incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Müller <michael.muel...@mueller-bruehl.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:24:31 GMT
GJ,

regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.
-- 
Herzliche Grüße, Best regards
Michael Müller

Twitter: @muellermi
Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de
Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf
Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas


Am 23. September 2016 07:50:53 MESZ, schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>:
>Hi all,
>
>Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list
>thanks
>to meeting John Ament this afternoon.
>
>The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the
>list
>will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
>be
>contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list
>will
>need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
>that
>could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
>in
>the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors
>list is
>automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list
>after
>the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors
>list
>and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end
>of
>the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those
>who
>haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not
>be
>removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
>incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.
>
>I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
>whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
>misunderstood.
>
>If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
>contributors
>list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
>assessment.
>
>The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto
>the
>initial contributors list:
>
>1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or
>so
>who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
>initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as
>at
>least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
>Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin
>to
>the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not
>sure
>how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I
>estimate
>potentially around 20.
>
>2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past
>6
>months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
>contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
>their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
>functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
>NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
>available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the
>plugin
>authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided
>by
>developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
>their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
>useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
>Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of
>Apache
>NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
>example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who
>have
>worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
>contributors from this category number at least about 20.
>
>3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the
>past
>and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
>Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration,
>as
>well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
>NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several
>more.
>In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.
>
>4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating
>in
>this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
>NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases
>where
>there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the
>above
>categories.
>
>5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the person Roman was
>referring to earlier, and anyone who volunteers after we send a few
>e-mails
>to the various NetBeans mailing lists.
>
>6. A final point about "intent" and "interest" in John Ament's mail
>above.
>There are two types of these -- those that are definitely going to be
>contributing because their software depends on NetBeans, e.g.,
>Microchip's
>MPLAB X is an IDE on top of NetBeans IDE, and the related developers
>have a
>very strong interest in committing themselves to Apache NetBeans. I
>propose
>we do keep this category of people in the initial contributors list,
>which
>is why I put them there initially -- they are different to someone who
>may
>have a vague idea about one day maybe contributing. This may seem a
>strange
>category and the argument could be made that they should only be added
>once
>they actually contribute during incubation. For this category, however,
>since their interest is so strong and visceral because their business
>literally depends on NetBeans, we keep them in the initial contributors
>list and, in the unlikely event that they do not actually contribute
>during
>incubation, we remove them at the time incubation completes and TPL is
>attained.
>
>Thanks and hope the above covers everything. At the end, we could have
>about 100 additional people on the initial contributors list, though
>that
>is a very rough estimate. I do believe the above can be done quite
>quickly
>though and will be complete by the time the infra assessment is done.
>
>Looking forward to feedback!
>
>Geertjan
>
>
>
>On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:30 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>> I spoke with Geertjan this afternoon.  We both happened to be at the
>same
>> popular java conference in San Francisco.  I did give him some advice
>on
>> the current initial contributors list.  Basically two notes:
>>
>> - Add new members based on merit, not because prior to joining they
>are
>> interested.  The way he explained it to me, many of the initial
>committers
>> are interested in giving back to Netbeans.  They aren't able to due
>to the
>> licensing model from Oracle but are willing to under Apache.  This
>doesn't
>> mean they will or will not contribute, but there is an intent.  It
>may be
>> better to add them to the project as they begin contributing.
>>
>> - Ensure that everyone who has contributed to Netbeans in the past is
>aware
>> and eligible to be a contributor.  There may be past employees who
>want to
>> still give back.  Or even present employees who are now working on
>other
>> projects.  They shouldn't necessarily be excluded from the list
>because
>> they don't currently work on Netbeans right now.
>>
>> I do see some issues for the project if they miss people from the
>list.
>> Voting in committers can be seen as a pain, especially if it is a
>> potentially large list (I'm fairly certain that the initial
>committers list
>> here is the largest of any project so far at Apache).
>>
>> I also want to make sure that the infra assessment is done before
>voting
>> starts, just to make sure we're all in alignment on what is being
>expected.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:28 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes
