Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 39070 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2010 14:35:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 12 Aug 2010 14:35:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 59138 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2010 14:35:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 59001 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2010 14:35:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 58990 invoked by uid 99); 12 Aug 2010 14:35:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:35:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of c1vamsi1c@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.54] (HELO mail-qw0-f54.google.com) (209.85.216.54) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:35:16 +0000 Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so1795762qwg.13 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Sn9EcCPiewsPLQLn14rdd/cp5AePZND5GCI6493Z52o=; b=hwVQ4c/RDvfkVNR26kE05FDz8nYqarYqx3Z3Xl4/zgelsDKmxwG0JmS7zwTBAL8U79 rWD1S2opyiOb2eNMHre56/L1a39lMkPRtqSpZJ9HzrI5seTtTbPxj+hWwHS/ew2XitzP 72DDmQctv/EbO2u1UhxdedNxarnq2KzxL8Qew= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=UW6xB3rt0YJscMb8Q83b52eemKwqzgYM9481+fEB4bQnGd2MJ9Ex/DSPqXInmvtfct ijEfeoi5xs9O61vMICYOOzKWMzeYhhKoJNpF5RJ6pA3M+tMkB8CkQE+P/M/V5Lbi+YEe S2qPCqyAf8TiDEgLgs4FlrWA8VCnmRfqlmx6U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.237.199 with SMTP id kp7mr249695qcb.8.1281623695107; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.249.66 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:34:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:04:54 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy for granting access to Geronimo TCK materials From: Vamsavardhana Reddy To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64b02d815252a048da1452d --0016e64b02d815252a048da1452d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I agree on dropping the waiting period. On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > All, > Our policy for granting access to the Geronimo TCK test harness is > described here -- > https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-project-policies.html#GeronimoProjectPolicies-AccesstoTCK > > The policy describes a 72 hour waiting period when granting non-Geronimo > committers read-only access to our TCK test harness. This period was > intended to allow the Geronimo PMC time to provide oversight on these > requests. Presumably, a PMC member could block someone's request (though > this has never occurred and I can't, frankly, imagine a case where we would > block someone's request). If we had our preference, our TCK test harness > would not be in a private svn. It would instead be publicly readable by all. > > I would like to remove the 72 hour waiting period from our policy. If an > ASF committer requests access to our test harness, I believe we should grant > this access immediately. > > The 72 hour waiting period might have been more meaningful when the > Geronimo project maintained and distributed the Sun (now Oracle) TCK. As a > reminder, these materials are obtained via an agreement between the ASF and > Sun/Oracle. To gain access to these materials, an ASF committer must sign an > NDA. We still maintain/distribute the Sun/Oracle TCK for Java EE 5. However, > the JCP project is maintaining the newer TCK materials. The JCP does not > have a waiting period for granting access to the JCP maintained TCK > materials. > > Comments? Objections? If I don't hear any objections, I'll plan on updating > our policy and removing the 72 hour window... > > --kevan -- Vamsi --0016e64b02d815252a048da1452d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree on dropping the waiting period.

O= n Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wr= ote:
All,
Our policy for granting access to the Geronimo TCK test harness is describe= d here -- https://c= wiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-project-policies.html#GeronimoProjectPoli= cies-AccesstoTCK

The policy describes a 72 hour waiting period when granting non-Geronimo co= mmitters read-only access to our TCK test harness. This period was intended= to allow the Geronimo PMC time to provide oversight on these requests. Pre= sumably, a PMC member could block someone's request (though this has ne= ver occurred and I can't, frankly, imagine a case where we would block = someone's request). If we had our preference, our TCK test harness woul= d not be in a private svn. It would instead be publicly readable by all.
I would like to remove the 72 hour waiting period from our policy. If an AS= F committer requests access to our test harness, I believe we should grant = this access immediately.

The 72 hour waiting period might have been more meaningful when the Geronim= o project maintained and distributed the Sun (now Oracle) TCK. As a reminde= r, these materials are obtained via an agreement between the ASF and Sun/Or= acle. To gain access to these materials, an ASF committer must sign an NDA.= We still maintain/distribute the Sun/Oracle TCK for Java EE 5. However, th= e JCP project is maintaining the newer TCK materials. The JCP does not have= a waiting period for granting access to the JCP maintained TCK materials.<= br>
Comments? Objections? If I don't hear any objections, I'll plan on = updating our policy and removing the 72 hour window...

--kevan



--
Vamsi
--0016e64b02d815252a048da1452d--