AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal

[geirm]

In theory, the sponsor and mentors are doing that continuously.

geir

On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Rob Davies wrote:

>
> I Also share these concerns - is there currently a process to have  
> continuous reviews throughout the entire life-cycle of all new and  
> existing projects - to ensure that everything under the 'apache'  
> brand is and will continue to be 'worthy' ?
>
> Sorry if there's already a process in place - I'm new :)
>
> cheers,
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:18, Mads Toftum wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:50:28AM -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
>>> The merits of the particular proposal aside,  I wanted to comment on
>>> this paragraph.   This year at ApacheCon I was surprised to find  
>>> that
>>> a number of people also feel that the ASF is growing far too
>>> quickly.   I know that are some people who believe that the growth
>>> that we are experiencing is indicative of our success.
>>> Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.    I think that the
>>> incubation process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to  
>>> the
>>> Apache brand name, and this is a bad thing.
>>
>> Very much agreed - I've been worried about the same for quite a  
>> while.
>>
>> 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@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  [phone]
geirm@...



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

[Ted Leung-5]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>> The merits of the particular proposal aside
>
> We should always be judging the merits of each proposal.  Failing  
> to do so
> might well be part of the problem.


How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project  
in without approval of the incubator PMC?  Just look at the raft of  
projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC.   There's not  
a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.  The only thing I can say  
is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation.

>
>> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
>> low bar for access to the Apache brand name
>
> And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
> Incubator.  Look at how the folks are complaining that we are  
> trying to make
> the projects look different by being in the Incubator.  They ARE  
> different.
> And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.

Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an  
incubated project and an Apache project.  Roy has also stated that  
once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an  
Apache project.

Ted


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

[Ted Leung-5]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> There is one thing that I think would be useful in
>> helping: That the Incubator PMC take an active role
>> in accepting new projects. Normally, if the Sponsor
>> says "Yes" a vote isn't even taken on the Incubator
>> side. I think that no matter what, unless overruled
>> by the board, the Incubator should vote.
>
> It was presented to the Incubator PMC that when another PMC has  
> voted, we
> don't have that option.  I'd like to see a determination from the  
> Board if
> that is to change.

I'm in favor of such a change.

Ted

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

[craigmcc]

On 12/20/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:

>
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > Adam Peller wrote:
> [snip]
> > So the questions are:
> > - is the ASF the place for Eclipse extensions? I don't deny the ability
> > to _existing_ project to host their tooling, but this isn't the case
> here.
>
> As I mentioned, I was involved with these discussions.  The ASF doesn't
> tend to make these types of decisions based on the technical aspects of
> a project.  What impressed me about the people who were proposing this
> is that they were sincerely interested in the Apache License and
> collaboration model.

Belief in the Apache collaborative development model should certainly be a
prerequisite for acceptance into the Apache community (to me, that's the
thing that binds ASF as a community more strongly than anything else).  But
that, by itself, is not a compelling argument for combining these two
particular subprojects into a single proposal.  That strikes me as bad
software engineering, as well as bad social engineering.

From a software engineering viewpoint, focusing on a single tool as a
delivery vehicle will tend to bias architectural and implementation
decisions towards what is easy to express in that particular tool.  It would
leave aside the little detail that not everyone interested in AJAX will be
using that tool, or will even be using Java.  I'd like to see the various
AJAX libraries, and the communities around them collaborate more ... but
that problem space is plenty big enough without figuring out bindings to
tool widgets, for a particular platform, at the same time.

From a social engineering viewpoint, this particular combination of
subprojects would create a perception that Apache's support for AJAX is all
about what you can do in Eclipse.  That's too limiting a scope for what we
should be trying to achieve.  A better answer might be to separate the
tooling aspects from the framework aspects, and consider building a
community around "tools for building AJAX based applications" in general,
that consumes this technology but unoubtedly others as well, rather than
trying to  combine oil and water in the same project.

Craig

[Sam Ruby-2]

Craig McClanahan wrote:
>
>>From a software engineering viewpoint, focusing on a single tool

Have you any other tools in mind?  Bring them on!

Once again, let me state that the goal is to seed a non-exclusive AJAX
community at the ASF.

In case it isn't perfectly clear: including Zimbra isn't intended to
exclude Dojo.  Including Eclipse, doesn't mean to exclude NetBeans.  As
Dims has pointed out, including IDE plugins is not new ground at the ASF.

- Sam Ruby

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

[Roy T. Fielding]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
> How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project  
> in without approval of the incubator PMC?  Just look at the raft of  
> projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC.   There's  
> not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.  The only thing I  
> can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit  
> graduation.

Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do.  You don't
have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at
the ASF.  You don't have the right to say that one project is more
deserving of our resources than some other project.  What you do have
is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and
to vote against their graduation if you so desire.

