, and it's much more difficult to grow a team and a
brand than to actually code.

</Steven>
--
Steven Noels                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought                              Open Source Java & XML
stevenn at outerthought.org                stevenn at apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Alan D. Cabrera-2]

On 12/25/2005 6:03 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 13:00 -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
>  
>
>>>Don't do a press release.  An incubating project is not officially  part
>>>of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is  part of
>>>the ASF.  This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't  go here.
>>>      
>>>
>>-1
>>
>>Press releases are a means for companies to announce noteworthy
>>events to the public.
>>    
>>
>...
>  
>
>>>Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating  
>>>project's logo.  See "Don't do a press release" for reasons.
>>>      
>>>
>>-1
>>
>>I see nothing wrong with printing T-shirts or other promotional
>>items as long as their design is approved by the ASF.
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree on both counts - while going thru incubation it is important
>to recognize that a project is *not* part of the ASF until it completes
>incubation. If we allow people to do press releases, print t-shirts and
>coffee mugs etc., then the rest of the world has no way to distinguish
>between a real ASF project and an incubating one.
>
>We don't allow code releases from the incubator except with carefully
>minted words. Given we can't do that with t-shirts, its best to just say
>no. Press releases could have the disclaimer text- but the reality is
>that when the story gets carried by various folks they drop that stuff-
>the story simply isn't powerful enough with a disclaimer. So we end up
>losing.
>
>So I agree with Dain's proposals!
>  
>

These reflect my sentiments as well.


Regards,
Alan

[Rich Bowen]

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
>> approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
>> created.  Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a part
>> of the ASF is a flat-out lie.
>
> So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the
> project to ASF??

It means, IMHO, that they don't yet "get it." Since the purpose of the
Incubator is to ensure that folks do indeed "get it", it would be
unfortunate to disqualify for entrance anyone who has demonstrated that
they don't in fact already get it.

So, no, I'd say that this does not disqualify them for entrance. It does
  mean, however, that someone must approach them and instruct them on
the ways in which their actions demonstrate a lack of getting it. It
seems that this process is already underway, via Ted.

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 03:45, Rich Bowen wrote:

> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Friday 23 December 2005 16:23, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >> I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
> >> approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists
> >> are created.  Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be
> >> a part of the ASF is a flat-out lie.
> >
> > So, that means disqualifying for Incubation and no chance of moving the
> > project to ASF??
>
> It means, IMHO, that they don't yet "get it." Since the purpose of the
> Incubator is to ensure that folks do indeed "get it", it would be
> unfortunate to disqualify for entrance anyone who has demonstrated that
> they don't in fact already get it.
>
> So, no, I'd say that this does not disqualify them for entrance. It does
>   mean, however, that someone must approach them and instruct them on
> the ways in which their actions demonstrate a lack of getting it.

IMVHO, Justin's "in favour of enforcing a strict embargo" doesn't sound like
"hit their fingers and say 'Bad boy!', followed by a hug". A simple matrix of
act/consequence can be published on Incubator website, but isn't it necessary
to have some significant deterents? Otherwise, "flat-out lie" will be
accompanied with a "flat-out defiance".

> It seems that this process is already underway, via Ted.

I thought we were speaking "in general" and "pro-actively", since retro-active
measures are not really serving ASF either.


Cheers
Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Leo Simons]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 11:05:05AM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
>
> >To us an Apache project is an effort of the ASF.   To the majority  
> >of people out there, being an Apache project (rightly or wrongly)  
> >is branding stamp.   You might not like it, but that's how many  
> >people treat it.  And that's why one of the first things a company  
> >wants do when it proposes incubation is issue a press release.
>
> I keep seeing this sentiment repeated on this list and I think we  
> should address this concern directly.

+1.

> I've dealt with a few companies involved with projects being  
> incubated, and everyone of them was very concerned about doing the  
> right thing.  The last thing they want to do is anger the ASF right  
> when they are getting involved.  The problem I have found is that  
> they are just not familiar with the incubator, and make bad  
> assumption.

Yep, that often seems to be the case.

> I bet that if we let the corporations know the "Dos and  
> Don'ts" of working with the incubator, they will be followed (at  
> least more often then they are now :)

I bet this bet is the very mistake we've made in the past.

> I suggest we add a "For corporations" section to the "Incubator  
> Guidelines Documentation"

that could make sense.

> which would contain things, like:
>
> Don't do a press release.  An incubating project is not officially  
> part of the ASF, and a press release will imply that the project is  
> part of the ASF.  This one really makes ASF members angry, so don't  
> go here.
>
> Don't "just" print some t-shirts with the ASF logo or the incubating  
> project's logo.  See "Don't do a press release" for reasons.
>
> Do move copyright notices from all source files to the NOTICE file.
>
> Do donate to the ASF :)
>
> I'm sure there are many more.
>
> What do you think?

