incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Problem with commit rights on Celtixfire
Date Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:45:03 GMT
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.

On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people  
> from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can  
> you also explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on  
> the dev list so far? And why I have only heard about the final  
> decision third hand from this email and an offhand mention in Bo's  
> email? I am OK with the PMC's authority as thats what I signed up  
> for at Apache, but I feel that if they make such an important  
> decision as this they should at least communicate the above.
> - Dan
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
>> and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
>> to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
>> podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
>> PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
>> increasing the community.
>> I would recommend that anyone who does not have
>> commit privs but feel they should, to send Email to
>> the dev list with url pointers to patches, etc
>> which serve to indicate the work they've done.
>> As for any "internal" discussions which may or may not
>> have been going on, let me also state that it is
>> really against the ASF to make any sort of development
>> decisions behind closed door, but that occasionally
>> PMCs do need to talk privately within themselves,
>> and any leaking of that information is considered
>> a VERY bad thing to do.
>> On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>>> Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator   
>>> project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and   
>>> myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our  
>>> names  were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I are  
>>> working on  Redhat related projects and see a lot of potential  
>>> collaboration  possibilities with Celtixfire.
>>> At the formation of the project all members of the group were  
>>> asked  to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail- 
>>> mail.  However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they  
>>> hadn't  turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the start  
>>> of  September, the ICLAs were acknowledged and we were told our   
>>> commiter status was in the works. However, despite several  
>>> follow  up emails, commiter status was not given and no answer  
>>> for the  delay provided.
>>> Yesterday we learnt that there has been some internal decision  
>>> to  limit the number of commiters and not take into account the  
>>> listed  individuals on the initial commiters list. Is this  
>>> normal  procedure? Have we been waiting 2 months based on false   
>>> assumptions? We believed that, as supporters of the submission,  
>>> we  had already gone through the process of arguing who should,  
>>> or  should not, be an initial commiter, so to be presented with  
>>> a  different result (and one which appears to have been  
>>> conducted  behind closed doors) is frustrating.
>>> Clearly this is not a case of "piling on", as joining the  
>>> project  was discussed with the project submitters prior to the  
>>> formation of  the group. Something seems wrong here; if there was  
>>> no intention of  adding us (and perhaps others we don't know  
>>> about) as initial  commiters, why did the project submitter  
>>> include us? On what basis  where these accounts not set up? Is  
>>> random denial of initial  commiters typical?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>> -- 
>>> Director of Standards, Development Manager, JBoss (a Division of   
>>> Redhat).
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> -- 
> Dan Diephouse
> (616) 971-2053
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message