commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accept Naomi
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:05:17 GMT
On 10/30/15 8:40 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 30/10/2015 14:17, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 10/30/15 5:33 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 30/10/2015 00:42, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>> This is a VOTE to accept the code discussed in [1] and available for
>>>> review using the git commands below.  All are welcome to vote, votes
>>>> from PMC members are binding.  Assuming a positive vote, we will
>>>> execute a software grant with the authors and use the code as the
>>>> basis for a new Commons Sandbox component. 
>>>> This VOTE will close in 72 hours.  More discussion on the code and
>>>> its fit in Commons is always welcome, but please do not reply to
>>>> this thread with discussion, other than embedded justification for
>>>> negative VOTES.  Use the thread from [1] instead.
>>>> Git commands to grab the code:
>>>> git clone
>>>> git checkout gh-pages
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Phil
>>>> [1]
>>>> [ ] +1 Yes!
>>>> [ ] +0 OK...
>>>> [ ] -0 OK, but...
>>>> [X] -1 We should not do this, because...
>>> The Commons sandbox should not be used as a replacement for / way to
>>> bypass the Apache Incubator.
>> I don't see this as a case of that, as there are Commons committers
>> (self included) interested in working on this code in Commons.
> Who, exactly? I ask because the list of people from Commons who intend
> to get involved in this has a very strong influence on whether I think
> this should go via the incubator or not.

I would be one.  Dave has already contributed, so I assume he will
continue. There could be more.
> I'm a little concerned - based on the minimal input on the dev list from
> the original contributors - that this is more of a code dump than a code
> contribution.

This is partly my bad.  I had an offlist exchange with Norm, who
confirmed intent to continue to contribute.  I should have asked him
to post to the list.  I have consistently argued against accepting
code dumps - even from within the ASF - and I would not be
supporting this if I thought that were the case here.
>> If you and others insist, we will do the side trip through the
>> Incubator, but I do not see it as necessary, nor consistent with
>> what we have done with other code brought in through the sandbox.
> I appreciate that. I don't want to put unnecessary hurdles in the way
> but neither do I want to see essential processes (IP clearance, branding
> etc. bypassed).

AFAICT the critical thing is the software grant and the process for
that is the same, either here or in the Incubator.  I volunteered to
handle that and I will personally make sure that nothing gets
committed to Commons until the IP clearance process completes. 
Branding is a non-issue as we would just create a stock sandbox site
for the thing and use our package names, etc.  Trademarks could be a
source of other wonderful fun, which we can avoid if we agree to
change the name.  That is a separate topic though which again I will
take accountability for making sure we do not screw up.
>> For me, the litmus test on bringing externally sourced code into the
>> Sandbox (or [math] or any other component) is are there ASF
>> committers interested and willing to work on it and grow a community
>> around it.
> I set the bar higher for a new component. I'm particularly looking at
> how many ASF members (i.e. people who grok how the ASF is meant to
> operate) are involved.

Note that what I am proposing is a new *Sandbox* component if that
makes any difference to you.
>> I see the likelihood of healthy growth around the Naomi
>> code base higher starting in Commons than the Incubator.
> I tend to agree with you but, with the emphasis on the healthy aspect,
> I'd like more detail on who plans to get involved.

Valid point.
>>   I am
>> personally interested in working on this code.  There appear to be
>> others as well.  My cycles and energy for administrivia are limited,
>> so I would appreciate some flexibility on this.  On the other hand,
>> I respect alternative views and if the consensus is we have to side
>> trip through the Incubator, we will do that.
> My vote is not set in stone. More detail on who plans to be involved is
> likely to change it.

Hopefully others will chime in with interest.

> Mark
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message