>>> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
>>> low bar for access to the Apache brand name

Methinks you have forgotten that there was no bar before incubator
existed -- the code was just copied to cvs.

>> And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
>> Incubator.  Look at how the folks are complaining that we are  
>> trying to make
>> the projects look different by being in the Incubator.  They ARE  
>> different.
>> And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.
>
> Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an  
> incubated project and an Apache project.  Roy has also stated that  
> once a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an  
> Apache project.

That's because an Apache project is an EFFORT of the ASF.  It is not
some diploma that people receive at the end of graduation.  Everything
done at the ASF is an Apache project.  Some are organized better than
others, and some are allowed to make their own release decisions, but
all of them are collaborative projects using ASF infrastructure and
following the literal meaning of Contributor as defined in our license.
And, when needed, the board can terminate a project whether it is in
the incubator or not.

If people believe that the Incubator should not accept any new projects,
then they should convince the board to make it so.  The incubator is
the place where people wanting to work on new projects can do so
within a neutral environment with limited risk to the foundation.
If you think that such things should be done at SourceForge instead,
and that the ASF should only accept fully-formed communities after
they have a questionable track-record of IP contributions, then go
ahead and ask the board to shut down the incubator.

Right now, however, all I hear is belly-aching by people who have not
been doing any of the Incubator's work, nor that of infrastructure,
so have little basis to complain about anything.

....Roy


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

[Adam Peller-5]

Craig,

Sam addressed the social engineering viewpoint; I'd like to talk about the
software side:

> Craig McClanahan wrote:
>From a software engineering viewpoint, focusing on a single tool as a
>delivery vehicle will tend to bias architectural and implementation
>decisions towards what is easy to express in that particular tool.

I think Sam already mentioned that the Eclipse-based tooling is just our
contribution.  And while we'd try to make that as robust and extensible as
possible, we would be by no means limited to one tool.  If that isn't clear
in the proposal, we should fix it.  (Eclipse is a delivery vehicle for the
tooling only, btw -- the browser is the delivery vehicle for the
applications developed)   You've got to start somewhere.  Some of the
proposed tooling might be independent of Eclipse, and possibly even
independent of the various AJAX runtimes.  As for what we've done in
Eclipse so far, we're trying our best to keep it platform neutral.
Mozilla, embedded in our tooling, is really the container you're developing
in, and even there we hope to offer browser choice; we just chose Mozilla
as a starting point because it's ubiquitous, offers excellent integration
points, is open source, etc.  Isn't it really the browser choice which can
introduce bias? (the very problem AJAX toolkits try to address?)  Certain
conveniences or widgetry in the tool itself might be geared towards what
Eclipse supports, but I'd hope that Eclipse would not impact the
applications you would develop.  I'll have to think about this some more.
If you have any examples, I'd very much like to hear them.

-Adam


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

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Ted Leung wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > The merits of the particular proposal aside

> > We should always be judging the merits of each proposal.
> > Failing to do so might well be part of the problem.

> How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project
> in without approval of the incubator PMC?  Just look at the raft of
> projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC.   There's not
> a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.  The only thing I can say
> is whether or not their community is good enough to merit graduation.

When I say "We", above, I meant the ASF.  All of the PMCs have a
responsibility to the Foundation.  But are you going to say that the
Incubator PMC should be judging the performance of the other PMCs in living
up to their obligations?

> > And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in
> > the Incubator.  Look at how the folks are complaining that we
> > are trying to make the projects look different by being in the
> > Incubator.  They ARE  different.  And they MUST be Incubator
> > branded, and follow Incubation rules.

> Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an
> incubated project and an Apache project.

And we have to correct that lack of awareness.

> Roy has also stated that once a project is in the incubator it
> ought to be regarded as an Apache project.

I wouldn't take Roy's comment out of context.  I don't believe that he means
it the way that you imply above.

        --- Noel


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

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I see the Incubator as a gatekeeper almost.

See Roy's comments for an alternative view.  As I understand his view, the
gatekeeper role is limited to projects leaving the Incubator, not entering.

> PMCs, in general, don't have an idea of the number of
> podlings within the Incubator, the "load" that the
> Incubator (and Infrastructure) is currently handling,
> etc. They have no need to.

Actually, I disagree.  I think that the PMCs should be far more aware of the
overall events within the Foundation, and far less cloistered and parochial.

> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
> proposed project, acceptance.

You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets that role,
I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that right.

        --- Noel


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

[craigmcc]

On 12/21/05, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
>
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >
> >>From a software engineering viewpoint, focusing on a single tool
>
> Have you any other tools in mind?  Bring them on!


Actually, I don't -- tooling-specific adaptations of generic technologies
seem best fitted to the corresponding tool development communitiies, with
participation from all relevant parties in the generic technology
development discussions.