I've been mulling on this for some time. I don't know how to phrase this
just yet. But since you asked, I will try anyway.

I think it is a pipe dream that having things like lots of checklists,
lots of process documentation, ISO 2000-compliant processes (FWIW,
ISO 2000 and the ASF don't mesh well, we are based on self-driven
volunteers not on management or top down process monitoring), or anything
like that is ever going to address this kind of concern.

The ASF is not like a corporation and its processes are not like those of
a corporation. Corporations that want to be part of the open source community
need to change a whole lot.

This documentation should be a little more like:

"""The below advice is for technical managers, project managers, PR staff,
quality assurance staff, marketing staff, and people in other kinds of
corperate roles who will be involved with the open sourcing of a corporate
project through the ASF.

To understand the incubation process you should take a look at a few
years of open source development and incubation history at the ASF. Read
all of the documentation on http://www.apache.org/, in particular the
'How things work' documentation. Read all of the documentation on
http://incubator.apache.org/. Understand that this documentation is and
always will be behind on actual practice. Read all of the email from the
general@... mailing list archives that has to do with
the incubation of the Tapestry project. Read most of the email from the
general@... archives. Pay attention to some of the
"process threads". Make a case study of one or two projects that
graduated successfully (I recommend looking at SpamAssassin, a mature
open source project that proceeded through the incubation process very
successfully), read their dev-list archives as well (both before they came
to the ASF, during incubation, and afterwards).

If you are new to open source community development in the apache way
(hint: its likely that you are), be prepared to spend a full work week
reading about this stuff, thinking about it, etc. You will have questions
to which you can't find the answer. Send e-mail to
general@... with your question. You will likely receive
several answers, often not completely compatible. Get used to this.

If you are somewhat new to open source in general, also read at least
  * "the cathedral and the bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond
  * "Open Source Licensing" by Lawrence Rosen
  * "the cluetrain manifesto" by a variety of authors
  * "Subversion Version Control : Using the Subversion Version Control
     System in Development Projects" by William Nagel

I'll also recommend watching the movie "FUD". Watch it together with all of
your collegues and discuss it afterwards.

these sources will contain a variety of details which may be a lot more
technical than you're used to and/or far more materials which are not so
close to your day job at your corporation. Get used to this too. To
continue to be productive at your job with respect to this to-be-open-source
project, you will need to understand "how open source works", which involves
understanding the moral principles underlying it, its chaotic process and
work environment. You will most likely need to get used to using some
"programmer tools", including SVN and Jira.

Be prepared to embark on a personal path down the open source road that will
take you several months to start. Most likely, you'll try to be walking it for
the rest of your life if you make it that far.

If you're in charge of your corporate open source efforts, you'll understand
and recognize that all of the above is going to take your staff many many hours
over the course a several months, and has the possibility of resulting in some
radical changes to your corporate processes. Yup.
"""

- LSD


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> I'm all in favor of enforcing a strict embargo until the Incubator PMC
? approves a proposal, an initial code drop lands, and the mailing lists are
> created.  Until those happen, any active publicity claiming it to be a
part
> of the ASF is a flat-out lie.  (In the future, the PRC is almost certainly
> going to reject any releases before this happens.)

Then we have a different policy to put into place: NO PR WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE PRC.  And that should be applied to ALL ASF PROJECTS, not
just those in the Incubator.  That puts more work on the PRC, which will
need to grow to scale, but I'd go for such an ASF-wide policy.  We would
have to document that broadly, and make it clear to donors.  That probably
won't help with the "We're planning to donate" type announcements, but ...

> after those steps occur (which should be relatively quickly in the
> order of a few weeks), removing the Apache brand from podlings would
> be incredibly harmful.

+1

> The only reason that these projects can have the 'Apache' brand is because
> a member of the Foundation is willing to act as mentor *and* the Incubator
> PMC approves each interim release.  If the mentor isn't keeping the
project
> in line with respect to our values, then the Incubator or the
'destination'
> PMC needs to step in and provide guidance or terminate it.

Hopefully, a 3 active mentor policy will help with this issue.

        --- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> If any ASF PMC believes it is in the best interest of the Foundation to
> accept a podling and they are willing to dedicate resources ("people") -
> then anyone on the Incubator PMC has no standing to challenge that
> decision.  When a PMC approves a podling, the only thing the Incubator
> PMC can decide is whether the project can "leave" the Incubator.

A fair summation, although there are people who believe that the Incubator
PMC should have more of a say in the entry of a project for Incubation.

Jim and Geir both raise the hypothetical of what would have happened if
Tuscany were submitted as a fait accompli by the WS PMC, rather than being
critiqued here.  Following up on some comments and other examples from Dims,
I'd say that this raises a separate issue, which is something to address
Foundation-wide: how to push for more synergy and cooperation where
appropriate between our projects, without excluding cooperation with
external ones.  To date, that has only been something promoted by
individuals, such as myself, who want to see ASF projects collaborating.

