incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:21:46 GMT
I've said my peace on this issue.  If the committer(s) need mentors to help
them learn the ropes, try working with the new dev@community.apache.org list
to set up a formal arrangement.

OTOH I won't stand in the way if commons insists on incubating this effort.



----- Original Message ----
> From: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:08:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> 
> Good points, which we discussed some on the dev@commns list before asking the 
> Commons PMC to sponsor this as an Incubator project.
> 
> My concerns, were around brining in a new codebase that previously had one 
> maintainer, but not offering them committership from the beginning, which seemed 
> to follow the normal meritocracy guidelines that most PMCs follow.
> 
> If everyone feels that creating a podling for this effort is an overkill, then 
> I'd be fine going the IP clearance route, as long as the existing Apache 
> committers interested in the project are added from the start, as there doesn't 
> seem to be a vibrant community around the existing Commons Validation project 
> today.
> 
> 
> -Donald
> 
> 
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > 
> >> From: Niall Pemberton 
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 6:29:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> 
> >>>> From: ant elder To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >>>>>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev
- [1]
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its
intended
> >>>>>> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator
1.x
> >>>>>> component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
> >>>>>> everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7
proposed
> >>>>>> committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so
couldn't
> >>>>>> this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the
two new
> >>>>>> guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
> >>>>> I raised this on private@commons and reported back to dev@commons
on
> >>>>> that discussion here:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/lkyjl6gaxawspgdt
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route
and
> >>>>> some objections.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which
makes
> >>>>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
> >>>>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
> >>>>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
> >>>>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC
will
> >>>>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue
with
> >>>>> voting in the new committers.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was
part
> >>>>> of the vote held on dev@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/mqdft736b5vasezs
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Niall
> >>>>> 
> >>>> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
> >>>> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
> >>>> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
> >>>> incubation process just for one commit access.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
> >>>> worth pointing out this recent thread:
> >>>> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
> >>> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> >>> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some weenies

> 
> >> are
> >>> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't
the 
> >> solution:
> >> 
> >> Small code bases with small communities are difficult (?almost
> >> impossible?) to operate here at the ASF. Commons does OK by providing
> >> enough community and oversight to allow 30+ such small components to
> >> work here. But it relies on people taking time to keep and eye on
> >> components they have no interest in and I didn't want to jeopardize
> >> that co-operation by trying to force a decision on the sandbox. Really
> >> though, I'm not sure why you're being so abusive over this - is it
> >> really a big deal where the code sits in the subversion repository
> >> (Commons Sandbox or Incubator)?
> > 
> > Sorry it's a bit early here and I haven't had my coffee, but I did not enjoy
> > reading the discussion about this issue in the October 2009 archives of
> > private@commons.  The Incubator is near or at its limits in terms of what
> > sort of oversight it can provide to its projects, and adding to that burden
> > simply to avoid a difficult decision doesn't make much sense to me.
> > 
> >>> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote

> to
> >>> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be
it.
> >> The end result is we want this to be a "proper" (i.e. not Sandbox)
> >> Commons component - and that isn't going to happen with a completely
> >> unknown (to Commons) code base & person. It needs an incubation period
> >> - whether thats done through the Incubator or the Sandbox - so whats
> >> the big deal?
> > 
> > The big deal is in how you introduce a new person into this organization.
> > Either you're treating them as a colleague with things to learn, but with an
> > expectation that they will succeed, or you're treating them as an outsider
> > with something to prove, and an expectation that they will fail.  That is how
> > I view the distinction between doing the work as an IP clearance issue that
> > is managed entirely by commons, versus punting the project into the Incubator.
> > 
> > 
> >> Niall
> >> 
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org



      

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


Mime
View raw message