Apparently, neither do you, or this proposal would have made this explicit,
and you'd have had representatives of other tooling folks directly involved,
rather than being totally focused on Eclipse plugins and SWT
implementations.

Once again, let me state that the goal is to seed a non-exclusive AJAX
> community at the ASF.


The Zimbra part of the proposal could, I suppose, be held to aim at that
goal.  If you believe proposing an Eclipse-only tooling story (apparently to
the exlusion of at least some folks in the Eclipse Foundation :-) forwards
this goal, I would suggest taking this part of the proposal back for some
serious editing.

Craig

[Sam Ruby-2]

Craig McClanahan wrote:
>
> The Zimbra part of the proposal could, I suppose, be held to aim at that
> goal.  If you believe proposing an Eclipse-only tooling story (apparently to
> the exlusion of at least some folks in the Eclipse Foundation :-) forwards
> this goal, I would suggest taking this part of the proposal back for some
> serious editing.

Please read Adam's email that predated yours by a full 2.5 hours.

In any case, if you would like to participate in this project on a
technical level, you would be more than welcome.

- Sam Ruby

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

[gstein]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:57:59PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Ted Leung wrote:
> >How is this possible when any other PMC can vote to bring a project  
> >in without approval of the incubator PMC?  Just look at the raft of  
> >projects being brought in via Geronimo and the WS PMC.   There's  
> >not a thing I can do, regardless of the merits.  The only thing I  
> >can say is whether or not their community is good enough to merit  
> >graduation.
>
> Right, and that's the only thing you are qualified to do.  You don't
> have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do at
> the ASF.  You don't have the right to say that one project is more
> deserving of our resources than some other project.  What you do have
> is the right to be involved, to help their incubation (or not), and
> to vote against their graduation if you so desire.

Exactly. The other PMCs are authorized to perform actions on the ASF's
behalf, in the interests of the ASF. If they determine that bringing
Project FOO to the ASF is the best choice, then it is a done deal
unless overridden by the Board. And I will note that the Board will
give extreme prejudice to the authorizing PMC, so any appeal to the
Board better have some good reasoning :-)

The Incubator *is* charged with ensuring that the legal needs have
been met, and that there has been appropriate teaching about how
Apache projects are run. The Board *has* authorized them with
performing those actions.

Cheers,
-g

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

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

[Ian Holsman]

Ted Leung wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>

>>
>>> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
>>> low bar for access to the Apache brand name
>>
>> And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
>> Incubator.  Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying
>> to make
>> the projects look different by being in the Incubator.  They ARE
>> different.
>> And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.

>
> Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an
> incubated project and an Apache project.  Roy has also stated that once
> a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project.

that can be easily resolved.
you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving
grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no
project or PR firm can mention apache there.

projects of sufficient stature/passed the test of manhood get initiated
into the apache.org.

ie... it only starts becoming a apache project once it has finished the
incubation... I know technically this sounds identical to what is going
on, and to be honest it is. but for non-tech folks the non-association
is a big thing, and it will be harder for PR folk to say look.. it's an
apache think and make t-shirts for it etc etc

>
> Ted
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Cliff Schmidt]

On 12/21/05, Ian Holsman <lists@...> wrote:

> Ted Leung wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >>> I think that the incubation process is setting an incredibly
> >>> low bar for access to the Apache brand name
> >>
> >> And we require disclaimers and clear notice that projects ARE in the
> >> Incubator.  Look at how the folks are complaining that we are trying
> >> to make
> >> the projects look different by being in the Incubator.  They ARE
> >> different.
> >> And they MUST be Incubator branded, and follow Incubation rules.
>
> >
> > Most people in the world are unaware of the difference between an
> > incubated project and an Apache project.  Roy has also stated that once
> > a project is in the incubator it ought to be regarded as an Apache project.
>
> that can be easily resolved.
> you start up another domain say 'theincubator.org' or something 'proving
> grounds' related and make sure it has no apache branding, and that no
> project or PR firm can mention apache there.

Although I'm not sure we should take that step right now, I don't
think that's such a crazy suggestion.  I do believe we should rethink
the branding of incubating project:

Today, we complain that corporations working on incubating projects
are taking advantage of the Apache brand.  We wonder why the press and
public aren't aware of the distinction of incubating projects, and yet
we *require* these projects always preface their name with the same
master brand we use on fully endorse projects, "Apache".

We can't keep a low bar for incoming incubating projects and allow for
this confusion.  We may indeed need a multibrand strategy when it
comes to incubating projects.

Cliff

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

[Steven Noels]

On 21 Dec 2005, at 10:50, Ted Leung wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't agree with that.    I think that the incubation
> process is setting an incredibly low bar for access to the Apache
> brand name, and this is a bad thing.   Corporations see the value of
> the brand name, that's why they want to come here and are willing to
> put up with all our overhead.

