incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rupert Smith" <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Statements from Qpid mentors would help me decide... [WAS Re: [VOTE] Apache Qpid Graduation as TLP]
Date Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:34:55 GMT
Hi Daniel,

Don't forget about me. I am a currently active Qpid committer and not
an employee of either RedHat
or JPMC. I am an independent consultant who operates through a company
called The Badger Sett Ltd.
and all my contributions to Qpid thus far have been completely
'legally' independent of the dominant
parties.

Seems I never made it onto the 0-10 credits page, but that is because
I have still not found the
time to fully read and provide feedback on it, as interesting as it looks.

Rupert

On Friday 21 March 2008, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Yoav
>
> I have to say I think you have given a very good analysis. I think
> that QPid has come a huge way towards Apacheness. Diversity is not as
> great as it could be but meets the Incubator criteria.

Huh?  The graduation guide says "there are at least 3 legally independent
committers" and I don't see that with Qpid.   EVERY committer (except
for the 2 mentors) on the qpid status page [1] can easily be traced to
be associated with either RedHat or JP Morgan Chase.   For example, if
you check the credits page of the AMQP 0-10 spec [2] and look at the
credits page (page xi), it associates EVERYONE on the list to either
RedHat or JPMC except for:
Jim Meyering
Marnie McCormack
Nuno Santos
And you can trace those three from:
Marnie McCormack - original qpid proposal [3]
Nuno Santos - Linked in profile [4]
Jim Meyering - Other redhad stuff [5]

Thus, with 100% of the committers directly associated with just 2
companies, I DON'T feel that it meets the Incubator criteria of 3.  Yes,
they've done a good job trying to hide their affiliations.  But the fact
remains that the affiliations are there and can be found with very
little work.   I tried to get the community to clarify the above duing
the discussions, but they didn't address it at all, or at least to my
satisfaction.

IMO, if there is even a question of diversity at all, that warrants a -1.
>From my experience, there isn't a compelling reason to speed them out of
the incubator if there is a question like this.   Lets make sure that
they CAN address the diversity issue first.  It looks like they are
working on it, which is great, but lets make sure they will follow up on
that and get it done.  That's an important part of the incubators job.

Anyway, I'd vote -1, but my vote wouldn't be binding.

Dan


[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/qpid.html
[2]
https://jira.amqp.org/confluence/download/attachments/720900/amqp.0-10.pdf?version=1
[3] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/QpidProposal
[4] http://www.linkedin.com/in/nunofsantos
[5] http://hany.sk/~hany/RPM/f-8-x86_64/qpidc-devel-0.2-5.fc7.i386.html


>
> Paul
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Yoav Shapira <yoavs@yoavshapira.com>
wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >
> >  <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Carl Trieloff
<cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >  >  At this point the Apache Qpid community with support from its
> > >  > mentors feels that
> > >  >
> >  >  >  it is ready to graduate to an official top level project at
> >  >  > Apache
> > >
> > >  but another voice asks: are they really ready today? has the IPMC
> > >
> >  >  fully equipped them for the chanlleges ahead? do they really
> >  >  understand how to mentor new independent developers into
> >  > committers and PMCers? is the diversity sufficient to have learnt
> >  > how to have disagreements on technical matters whilst retaining
> >  > community spirit?
> >
> >  It's a hard call for me as well.  The technical bits are all there,
> >  processes followed, paperwork filed, etc.  More importantly, the
> > qpid community has been open, receptive to feedback from everyone
> > inside and outside their group, welcoming to new opinions from new
> > people, and respectful of ASF spirit, not just its letter.  There
> > are disagreements and debates on various technical matters without
> > hurting the community.  That's why I support their graduation.
> >
> >  It would have been really nice if one or two more committers from
> > new organizations had been added during the previous few months, but
> > that didn't happen.  But I don't think the fact the committers come
> > from a small set of organizations necessarily means there's no
> > diversity. And I don't want to introduce artificial requirements.
> > The "are they really ready" question is subjective by definition,
> > and it's a good one, but I still vote +1 ;)
> >
> >  Yoav
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org



-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer, IONA
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message