Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mail@leosimons.com designates
 216.218.185.16 as permitted sender)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:33:43 -0800
From: Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Message-ID: <20060317173343.GF16754@bali.sjc.webweaving.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com>,
	general@incubator.apache.org, activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org,
	dev@geronimo.apache.org
References: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPKEIJHBAC.noel@devtech.com>
 <4418CD3C.60502@toolazydogs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4418CD3C.60502@toolazydogs.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i

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
> 
>