Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73565 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2011 11:06:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2011 11:06:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 18963 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2011 11:06:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18370 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2011 11:06:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 18362 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2011 11:06:13 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:06:13 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.82.175] (HELO mail-wy0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:06:07 +0000 Received: by wyb38 with SMTP id 38so369812wyb.6 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.128.199 with SMTP id l7mr627111wbs.45.1298545543169; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.99] (074-087-128-083.dynamic.caiway.nl [83.128.87.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i80sm3681670wej.4.2011.02.24.03.05.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:05:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D663B84.8070002@douma.nu> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:05:40 +0100 From: Ate Douma User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Rave project References: <4D62F2D2.8070400@douma.nu> <4D6564AD.1050501@rowe-clan.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24/02/11 09:49, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: >> On 2/21/2011 5:18 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >>> >>> The Apache Rave project proposal is a joined effort of Hippo, the MITRE Corporation, the >>> Open Gateway Computing Environments project (OGCE), the SURFnet SURFConext Portal project, >>> OSS Watch, and several other individuals. >> >> Keep in mind that only individuals participate at Apache, sometimes >> independently, sometimes as employees, but ASF projects are collaborations >> of developers (and docs and users, but principally of developers). This >> might be part of the reason for some [dis]quiet to the proposal.... > > Ate wrote the above in his mail but that's not part of the proposal at > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RaveProposal Indeed. I initiated a plan for a project like this back at the ApacheCON last November, seeking interest for it on several developer mailing lists, talked about it at the European OpenSocial Event last December and discussed it further at the OpenSocial 2.0 kickoff in Moutain View later that month. That triggered several representatives (developers) of the now involved organizations and projects to meetup and join the effort. The organizations behind this proposal needed to be involved as large code donations are provided so they'll have to provide the appropriate SGAs. And they'll provide the needed CCLAs for their employees involved, The reasons behind it has been discussed and explained in much detail. Everyone is well aware of the principals of meritocracy, including the fact they (as organizations) cannot and will not have formal control on the way how the project moves forward. If you really read the proposal, you'll even find explicit agreement and understanding that possibly nothing of an initial code donation may "survive" in this project. Something which will be decided by the project members (developers) themselves, not the organizations behind it. I think that statement and agreement strongly reflects everyones awareness and understanding of "how it works". For just about any Incubator project proposal there is one or more organizations involved because of the SGAs and CCLAs needed. And in this case, there are many, and much more than usual I'd say. Which I'm actually very exited about, it clearly shows their already is a strong interest, from widely different organizations and projects, none of which have direct ties to each other (yet). Large diversity and single organization independence is here right from the start! And we all are looking forward to further grow this community and its diversity. While the project will have to (learn) stand on its own, the help and support from all the organizations behind the initial members has been fabulous, making it possible to draft up this proposal in less than 2 months time and get all the needed clearances for the SGAs and CCLAs done upfront as well. I find it appropriate to honor this strong support from these organizations in my *introduction* to the proposal and say that this proposal is a joined effort on their part, as well as from all the initial members who did all the hard work. Ate > > I personally have no problem with the way companies are mentioned in > that proposal - nor with the proposal in general, for me it's just > fine as is. Thanks Bertrand. > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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