I agree but i believe we're picking the wrong example. For me, the low
bar is because many code donations are happening in the folds of
other-than-the-Incubator PMC: The Incubator PMC only needs to care
about IP and legal blahblah, thus the receiving PMCs are tasked with
community and brand abuse stuff. Combine this with mentors preferring
to read and use the system as it has been designed and drafted
literally, rather than according to what the (somewhat intangible)
Apache Way dictates, and this is bound to create tension.

Quite frankly, I don't have the slightest idea anymore what is
happening in the WebServices and Geronimo corner of Apache. That's
either an indication of the fact that I should read more mail (yeah
right), or something slightly more worrying. Too much, too fast, too
eager, too soon. That way, we'll burn out rather than fade away. :)

</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@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
>> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
>> proposed project, acceptance.
>
> You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets  
> that role,
> I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that  
> right.
>

Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator:

     RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
     responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
     submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
     it further

There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example,
that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That
is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's
the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and
we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us
more control over that which we are charged with in the
first place :)

PS: IMO, in response to the actual subject line, I certainly
     don't feel that the Incubator is out of control, or
     on a certain path for disaster, or anything like that.
     I simply think that, knowing the currently growth plan,
     some changes may be a Good Idea to *prevent* any
     future problems or concerns.

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

[robert burrell donkin-2]

On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
> >> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
> >> proposed project, acceptance.
> >
> > You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets
> > that role,
> > I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that
> > right.
> >
>
> Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator:
>
>      RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
>      responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
>      submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
>      it further
>
> There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example,
> that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That
> is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's
> the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and
> we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us
> more control over that which we are charged with in the
> first place :)

the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake
both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to
a failure of oversight has personal consequences.

i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very
little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever
vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the
incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and
effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run.

- robert

[Martin Marinschek]

Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs?

I do think that there is much at stake also for the project PMCs....
If the projects they bring in don't work out, this will also be a
problem for the project community.

regards,

Martin

On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@...> wrote:

> On 12/22/05, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
> > >> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
> > >> proposed project, acceptance.
> > >
> > > You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets
> > > that role,
> > > I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that it has that
> > > right.
> > >
> >
> > Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator:
> >
> >      RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> >      responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> >      submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation; and be
> >      it further
> >
> > There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example,
> > that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That
> > is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's
> > the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs, and
> > we can certainly, IMO, change our set policies to allow us
> > more control over that which we are charged with in the
> > first place :)
>
>
> the way people vote are a matter of record and so reputations are at stake
> both inside and outside apache. voting for a duff release or contributing to
> a failure of oversight has personal consequences.
>
> i wonder whether one cause of some of the worries is that there is very
> little at stake for the pmc and so very little reason for anyone to ever
> vote -1. any negatives will be somebody else's problem (whether the
> incubator's or apache's) to sort out. perhaps this misalignment of power and
> effect may prove not to be too healthy in the long run.
>
> - robert
>
>

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

[JAMES Nightly Build System]

Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I think the Incubator would best serve the ASF if we/they had
>>> the ultimate authority to vote on, even if the PMC approves a
>>> proposed project, acceptance.
>>
>> You are entitled to that view, but until the Board formally sets
>> that role, I don't believe that the Incubator should presume that
>> it has that right.
>
> Quoting the Resolution that created the Incubator:
>   RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
>   responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
>   submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation;

> There is nothing within the Resolution which says, for example,
> that the sponsor PMC gets first and only vote, etc... That
> is, instead, a policy which we've (the Incubator) set. It's
> the Incubator which granted that "power" to the PMCs

I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the comments of
both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's authority
comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather than when
another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation.  Again, the
Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification.

        --- Noel


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

[Jim Jagielski]

On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> I do understand your point, but as I also understand from the  
> comments of
> both the current ASF Chairman and his predecessor, the Incubator's  
> authority
> comes into play when we vote to release from the Incubator, rather  
> than when
> another PMC charges us to accept a candidate into Incubation.  
> Again, the
> Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification.
>

The Chairman does not have ultimate authority, and their
PoV or opinion does not count more or less than others, nor
does it mean that their interpretation is the rule :)

The idea that PMCs should be able to determine what
projects are to be folded into the ASF is a good one,
and one that we've always held to, but it's also the
one that resulted in the problems with Jakarta
and the lack of oversight involved with them. So it's
not the fact that other PMCs should decide what
gets added in which is the issue, is that we have
the required checks and balances in place to
avoid another Jakarta.

Going under the assumption that there "should" be some
sort of entity which "regulates" the influx of new
projects within the ASF, I submit that the Incubator
is the best such entity currently in existence (other
than the board itself). That's all ;)

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