> Even without a PMC, if *one* of our members out there thinks a project is
> worth doing and they can write something mildly resembling a charter down
> on paper, that's all I need to hear for a +1.

That has been my policy, too, although if we adopt the notion that there
must be 3 Members/Officers as project mentors, it would take more than one
such mentor for a project to start.

I don't know whether or not that would satisfy Geir, unless we did something
about not having all of those mentors from the same PMC.  There seem to be
concerns that some other PMC could become out of control, and game the rules
in the absence of some balance.  Personally, I would hope for better from an
ASF Member, and will consider whether future candidates would make good
Incubator Mentors.

> That's the fundamental problem I have with this entire thread: people
> are trying to limit the growth or exclude projects.  How?  On what basis?

Agreed.  We must plan for scale, and ensure that AS WE SCALE, that the
proper processes are in place.

        --- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator would
> be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and the members.

  As Geir noted, I can see the potential for the former, but of the latter,
I would hope not.  The Members are the Incubator in many real ways, and the
Incubator exists to directly serve the interests of the ASF Membership.

> I would see such as thing (denying acceptance) as something that
> would require as much reason and rationale as a code-based veto
> would; much more so, in fact.

Are you suggesting that graduation from the Incubator should be vetoable,
i.e., treated as a vote on code rather than treated as policy?

        --- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Erik Abele wrote:

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>>> What you do have is the right to vote against their graduation if
>>> you so desire.

> The second sentence does exactly what the first sentence forbids, no?
> It tells people what they cannot do at the ASF.

It is established that the Incubator is the sole authority on new entry
into the ASF.  The talking point is the barrier into the vestibule, if you
will.

Roy wants an open policy, others are concerned that there is too much
chaos and confusion in the antechambers.  Worse, they are concerned that
projects under the Incubator may be causing confusion about what is and is
not under the imprimatur of the ASF.

We can revisit branding, but I don't believe that a totally non-ASF brand
is at all warranted, as explained by Justin.

        --- Noel

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Steven Noels wrote:

> The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah,
> thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse
> stuff.

Not true.  If there is community development, the Incubator PMC had better
be involved.  We're going to have to adjust things, such as Mentorship and
votes to leave the Incubator, e.g.,

  - a minimum of 3 ASF Members and/or Officers who have differing
    corporate affiliations as Mentors per project.  The sponsoring
    PMC must identify those ASF Members.  Projects who lose one or
    more sponsors -- even if they just go quiet -- must make sure
    that they regain the minimum of 3.  Existing projects that are
    not meeting the quorum will not be permitted to release any
    code, regardless of otherwise meeting Incubator release guidelines.

  - the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to
    accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to
    bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they
    otherwise meet the guidelines.  There are still guidelines
    regarding candidacy, and the Board will be encouraged to
    take a dim view of any PMC trying to game the system.

  - the Incubator PMC having the sole vote on all graduations from
    the Incubator.  The target PMC votes to accept first, and then
    notifies us that they are ready for our vote.

It is a talking point, but we may have to perform that vote even on simpler
IP imports, just to prevent gaming the system, e.g., "well, it's not really
a new project".  Actually, all of those are talking points.

        --- Noel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[dims]

+1 to 3 ASF Members/Officers as mentors
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote for *ALL* incoming projects
+1 to require Incubator PMC vote even on simpler IP imports

thanks,
dims

On 12/28/05, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

> Steven Noels wrote:
>
> > The Incubator PMC only needs to care about IP and legal blahblah,
> > thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with community and brand abuse
> > stuff.
>
> Not true.  If there is community development, the Incubator PMC had better
> be involved.  We're going to have to adjust things, such as Mentorship and
> votes to leave the Incubator, e.g.,
>
>   - a minimum of 3 ASF Members and/or Officers who have differing
>     corporate affiliations as Mentors per project.  The sponsoring
>     PMC must identify those ASF Members.  Projects who lose one or
>     more sponsors -- even if they just go quiet -- must make sure
>     that they regain the minimum of 3.  Existing projects that are
>     not meeting the quorum will not be permitted to release any
>     code, regardless of otherwise meeting Incubator release guidelines.
>
>   - the Board will determine if there is an Incubator PMC vote to
>     accept a new project, but at the moment, any PMC can vote to
>     bring a new project into the Incubator, assuming that they
>     otherwise meet the guidelines.  There are still guidelines
>     regarding candidacy, and the Board will be encouraged to
>     take a dim view of any PMC trying to game the system.
>
>   - the Incubator PMC having the sole vote on all graduations from
>     the Incubator.  The target PMC votes to accept first, and then
>     notifies us that they are ready for our vote.
>
> It is a talking point, but we may have to perform that vote even on simpler
> IP imports, just to prevent gaming the system, e.g., "well, it's not really
> a new project".  Actually, all of those are talking points.
>
>         --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...