|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/22/2005 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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 ;)
I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently
have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator and who does not?
Regards,
Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
(for the benefit of those joining the thread, here's the context)
> > On 12/22/05, robert burrell donkin < robertburrelldonkin@...> wrote:
> > 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.
On 12/22/05, Martin Marinschek < martin.marinschek@...> wrote:
> Do you mean the incubator PMC or the project PMCs?
ATM the sponsoring pmc votes and then the incubator pmc and the
mentors do the work :)
> 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.
how much that is true probably depends on the particular pmc in
question. problems with TLPs are ASF problems.
if it were generally true that every pmc cared so much about every
podling, then i suspect that fewer people would be worried. ATM though
(unlike most ASF votes) each +1 is only a recommendation rather than
an active promise to help. it's committing someone else's time and
reputation...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, 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.
So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of the
Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
On 30.11.2005, at 21:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
> an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
> ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
> Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
> some constraints -- does anyone know what they are?
>
> I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a
> very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly
> don't need more than one WS/SOA federation.
>
> Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product
> line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic
> decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release.
> That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each
> working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague
> relationships.
So why don't you get involved instead or vote against their
graduation if you so desire?
Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive
IMHO...
Cheers,
Erik
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> I'm confused. Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not
> currently have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator
> and who does not?
>
Not at all. No one (afaik) denies the fact that the Incubator is
the final arbiter of who graduates or not. Instead, the
question is whether it also has the authority (and
responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not.
Deciding who graduates ensures that new projects have the
required IP clearance and community health to (hopefully)
grow and prosper, and to ensure the ASF stays on an
even keel. This is good and worthwhile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/21/2005 11:21 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>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.
>
>
I think that this thread has much merit and should be pursued further.
Regards,
Alan
|
|
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 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 :)
Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part of "the
Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that clarification" needs
further explanation? ;-)
> 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.
And so on that basis, an interpretation that permits PMCs to submit projects
for Incubation, and still provides for the Incubator PMC to arbitrate on
exit, makes sense.
> 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.
Agreed. And that is only one of the concerns that we need to be aware of.
> 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 ;)
Agreed, and we are the authority on what leaves the Incubator. And since we
have traditionally held that any ASF Member can join the Incubator PMC, that
provides the ASF Membership with a lot of say in what happens, should they
choose to become active here.
But this still leaves open WHEN that authority comes into play: on entrance
to the Incubator, or on exit.
On the other hand, since exit may include Incubation failure ... hmmm ... I
suppose that the Incubator PMC could vote to fail a project, even if it
can't vote on whether or not to accept it.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
RE: Is the incubator out of control?
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Are you stating that the Incubator PMC does not currently
> have the ultimate authority on who leaves the incubator
> and who does not?
No, that is clearly an authority delegated by the Board exclusively to the
Incubator.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Instead, the
> question is whether it also has the authority (and
> responsibility) to decide who enters Incubation or not.
>
FWIW, I have never envisioned a case where the Incubator
would be at odds with the desires of the PMCs and
the members. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> 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 :)
>
> Right, but there is clearly a difference of opinion, so which part
> of "the
> Board can clarify the intent, and I would welcome that
> clarification" needs
> further explanation? ;-)
>
None ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: AJAX Toolkit Framework Proposal
On 12/21/05, Ted Leung < twleung@...> wrote:
> I'd love to have a good AJAX project here at Apache, but I'm not at
> all convinced that this is the best way to get it. I also talked to
> Alex Russell at Dojo about coming to the ASF (at this year's OSCON),
> and the overhead thing was already on his radar. Perhaps we ought
> to be more concerned about making ourselves attractive to projects
> like Dojo. We already know that the corporations see the value of
> the Apache brand. Ask yourself why a small innovative project like
> Dojo would rather stay out of the ASF.
In my experience, it's because the developers on those projects
haven't actually worked with Apache committers, only heard what other
people say about us. :)
I remember seeing a statistic once that said if a person is involved
in one open-source projects, then they are likely to be involved in
more than one open source project. I think a very valid source of new
ASF projects -- perhaps the best source -- are the other software
projects that we ourselves join.
If Dojo (or anyone else) is a good fit for for the ASF, then ASF
committers and members should be able to join that community first.
And, having joined that community, it should be a smaller step for
Dojo (or anyone else) to turn around and join the ASF.
I do think ASF members should be inviting projects to join us -- if
they are projects that we ourselves use, and if they are projects that
we can see are a good fit for the Foundation.
But, I'm not sure if we should be accepting for incubution unproven
projects with no community track record and no prexisting ASF
participants. There are other hosts where a project can get started,
and when that project grows up and proves itself as a collaborative
entity, then that's a good time to come join the ASF.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
> On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, 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.
>
> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal
because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection
once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an
architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only
made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on,
because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration.
> Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive
> IMHO...
