geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:08:27 GMT
There are some good ideas in here.  Though I don't see Alan complaining.

I do see that Alan did compiled a list (STATUS file), pointed to it,  
and sent the list out to people asking for feedback and discussion.

Seems like a positive start.

-David

On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Leo Simons wrote:

> Alan,
>
> Incubation is something incubating communities have to do, and  
> something
> incubating communities are responsible for. Those communities get some
> help and guidance from their mentors and the people on the
> general@incubator mailing list, but never enough since most of  
> those people
> are volunteers with other things to do with their free time.
>
> (...)
>
> What is not fair is casting aside a few months of e-mail and face- 
> to-face
> history of various people trying to help with this incubation  
> thing, stamp
> your feet once every few weeks, and demand that people go and make a
> specific list of specific tasks you need to do. This is now the  
> third time
> I've seen you do this and it is the third time I'm telling you this  
> is not
> how it works.
>
> (...)
>
> Here's a list of things to do (subjectively, none of these are easy):
>
>  * stop complaining. Right now. It is not fair.
>
>  * compile your own list, try to make it as extensive as possible.
>    mail-archives.apache.org is your friend, people have spent hundreds
>    of hours writing hundreds of e-mails to explain this to you and to
>    those that came before you.
>
>  * send the list out to people (like general@incubator) for feedback
>    and discussion.
>
>  * work to address the list.
>
>  * keep a record of this work.
>
>  * point to the record (STATUS file).
>
>  * spend time explaining concisely in a format processable by humans
>    during a concall, what is in this record, what changed, etc, and
>    send this in time when Noel asks for a report for the board  
> meeting.
>
>  * look back on this process and document what you learned so others
>    can benefit from it.
>
> The idea that ActiveMQ as a community (not the software, I have no
> clue about the software) is ready to leave the incubator, is well,
> awkward. The very fact that there are long e-mail threads like this
> everytime I look at general@incubator should be enough indication that
> it is not.
>
> LSD
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:28:12PM -0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns
>>>> that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others.
>>>
>>
>> At the moment, only Dims has taken the time to enumerate a list of
>> concerns.  Henri and the others have provided well thought out  
>> points on
>> the definition of umbrella projects and whether AMQ should be a  
>> TLP or
>> subproject; these not really being impediments to graduation but the
>> necessary discourse about the final disposition of AMQ when it  
>> graduates
>> that I was looking for when I initially sent out my email.
>>
>>>> You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that  
>>>> it has a
>>>> long way to go before it's ready for that.  Can you enumerate what
>>>> remains, aside from the infrastructure issues
>>>>
>>>
>>> See my reply to Dain.  And I do feel that some of it does come  
>>> down to
>>> being
>>> able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the
>>> community really does "get it" regarding ASF principles and  
>>> practices.  And
>>> that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the
>>> Incubator.
>>>
>>
>> There are a number of definitions for the word "subjective".  If
>> subjective means that your concerns may be peculiar to yourself,  
>> can you
>> not explicitly state what you'd like to see?  If you are unable to
>> communicate what those are, we may not unable to address them.  Is  
>> that
>> fair to the AMQ community?
>>
>>>> If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land
>>>> as a sub-project
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of  
>>> that comes
>>> down to the landing PMC.  I do have a concern an issue of fairness.
>>>
>>> Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including "We've more  
>>> or less
>>> been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already."  So  
>>> if we have
>>> some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of  
>>> another TLP
>>> within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that  
>>> community to
>>> lose their decision making ability?  I would say not, so are they  
>>> going to
>>> be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for  
>>> them to
>>> have binding votes?
>>>
>>> This is a generic issue.  I would have to cross-reference in  
>>> detail the PMC
>>> and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to  
>>> this case.
>>> I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> and are not part of Geronimo.  Is Geronimo prepared to welcome  
>>> them as
>>> Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC?
>>>
>>> Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins.
>>>
>>> 	
>>
>> If I take away the list of infrastructure issues, I only see the  
>> need to
>> have a thorough discussion as to where AMQ will land when it  
>> graduates.
>> Once this settles down and we, hopefully, reach a consensus we  
>> will be
>> ready to vote, imho.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message