Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=3rJRDxvmqxFgvQNvaWu4p8YQCe56MNqWYbgB+t/MdbyG7T2Ns6w74CwBtNpkeDcjJmeAPuVaUFKWtKxNNOFnkU0cR1VvPmUM8nZmHtjmz0kHTGzPDo4Vqk5cHKjossIOv9tvFh/89AZOmMHPwedkxtvxFonD0VwC33LwHSRvCKg=;
Message-ID: <524921.19179.qm@web54401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <4B219CE4.2050404@apache.org>
  <71235db40912102306m57d3f7e7n29251c529851318b@mail.gmail.com>
  <71e1b5740912102356u71fd69a4t3e3df732eadb557d@mail.gmail.com>
  <55afdc850912110156m70e2cc6ew9b6409b1379d48d9@mail.gmail.com>
 <71e1b5740912110222x77e82d21ic890717a81c6b923@mail.gmail.com>
 <291627.74213.qm@web54402.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4B3B9C35.7090405@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:00:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4B3B9C35.7090405@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

----- Original Message ----

> From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
> 
> 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:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
> point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.
> 
> In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
> contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
> stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
> with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
> their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
> but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
> grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
> examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
> in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
> code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
> past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
> least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
> we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
> committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
> would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
> regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.
> 
> What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
> described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
> let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
> and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
> a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
> several successes over the past 6 years.
> 
> I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
> that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
> it, part of the reason we have the Incubator is so that people who
> have no experience with the ASF and have not earned merit can both
> gain experience and demonstrate merit in a "mentored" environment.
> The mentoring and graduation requirements ensure that when projects
> graduate, their committers have earned full ASF commit.

I seriously doubt mentors take their role that seriously, otherwise
we wouldn't have so many long-term residents of the Incubator.

> 
> It could be that I have this wrong and just arriving with a lump of
> code that a project wants to incorporate is enough to earn ASF
> commit outside the Incubator nowadays.  If we collectively agreed to
> that and I missed the conversation, then I apologize for the late
> protest.  I honestly can't believe that we did agree to that; however.
> 
> Note that this has nothing to do with expectations about who will
> succeed, who will not - it is about meritocracy being based on
> publicly earned merit. Good code is good and if unencumbered we can
> commit it to our projects.  Good people interested in open
> development make good committers and these we can include in our ASF
> committer community. It is our collective responsibility to give as
> many people as possible the opportunity to succeed in becoming
> committers; but they have to do more than just produce good code to
> earn commit.
> 
> If we want to extend the Incubator function to work within projects,
> I am OK with that. That could be the right way to deal with
> situations such as this - though in this particular case, I still
> think just software grant/earn commit is best - and it could take
> some load off of the Incubator PMC. The role of the "sponsoring PMC"
> would then become in loco Incubator. I am open to this, but need to
> understand better how exactly it would work.
> 
> Phil

I'm not looking to extend the Incubator even in the smallest way.  To me
the Incubator is a necessary evil, and not entirely a positive thing for
the ASF.  That it seems to be functional on some level is good enough for
the time being- at least we're back to graduating projects again.

Where I disagree with your outlook is in the relative meaning of granting
someone commit.  To me it's just giving someone the full set of tools and
the right (conditional on peer review) to make changes to a codebase.  Each
community can and should make their own determination on what additional
meaning they wish to impart to committership, but communities need to be
flexible, not rigid, in how they make those determinations.

In the case of a codebase being contributed to commons that the commons
community knows they can make use of,  there is no harm in giving the
developers of that code early commit rights to a sandbox by applying a
different standard than commons might usually apply to a typical contributor.
If you are concerned about the possibility that things don't work out,
although it almost never happens commit privs *can* be revoked by a project.

The Incubator is for training projects, not for mentoring individuals,
and since the primary concern here is the future activities of a few
developers I think it's best to not involve the Incubator in any oversight
of that.  The new Community Development PMC may be able to provide a framework
for a formal mentoring relationship that commons could use in this case.


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