incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:30:13 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: ant elder <>
>> To:
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>>>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>>>> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
>>>> component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
>>>> everyone seems fine with that out come, and only 2 of the 7 proposed
>>>> committers are not existing Validator or ASF committers - so couldn't
>>>> this just go straight to commons as a code grant and make the two new
>>>> guys committers in recognition of contibuting the new code?
>>> I raised this on private@commons and reported back to dev@commons on
>>> that discussion here:
>>> In summary though, there was very little support to go that route and
>>> some objections.
>>> All commons components share the same set of mailing lists which makes
>>> it easier for PMC members to provide oversight for the 30+ components
>>> that live there. As part of this proposal we want to use the commons
>>> mailing lists for commits and discussion so that by the time this
>>> podling is ready to graduate the new committers and Commons PMC will
>>> have a better knowledge of each other and there will be no issue with
>>> voting in the new committers.
>>> The use of the commons mailing lists is in the proposal and was part
>>> of the vote held on dev@commons to sponsor this incubation effort:
>>> Niall
>> From the first email referenced was Roman ever asked if he'd mind
>> submitting patches for a while to earn Karma if the code did go
>> straight to commons? Seems a bit a of a shame to need to go the whole
>> incubation process just for one commit access.
>> Re the the poddling use the existing commons mailing lists its may be
>> worth pointing out this recent thread:
> Commons is badly busted if it can't allow a new person access to his/her
> own code in a fucking sandbox.  Incubating this project because some weenies are
> uncomfortable about the nature of the meritocracy over in commons isn't the solution:
> have commons hold a public vote and make an actual decision.  If they vote to
> incubate the damned thing, it's an incredibly stupid decision, but so be it.

Hey Joe, the language could be toned down a bit, but I see your
point.  On the other hand, here is the problem as I see it.

In Commons, like other non-Incubator projects, we welcome new
contributors and encourage them to get involved in the community and
stick around long enough to earn ASF commit.  When people show up
with significant patches, we ask them to file CLAs before we commit
their code and if the contribution is "big" (not precisely defined,
but we have been able to agree in all cases), we ask for a software
grant and go through Incubator IP clearance.  We have several
examples of people showing up with large amounts of code, engaging
in the community and contributing patches to their own and other
code and earning commit that way.  This has worked for us in the
past and is consistent with how things are supposed to work - at
least as I understand it - at the ASF, outside of the Incubator.  If
we have changed our (ASF) view on what it means to become a
committer, then maybe we are behind the times in Commons.  That
would be somewhat ironic, since in the Jakarta days we were
regularly accused of having too low a bar for commit.

What we would have no problem at all with is following the process
described above - just do IP clearance / code grant for the code and
let the non-ASF committers earn commit.  This does not take forever
and is not as terrible as some seem to think it is.  I can't recall
a single "failure" (someone getting discouraged and giving up) and
several successes over the past 6 years.

I understand that in the Incubator people get commit immediately and
that makes it easier for both them and the mentors.  As I understand
it, part of the reason we have the Incubator is so that people who
have no experience with the ASF and have not earned merit can both
gain experience and demonstrate merit in a "mentored" environment.
The mentoring and graduation requirements ensure that when projects
graduate, their committers have earned full ASF commit.

It could be that I have this wrong and just arriving with a lump of
code that a project wants to incorporate is enough to earn ASF
commit outside the Incubator nowadays.  If we collectively agreed to
that and I missed the conversation, then I apologize for the late
protest.  I honestly can't believe that we did agree to that; however.

Note that this has nothing to do with expectations about who will
succeed, who will not - it is about meritocracy being based on
publicly earned merit. Good code is good and if unencumbered we can
commit it to our projects.  Good people interested in open
development make good committers and these we can include in our ASF
committer community. It is our collective responsibility to give as
many people as possible the opportunity to succeed in becoming
committers; but they have to do more than just produce good code to
earn commit.

If we want to extend the Incubator function to work within projects,
I am OK with that. That could be the right way to deal with
situations such as this - though in this particular case, I still
think just software grant/earn commit is best - and it could take
some load off of the Incubator PMC. The role of the "sponsoring PMC"
would then become in loco Incubator. I am open to this, but need to
understand better how exactly it would work.


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

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

View raw message