><stain@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm very convinced :-)  I think the Netbeans proposal is ready for
>a
>> > [VOTE]!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22 September 2016 at 13:57, Wade Chandler
><consult@wadechandler.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sep 22, 2016, at 08:27, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote on 9/22/16 1:43 AM:
>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>> > roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what
>would be
>> a
>> > criteria
>> > >>>> to be added as a committer after the project enters
>incubation?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Projects decision.
>> > >>
>> > >> Exactly so.  This would be a podling just like every other
>podling,
>> and
>> > >> the IPMC would expect the PPMC to start operating like an Apache
>> > >> project.  That is, when new people come to the podling and
>contribute
>> > >> work, and help the work of the podling, that after a time the
>PPMC
>> will
>> > >> discuss them, then vote them in as new committers.
>> > >>
>> > >> Past merit (i.e. past contributions) is a great help to a new
>> > >> contributor to a project, both because it's easier to get
>started, and
>> > >> because the community already has a feel for how they act and
>can
>> help.
>> > >> But it in no way IMO directly leads to current merit.  Old
>> contributors
>> > >> normally would be voted in as committers only once they actually
>start
>> > >> doing new work on the project.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps we need to clarify what you mean by “old contributor” …
>Do you
>> > mean those currently contributing to the imported project, those
>who have
>> > contributed at some time in the past, but not in X days/months, or
>anyone
>> > not on the initial committer list? If the latter, then why would
>this be
>> > true for a current OSS project coming to ASF? If this is exactly
>the
>> case,
>> > then more emphasis is put on the initial committer list IMO, and
>that
>> seems
>> > an unnecessary distraction, and an artificial limit, but if it must
>be
>> that
>> > way it must, and if not, then great, but please clarify.
>> > >
>> > > I ask this because I recently contributed some things for Groovy
>> > support, and intend to work quite a bit on those features. I have
>> > contributed quite a bit to the form (UI editor), J2EE, and Java SE
>> modules
>> > in the past. I don’t want to suddenly be hindered just because the
>> project
>> > moves to the ASF where I have to “start over”; I have invested
>quite a
>> > number of years into NetBeans and it’s community.
>> > >
>> > >> On Sep 22, 2016, at 07:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes
><stain@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to
>show
>> > >> you really mean open development, and that it's not just
>business as
>> > >> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Understood, but the impression still has to be on the community
>all the
>> > rules of merit apply regardless of perception. I have faith Gj and
>many I
>> > know on that initial list will make sure anyone who has made solid
>code
>> > contributions to NB, who also want to contribute in the ASF, will
>be fast
>> > tracked per prior NB community decisions. We are operating off this
>> > assumption now; community and Oracle included per my understanding.
>> > >
>> > >> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is
>(somewhat)
>> > >> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new
>intern at a
>> > >> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
>> > >> without first engaging with the whole community and earning
>merit
>> > >> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high
>or
>> > >> low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should
>be
>> > >> the same for anyone.
>> > >>
>> > > I 100% agree with this. I think it is definitely that the rules
>have to
>> > apply to everyone equally including employees of a company
>including the
>> > donor. I don’t imagine someone who falls outside categories of
>merit in
>> the
>> > current NB process now should suddenly be committers at ASF.
>Committers
>> > should be committers. Those who were well on their way to earn
>committer
>> > status should be considered, and it should be rare they are not
>promoted.
>> > Those not committing code or submitting patches now, should start
>from
>> the
>> > premise they have to earn committer rights, and the project should
>> enforce
>> > that as a minimum; merit isn’t about free trophies or we’d all have
>> > doctorates or be in the NFL or NBA :-D
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who
>were
>> > >> perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up'
>after
>> > >> being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning
>of a
>> > >> podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is
>also
>> > >> a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to
>build
>> > >> common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Sure; IMHO a sane committer of old should be a sane committer of
>new;
>> if
>> > they want to be involved. My understanding in the current NB
>processes
>> that
>> > is true now. Certainly in an OSS world people come and work as they
>can,
>> > and sometimes they can do more than other times. Sometimes they
>> necessarily
>> > have to become dormant; children, jobs, friends, life… In the NB
>> community
>> > we understand this and respect it; a work life balance.
>> > >
>> > >> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would
>hope
>> > >> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more
>openly
>> > >> invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that
>the
>> > >> whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence
>project
>> > >> decisions.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Yes, everyone on the lists “influences” the project now, but not
>> > everyone on the mailing list gets “committer” rights or the same
>> influence;
>> > even in Apache projects that I have seen. We have a merit based
>process
>> for
>> > that now. In the ASF us non-Oracle employee committers should then
>gain a
>> > higher level of influence as it becomes community driven versus
>single
>> > entity driven; we certainly have to step up though! … like
>Spiderman’s
>> > Uncle Ben said … great power; great responsibility.
>> > >
>> > > My assumption or expectation perhaps is roughly (and I imagine it
>will
>> > be close) 1) if you were a committer to NB, per its already
>existing
>> rules,
>> > then you are in 2) if you were already submitting patches to “show
>you
>> know
>> > what you are doing” per the current rules, then you are in 3) if
>you were
>> > not an active contributor, then you have to step up and show merit.
>This
>> > essentially models the current NB process, and per my involvement
>with
>> > different Apache projects over the years, is roughly like a lot of
>them.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Wade
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ===================
>> > >
>> > > Wade Chandler
>> > > e: consult@wadechandler.com
>> > >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>> >
>> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 8-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message