Pay attention to the details.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 23.12.2005, at 00:23, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
>> On 21.12.2005, at 21:57, 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.
>>
>> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
>> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
>
> Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
> and I do have a vote here. In any case, I objected to the proposal
> because it was empty of significant content, and removed by objection
> once it was filled. I did not prevent them from working on an
> architecture that I still believe to be a waste of time -- I only
> made sure that they all agreed on what they wanted to work on,
> because I think that is a minimum for any collaboration.
That's all fine and to be honest I didn't expect a detailed answer to
my exaggerated question - what I wanted to show is that your
authoritative sounding reply to Ted did contain a very conflictive
view and I think that might confuse a lot of people:
>>> You don't have the right to tell other people what they can or
>>> cannot do at the ASF.
vs.
>>> 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.
Maybe I'm too picky or this is a language thing, not sure - just
wanted to point that out.
>> Sorry, I may be a pain in the ass, but that's all very conflictive
>> IMHO...
>
> Pay attention to the details.
I do.
Cheers,
Erik
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:57 PM, 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.
I understand how the rules currently work. I don't agree that they
are working well for us.
>
>>>> 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.
No, I remember, and I wouldn't choose to go back to those days.
>
>>> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from
the incubator, after being there for about a year. As member of
the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask
whether what we have is working for the foundation or not.
Ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 21:19 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I was the mentor and co-sponsor for XMLBeans, which graduated from
> the incubator, after being there for about a year. As member of
> the incubator PMC, I feel that it is part of my responsibility to ask
> whether what we have is working for the foundation or not.
+1.
I too am on the incubator PMC and am mentoring 2 projects: Woden and
Synapse.
With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one
helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not
everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that
not contributing to infra reduces Ted's or my contributions to the
foundation or the incubator.
I care a lot about the future of ASF and I have lots of concerns about
the incubation process and what it means to the ASF. I will pick up that
discussion on the members list.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:21:47PM -0800, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> 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.
This comes out of the two part 'mission' of the Incubator:
- Deal with legal issues around a codebase to certify 'cleanliness'
- Build a community that can stand on its own in 'The Apache Way'
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.)
However, 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. We *want* these projects to grow and to become
full-fledged ASF projects capable of making decisions on their own. How
would they be created without the "Apache" name there in the first place?
There aren't going to be full-fledged projects and communities that just
walk in the door and become versed in our way with the quick blessing or a
nod. If that were the case, they don't have any need for the ASF. They
can stay where they are.
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. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:43:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> With a lot of due respect Roy, I think the argument that unless one
> helps with infra one does not have a right to belly-ache is absurd. Not
> everyone is infra-savvy and/or infra-interested. I refuse to accept that
> not contributing to infra reduces Ted's or my contributions to the
> foundation or the incubator.
I believe that misses Roy's point: it's not about infra - it's about
dictating an individual's effort towards or against a particular project.
The ASF has never been about telling someone else what to do. The comments
that are being made in this thread are along the lines of "I know better
than you and you shouldn't work on this project because I think it's bad or
XYZ is better." That is not who we are or are about: you can not make that
value decision for anyone else.
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.
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. The project *they* believe
in deserves the institutional support of the Foundation. We can not be
second-guessing people's motives as to why they believe it's a good idea.
Cynics like me are the *worst* possible judges of what's cool and what's
not. 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?
To do so is to bang our collective heads on the wall: closing our borders
is to forget where we came from and why we're here at all. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On 12/23/05, Justin Erenkrantz < justin@...> wrote:
<snip>
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.
IMO this highlights one of the problems: ATM pmc's do not need to commit to
anything other than a vague promise that they'll consider accepting the
podling after graduation. if they decide that they don't want the podling
then they can just ask that it becomes a TLP. so, voting +1 has no cost to
the pmc.
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.
- robert
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
>>
>> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
>> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
>
> Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
> and I do have a vote here.
It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested
in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote
on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's
concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good
or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
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?
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
|
Re: Is the incubator out of control?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
>>
>>> So nobody has the right but you do? Or how can your smack-down of
>>> the Tuscany proposal be interpreted?
>>
>> Because Tuscany was proposed to the incubator PMC (not another PMC)
>> and I do have a vote here.
>
> It's interesting to note that if Dims would have, as he suggested
> in one of his Email messages, to simply have the WS PMC vote
> on the proposal as is, and it would have passed it, Roy's
> concerns would have been totally moot. So no matter how good
> or vague the proposal, if voted on by a PMC, it's allowed.
A bunch of hypotheticals in there.
If the WS-PMC had voted to approve a proposal that was "empty of
significant content", then I would question the viability of that PMC.
But as it is, that never happened. A draft proposal was created, it was
reviewed by others, updated, and the objection based on lack of content
was dropped. That could very well have happened in the WS PMC as well
as here.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
|
smime.p7s (3K) 