From general-return-56535-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Aug 3 22:29:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C7FC419CE0 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57524 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2016 22:29:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 57337 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2016 22:29:35 -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 57326 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2016 22:29:35 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 22:29:35 +0000 Received: from hw10447.local (207.155.208.210.ptr.us.xo.net [207.155.208.210]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 23F321A008C for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <57A2704D.7050201@apache.org> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 18:29:33 -0400 From: Josh Elser User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: On Fluo (was Re: [CANCEL][VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)) References: <57A0FB3C.5070402@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John D. Ament wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:57 PM Josh Elser wrote: > >> - I think there is a very fair point brought up by Craig/Justin/John at >> the gray line between "Apache Fluo" and "fluo.io". However, I will say >> that I do *not* think this is remotely close to the level that we've >> seen in other TLPs as of late (will avoid explicit finger-pointing). >> That said, I think the outcome that the PPMC has came to on their own as >> next steps is healthy (see dev@fluo list). I also plan to address why >> some of these software tools which were developed in tandem with Fluo >> (pre-Apache) were not included with the original incubation proposal (I >> hadn't realized they were listed on the website as they were). I would >> venture most are unintentional omissions as the website came verbatim >> from pre-Apache fluo. The podling has already been responsive to my >> nit-picks on ASF and Incubator branding requests that I put forth to them. >> > > You have to remember, the incubator is focused on getting projects ready > for TLP. These issues tend to become more noticeable. Yes, completely understood. >> - One thing that initially worried me is that a software release was >> being -1'd over podling branding (the later concession to separate the >> topics did make me happy). Proper branding for podlings, especially ones >> that have a pre-Apache life, is obviously tricky to do well and cycles >> of the review are inevitable. However, given how difficult creating >> properly-licensed ASF releases is, should branding concerns be lumped >> into release votes? Is there another mechanism by which we as IPMC can >> give feedback to podlings at a time which they are not already stressed >> trying to make a software release? >> > > There's certain things that block graduation, and things that block > releases. As far as I'm concerned, branding issues did not block this > release. Also please note that -1's on releases aren't vetoes. If you get > enough +1's it'll pass. Yes, I do remember that they are majority votes. Because I've worked with most of the PPMC members before, I'm well aware that they take to heart the severity of getting a -1 from anyone. > An issue where pre-apache releases were not properly labeled on the > podlings the website caused me to vote a -1. Granted, the issue turned > into a branding problem. Upon closer inspection, looking at fluo, their > readme raised a few red flags from my point of view. I was trying to > figure out when they went for a full release (not just a pom file) what was > going to be involved. Upon looking at > https://github.com/apache/incubator-fluo/blob/master/README.md I > incorrectly got the impression that the only way to use fluo was to use > tools not developed at the ASF. This is a big red flag. This turned into > a really bad discussion over the use of fluo.io. Thanks for the great synopsis. Your attention to detail is obviously appreciated and I wholly understand where your concern came from. I know the PPMC is already making positive steps here (their mailing list and the further chatter on the failed VOTE thread). >> I'm reminded of John's >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BrandingAuditJune2016 which was a >> great high-level insight across podlings. Are branding-audits something >> that mentors could drive with their PPMC directly with shepherds/IPMC >> bringing their concerns directly to the PPMC/metnors (to avoid licensing >> becoming entangled with branding)? IPMC would obviously still have the >> ability to escalate things in very heinous situations, but -1'ing >> releases for website issues doesn't sit right with me presently (I'm >> happy to be taught otherwise, too). >> > > Yes, I would love to see mentors push their podlings forward, and perhaps > even maintain this going forward. > Cool. I'll have to put some more thought into this as I'll have a few other podlings under my belt which I should be paying as close attention to their branding as you did. Thanks again for your attention, John. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org