AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

[Mads Toftum]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +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
>
yeah, sounds good to me. More mentors / oversight is likely to help
quite a bit.

vh

Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall


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

[gstein]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:16:42PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
>   - 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.

Yup. And that's the way that I think it should be. The Incubator is
not "close enough" to the problem to make a determination *against*
another PMCs rightful decision that a project would be beneficial for
the ASF. Recognize that other PMCs are *also* operating within the
best interests of the Foundation. That should be a given, and if you
think a PMC is *not* operating that way, then you bring it to the
Board. You don't exercise your displeasure by interfering with the
work that they are trying to accomplish [to benefit the Foundation].

If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must
provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling
and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator
can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or
proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the
Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not
simply be able to kill it outright. Go to the Board for that because
the implication is that the PMC is not acting in the Foundation's best
interests, and THAT is for the Board to handle. Not the Incubator.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

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

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On 12/29/05, Greg Stein <gstein@...> wrote:
> If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must
> provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling
> and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator
> can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or
> proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the
> Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not
> simply be able to kill it outright.

+1.  I think that's an important distinction to make.

Proposals should require the "advice and consent" of the Incubator
PMC.  I agree that while the Incubator PMC shouldn't be able to kill
the project, they can and should be able to say "Your charter sucks.
Rewrite it.  We won't sign off until that happens."

It's about the form than the content.  Roy's comments about Tuscany
proposal are what I'd characterize in this mold.  The Incubator PMC
should also be able to make a judgment ("certification"?) of the
process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be
under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form.

I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would
go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned.
-- justin

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

[Geir Magnusson Jr.-3]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On 12/29/05, Greg Stein <gstein@...> wrote:
>
>>If another PMC decides a project should be incubated, they must
>>provide the people to make that happen (so we achieve proper scaling
>>and to put the effort on those who want the results). The Incubator
>>can't refuse the project outright, but if the STATUS page or
>>proposal/charter or whatever doesn't meet the guidelines, then the
>>Incubator can certainly require that it be amended. But you should not
>>simply be able to kill it outright.
>
>
> +1.  I think that's an important distinction to make.
>
> Proposals should require the "advice and consent" of the Incubator
> PMC.  I agree that while the Incubator PMC shouldn't be able to kill
> the project, they can and should be able to say "Your charter sucks.
> Rewrite it.  We won't sign off until that happens."
>
> It's about the form than the content.  Roy's comments about Tuscany
> proposal are what I'd characterize in this mold.

Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not
sponsored (at the time) by any PMC.

> The Incubator PMC
> should also be able to make a judgment ("certification"?) of the
> process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be
> under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form.
>
> I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would
> go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned.

Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the
Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a
problem anyway...

geir

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

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

[Justin Erenkrantz]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not
> sponsored (at the time) by any PMC.

Dims mentioned that they had planned to approve that proposal through the
WS PMC - so if it had been sponsored by them, there would have been no
change permitted by the Incubator PMC to address concerns like Roy's.

> >The Incubator PMC
> >should also be able to make a judgment ("certification"?) of the
> >process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be
> >under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form.
> >
> >I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would
> >go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned.
>
> Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the
> Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a
> problem anyway...

As Greg said, that's for the board to deal with.  -- justin

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

[dims]

Yes, I agree with Justin. More eyes the better. Especially ones with
"outsider" perspective will help.

-- dims

On 12/30/05, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:59AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > Agreed, but the Tuscany proposal was an independent proposal, not
> > sponsored (at the time) by any PMC.
>
> Dims mentioned that they had planned to approve that proposal through the
> WS PMC - so if it had been sponsored by them, there would have been no
> change permitted by the Incubator PMC to address concerns like Roy's.
>
> > >The Incubator PMC
> > >should also be able to make a judgment ("certification"?) of the
> > >process proposed by the PMC - such as whether a code base should be
> > >under full incubation or just use the IP clearance form.
> > >
> > >I think that making it clear that the Incubator PMC can do this would
> > >go a long way to addressing some of the concerns already mentioned.
> >
> > Agreed - although in general, if a PMC just ignored the input of the
> > Incubator PMC on a PMCs suggested incubation, it's an indication of a
> > problem anyway...
>
> As Greg said, that's for the board to deal with.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Martin Sebor]

Steven Noels wrote:
[...]
> 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.

Doesn't that imply that there is no problem with press releases, then,
and thus no reason to prohibit donor companies from putting them out?

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

I would be more inclined to think that they simply do not consider
it worthwhile. Donating a 100 KLOC project and the time of a handful
of developers may not be a big deal to a billion dollar company, but
it most likely is for a company that's fraction of the size. Especially
one that doesn't seek to derive significant immediate revenue from doing
so.

Martin

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

[Martin Sebor]

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.

I would be surprised if anyone made a decision of any consequence
based on what they saw on a T-shirt or a coffee mug :) I certainly
don't see that happening if the mug or T-shirt simply urges people
to check the project out and get involved in its development, and
when it carries the required disclaimer.

>
> We don't allow code releases from the incubator except with carefully
> minted words.

The requirements I know of are the word "incubating" in the name
of the tarball and the disclaimer at the top of the project's README.
With that and with the approval of the Incubator PMC, podlings are
permitted to do releases. So if that's good enough for the actual
code why not for the mug or T-shirt, especially when the approval
comes from the Board itself?

> Given we can't do that with t-shirts,

Pardon my ignorance but how is that a given? I ask because I've read
two contradictory opinions. When asked informally, at least three
ASF members (one of them a Board member, and one of them our mentor)
responded favorably to our request to print T-shirts promoting the
STDCXX podling.

> 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.

My concern is that by restricting how we can talk about new efforts
in the incubator and to whom, the ASF makes it exceedingly difficult
for podlings to build up communities around them. Since the ASF has
accepted the donated projects I would expect it to want to do its
best to help them succeed. Instead, my impression from discussions
such as this one is that there is an atmosphere of distrust of new
projects, especially those donated by third parties.

Martin

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