incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Checkpoint on Harmony (Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation)
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:32:04 GMT
Oh, what a trip this has been.

I like consensus.  I don't like out-of-the-blue discussion-less votes on 
big issues (and Incubator graduation is a big issue).  I prefer to have 
a vote  as an unambiguous ratification of what was agreed upon beforehand.

In retrospect, it might have been procedurally more efficient, but I 
still think that having this discussion was important.  I certainly plan 
to revisit some of these topics in Incubator when the smoke has cleared 
around Harmony, whenever that is.

I agree with the motivations behind asking for a release, but disagree 
that a release is the only way to satisfy IPMC's need for information 
about the health and capability of a podling's future life as a TLP.

We've had 4 reports from the 4 mentors of the project, 3 (Stefano, Leo 
and Dims) that I would argue are "arms-length" mentors who are not as 
closely "invested" in the project as I am, and are well-known for their 
directness, honesty and openness.

I'd like to ask that those who have asked for a release to assuage 
concerns about community health and capability to please read those 3 
testaments from the mentors (ok, in Leo's case, 71 or so...) and please 
consider withdrawing your request for a release.

If we can reach consensus (with the exception of Mads who doesn't want 
to see Harmony here, and Roy for other good reasons due to my 
stupidity), I'd like to then move to the ratification vote.


Leo Simons wrote:
> Last e-mail on this for the day, promised! :-)
> Greg -- having many e-mails as threaded responses rather than a single 
> one is useful if you have nested threading and you're only interested in 
> part of a sub-sub-thread. Maybe gmail needs fixing :-P. In any case, 
> here's your overview.
> On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> I believe the active mentors (myself, Stefano, Leo and Dims) will assert
>> that the [harmony] community is healthy and very active.
> Yup.
>> We'd like to help make this as efficient a process as possible - please
>> let us know if there are any issues that will prevent a successful vote
>> by the PMC on our graduation.  If there are no un-addressed issues in
>> the next 3 days, I'd like to call a vote late on Thursday, October 19th,
>> so we can possibly be finished in time for the next Board meeting,
>> October 25th.
> Issues I saw raised:
> == should have all legal ducks in a row ==
> Check. Double check. Triple check. Pass. Best student in class.
> == should not have a language implementation at apache at all since 
> that's too big a project to fit with the rest of the ASF ==
> With a harmony/incubator hat on, I disagree with that (since the stated 
> goal of harmony is to be a language implementation!), and in any case I 
> think it shouldn't be a factor in deciding on graduation.
> With an ASF member hat on, I do continue to be concerned about the ASF 
> its ever-increasing size, but that's not something that harmony itself 
> can really address or is responsible for.
> == should have done a release ==
> I disagree with this. The release requirement is a (undocumented as 
> required!) way to gauge that a project's developer community can jump 
> through various hoops and be responsible about managing "big issue" 
> things. This community has shown so already.
> I think the fact that harmony has not done a "full release cycle" is 
> actually a healthy thing for the project. The slowdown inherent to that 
> kind of cycle for harmony will come because of needing to do TCK 
> testing, and that very TCK testing will put more requirements on the 
> project anyway than a normal ASF-style release process.
> I think the kind of release process that harmony needs to have is very 
> different from most existing ASF projects (for one, it needs a little 
> server cluster to run tests on) and that any comparisons are therefore 
> not very useful.
> == So, where are we? ==
> I don't think the "should have done a release" issue has been 
> "addressed" (since harmony hasn't done one with all the bells and 
> whistles, just snapshots). *I* don't think it needs to be addressed 
> before graduating out of the incubator, in the case of harmony. It's not 
> completely clear what "the incubator PMC" thinks about that topic (if 
> anything, this shows how hard it is for the IPMC to make up its 
> mind...we really do seem to have a pendulum opinion when it comes to 
> this stuff). Me being me, I would just call a vote and find out.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message