Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.153 as permitted sender)
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=Ffak6rMqXm9nj9LpKz+/pd5vgyoO/k4gktGaxiXbI2ejCAfhA5zOuTVBACAu//C2y2
         h1llevH/oh/E5gd9rqCTTkS+U+OCL2Wq1D0nk6MpNsU8x+yJcbYWgL15aHiuxq0N9CcO
         3ucy3wAC1nWnQuN7unmqcVgTcIrmxLGMYVuL4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <918312fe0911090627g3c315ebp695c6432a34a2f18@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6cca3db30911081725m55f979d0p50c2bc9b97b04cc5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <918312fe0911090627g3c315ebp695c6432a34a2f18@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:49:14 -0500
Message-ID: <6cca3db30911090649o3b0ed3d5lacd3ec26ac892a9a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was:
	[PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:27, Martijn Dashorst
<martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
> done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in adherence
> to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings have
> to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
> bits in place before they can graduate.

We certainly have no intent to bring Bad Code into the ASF! In fact,
we already know of a couple key points that we're bringing to
legal-discuss. i.e. we're already ahead of the game by doing a review.
We've already got all the IP collected. We've applied standard
headers. We're using ALv2.

> AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
> established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?

We have no release planned for the timeframe that I believe we will be
within the Incubator. To force one does not make sense, as I've
stated.

> What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
> network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
> subjected to is no longer valid?

That is just an unfair and unfounded accusation.

> Have an incubator release? (nah, we are better at releasing because we
> have long standing members)

Frankly: yeah. You can read my rationale when I ask for a vote. Feel
free to vote against if you feel our waiver is unwarranted, but I do
feel that we're quite well-experienced.

I prefer Leo's "hey, have you checked the RAT output for svn?" than
"you must make a release" kind of arguments. He's providing a helpful
pointer to a tool, rather than directing us into senseless work.

> Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal
> organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden)

Where did you ever see that we would do that?

Since you're already making false accusations, how about I just
clarify for you: this has *already been discussed*. Our plan is to set
up new lists and invite old list members to subscribe to the new one.

> Hosting non-Apache released artifacts at Apache hardware?

If you're referring to the older releases of Subversion? You bet. They
are all with a compatible license. Have you ever noticed all those
.jar files we host here at Apache? Those aren't released by us. Or how
about the PCRE software embedded into httpd? Or that copy of Expat
down in apr-util?

We have already conferred with Infrastructure, and they saw no problem
with hosting old releases on archive.apache.org.

And all that said, since you're in an argumentative mood here... sure.
I think that is a fair topic for consideration, and possibly for
guidance from legal-discuss. But given license compat, I'm laying odds
that Legal will have zero problem with it.

> These things are/were off-limits to podlings that were established and
> functioning outside Apache just fine. Wicket's incubation was rather
> painful due to not being able to transfer subscribers and hosting old
> releases and websites at Apache.
>
> I'm fine with short circuiting all the red tape associated with the
> incubator, but be warned: this will open up doors for other podlings
> as well. When the next established open source project comes along
> they expect (rightfully so) the same treatment as Subversion.

Absolutely agreed. That is *precisely* why Subversion is going through
Incubation rather than directly approaching the Board for TLP status.
(which was discussed by the Board and by SVN)  Myself and others felt
it would set a bad precedent, so here we are.

Any deviation from the standard process, I intend to be asking for a
specific waiver (much like I did before we even got here!). If
somebody else wants to take shortcuts in the future, then they better
have solid requests for waiving an item. But I believe that is quite
acceptable: if there is a explainable rationale/reason for that waiver
for any podling, then why shouldn't it be made?

I do not intend to progress quickly by virtue of the "old boys
network" you accuse me and the other svn people of, but simply that we
already conform to ASF principles already. There isn't much adjustment
needed. I'm looking at the checklist as "right. need to talk to infra
about that. okay. need to talk to legal-discuss. file a ticket over
there. etc". How many projects arrive already knowing the people and
mailing lists to contact?

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org