incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education (was: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion)
Date Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:11:59 GMT
Hi Greg,

I am not on either side of the debate here, but Martijn is correct in  
pointing that the formal standard was applied to *all* podlings to  
date. There's more than a few projects in the ASF that were originally  
developed in the open, with strong communities. And in those cases  
that I am aware of, no amount of reasoning from those projects would  
convince the IPMC to give them a break and just let them in. You'd  
have to sit in limbo forever until you are done with the checklist.

So I am fine if SVN incubation would result in reasonable changes in  
those incubator policies. Unless whoever was behind those policies in  
the first place will step in and object?


On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:27, Martijn Dashorst
> <> wrote:
>> Yes, *AND* ensuring legal dots are put on the i's and j's. This is
>> done through checking the release and ensuring that it is in  
>> adherence
>> to our policies which you and others have crafted. *All* podlings  
>> have
>> to ensure they have the correct licensing headers, notices and other
>> bits in place before they can graduate.
> We certainly have no intent to bring Bad Code into the ASF! In fact,
> we already know of a couple key points that we're bringing to
> legal-discuss. i.e. we're already ahead of the game by doing a review.
> We've already got all the IP collected. We've applied standard
> headers. We're using ALv2.
>> AFAIK releases done by podlings are legally more sound than
>> established projects at Apache. Do you consider that a bad thing?
> We have no release planned for the timeframe that I believe we will be
> within the Incubator. To force one does not make sense, as I've
> stated.
>> What strikes me is that because the SVN project has many old boys
>> network guys on board, somehow the policy to what all podlings are
>> subjected to is no longer valid?
> That is just an unfair and unfounded accusation.
>> Have an incubator release? (nah, we are better at releasing because  
>> we
>> have long standing members)
> Frankly: yeah. You can read my rationale when I ask for a vote. Feel
> free to vote against if you feel our waiver is unwarranted, but I do
> feel that we're quite well-experienced.
> I prefer Leo's "hey, have you checked the RAT output for svn?" than
> "you must make a release" kind of arguments. He's providing a helpful
> pointer to a tool, rather than directing us into senseless work.
>> Migrate all subscribers to the mailinglists from one legal
>> organization to another? (afaik this is legally forbidden)
> Where did you ever see that we would do that?
> Since you're already making false accusations, how about I just
> clarify for you: this has *already been discussed*. Our plan is to set
> up new lists and invite old list members to subscribe to the new one.
>> Hosting non-Apache released artifacts at Apache hardware?
> If you're referring to the older releases of Subversion? You bet. They
> are all with a compatible license. Have you ever noticed all those
> .jar files we host here at Apache? Those aren't released by us. Or how
> about the PCRE software embedded into httpd? Or that copy of Expat
> down in apr-util?
> We have already conferred with Infrastructure, and they saw no problem
> with hosting old releases on
> And all that said, since you're in an argumentative mood here... sure.
> I think that is a fair topic for consideration, and possibly for
> guidance from legal-discuss. But given license compat, I'm laying odds
> that Legal will have zero problem with it.
>> These things are/were off-limits to podlings that were established  
>> and
>> functioning outside Apache just fine. Wicket's incubation was rather
>> painful due to not being able to transfer subscribers and hosting old
>> releases and websites at Apache.
>> I'm fine with short circuiting all the red tape associated with the
>> incubator, but be warned: this will open up doors for other podlings
>> as well. When the next established open source project comes along
>> they expect (rightfully so) the same treatment as Subversion.
> Absolutely agreed. That is *precisely* why Subversion is going through
> Incubation rather than directly approaching the Board for TLP status.
> (which was discussed by the Board and by SVN)  Myself and others felt
> it would set a bad precedent, so here we are.
> Any deviation from the standard process, I intend to be asking for a
> specific waiver (much like I did before we even got here!). If
> somebody else wants to take shortcuts in the future, then they better
> have solid requests for waiving an item. But I believe that is quite
> acceptable: if there is a explainable rationale/reason for that waiver
> for any podling, then why shouldn't it be made?
> I do not intend to progress quickly by virtue of the "old boys
> network" you accuse me and the other svn people of, but simply that we
> already conform to ASF principles already. There isn't much adjustment
> needed. I'm looking at the checklist as "right. need to talk to infra
> about that. okay. need to talk to legal-discuss. file a ticket over
> there. etc". How many projects arrive already knowing the people and
> mailing lists to contact?
> Cheers,
> -g
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message