[VOTE] Graduate Tuscany as a top level project

[Simon Nash]

The recent Tuscany 1.0 release included Ode integration with an
implementation.bpel component type.  We also have experimental support
for integration with Geronimo.

In the last 2 months, 3 new committers have been added, one is in progress
as Paul has said, and one is being discussed.  Of these 5 people, one is
IBM "day job" (me), one is IBM "non-day-job", and 3 are non-IBM.

I think this clearly shows that Tuscany is focusing effort on bringing in
new committers to increase diversity, and on cross-fertilizing with other
projects.

   Simon

Paul Fremantle wrote:

> Noel
>
> There is a vote in progress on a new committer right now. Does that count?
>
> I'm certainly keen on doing integration between Synapse and Tuscany and as
> soon as I get a minute I will do it. I agree that cross-fertilization is
> good.
>
> Paul
>
> On 10/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:
>
>>Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Wouldn't the community be healthier if it focused some effort
>>>>on bringing in independent committers?
>>
>>>Its my understanding that the project is very focussed on encouraging
>>>new committers and that this is having results.
>>
>>Where?  It seems to me that if it were having results, we wouldn't be
>>having
>>this discussion.
>>
>>I am happy to hear that Tuscany is open to new developers, but if we want
>>a
>>base level of diversity, we need to actually have those new developers,
>>not
>>just be open to them.  Cross-fertilization between projects (Tuscany, Ode,
>>CXF, Synapse, ServiceMix, et al) is one way to improve diversity, as well
>>as
>>improve synergies and integration.
>>
>>        --- Noel
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>>

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

[antelder]

On 10/19/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > I think Tuscany is ready to graduate because:
> > 1) I understand it to have met the base requirements of the IPMC in
> terms
> of
> >    independent committers
>
> Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from independents?

If the bare minimum is the "3 legally independent committers" as defined in
the Incubator policy documents then Tuscany has more than the bare minimum -
and thats "active" committers. After two years in Incubation there are
inactive committers but we've been ignoring those for these graduation
discussions.

   ...ant

[antelder]

On 10/12/07, ant elder <ant.elder@...> wrote:

>
> The Tuscany podling respectfully requests the Incubator to consider its
> graduation to a Top Level Project.
>
> While incubating Tuscany has made 14(!) releases, voted in 19 new
> committers, survived conflicts, formed its PPMC, learned how to govern
> itself, resolved licensing issues and an active community continues to grow
> around Tuscany.
>
> The community vote for graduation can be found on the Tuscany dev list at:
>        http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@.../msg24675.html
>
>
> We have prepared the resolution below to be presented for consideration at
> the upcoming Board meeting.
>
> We invite everyone to vote to approve this proposal.
>
> Many thanks,
>
>    ...ant
>
> Establish the Apache Tuscany project:
>
>        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>         interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's
>         purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with
>         the creation and maintenance of open-source software that
>         simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
>         applications and provides a managed service-oriented runtime
>         based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group,
>         for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
>        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management
>         Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Tuscany Project",
>         be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the
>         Foundation; and be it further
>
>        RESOLVED, that the Apache Tuscany Project be and hereby is
>         responsible for the creation and maintenance of software
>         related to Apache Tuscany;
>         and be it further
>
>        RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Tuscany" be
>         and hereby is created, the person holding such office to
>         serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair
>         of the Apache Tuscany Project, and to have primary responsibility
>         for management of the projects within the scope of
>         responsibility of the Apache Tuscany Project; and be it further
>
>        RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
>         hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
>         Apache Tuscany Project:
>
>             Adriano Crestani            <adrianocrestani at apache dot
> org>
>             Andrew Borley               <ajborley at apache dot org>
>             Andy Grove                   <agrove at apache dot org>
>             ant elder                       <antelder at apache dot org>
>             Brady Johnson              <bjohnson at apache dot org>
>             Frank Budinsky             <frankb at apache dot org>
>             Ignacio Silva-Lepe          <isilval at apache dot org>
>             Jean-Sebastien Delfino   <jsdelfino at apache dot org>
>             kelvin goodson               <kelvingoodson at apache dot org>
>             Luciano Resende           <lresende at apache dot org>
>             Mike Edwards               <edwardsmj at apache dot org>
>             Pete Robbins                <robbinspg at apache dot org>
>             Raymond Feng              <rfeng at apache dot org>
>             Simon Laws                  <slaws at apache dot org>
>             Simon Nash                  <nash at apache dot org>
>             Venkata Krishnan          <svkrish at apache dot org>
>
>        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ant Elder
>         be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache Tuscany, to
>         serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the
>         Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until
>         death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification,
>         or until a successor is appointed; and be it further
>
>        RESOLVED, that the Apache Tuscany Project be and hereby
>         is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache
>         Incubator Tuscany podling; and be it further
>
>        RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache
>         Incubator Tuscany podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator
>         Project are hereafter discharged.
>
>

Thanks to everyone who's commented on this thread. Looks like we've come up
with words that people are happy with but we shall hold off restarting the
vote till all the discussions around minimum diversity requirements reach
more consensus.

The latest words are:

"...establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
 and maintenance of open-source software for distribution at no charge
 to the public, that simplifies the development, deployment and management
 of distributed applications built as compositions of service components.
 These components may be implemented with a range of technologies and
 connected using a variety of communication protocols. This software will
 implement relevant open standards including, but not limited to, the
 SCA and SDO standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA member section."

   ...ant

[Noel J. Bergman]

Ant Elder wrote:

> > Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from
independents?

> If the bare minimum is the "3 legally independent committers" as defined
in
> the Incubator policy documents then Tuscany has more than the bare
minimum -
> and thats "active" committers.

Can you compare those figures with Jeremy's statment:

> at this time there are only 2 committers active[2] who don't work for
> that organization, compared to 11 who do. Neither of the two
> independents are active in the core project areas of Java SCA or SDO
> (they are committing to the C++ implementation or to DAS).

and Simon Nash's:

> In the last 2 months, 3 new committers have been added, one is in progress
> as Paul has said, and one is being discussed.  Of these 5 people, one is
> IBM "day job" (me), one is IBM "non-day-job", and 3 are non-IBM.

Simon seems to say three non-IBM and one IBM as a hobby, not day job.  But
two of the five aren't committers *yet*.  Jeremy says two indepdendents.
You're saying more than three.

        --- Noel



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

[antelder]

On 10/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

>
> Ant Elder wrote:
>
> > > Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from
> independents?
>
> > If the bare minimum is the "3 legally independent committers" as defined
> in
> > the Incubator policy documents then Tuscany has more than the bare
> minimum -
> > and thats "active" committers.
>
> Can you compare those figures with Jeremy's statment:
>
> > at this time there are only 2 committers active[2] who don't work for
> > that organization, compared to 11 who do. Neither of the two
> > independents are active in the core project areas of Java SCA or SDO
> > (they are committing to the C++ implementation or to DAS).
>
> and Simon Nash's:
>
> > In the last 2 months, 3 new committers have been added, one is in
> progress
> > as Paul has said, and one is being discussed.  Of these 5 people, one is
> > IBM "day job" (me), one is IBM "non-day-job", and 3 are non-IBM.
>
> Simon seems to say three non-IBM and one IBM as a hobby, not day job.  But
> two of the five aren't committers *yet*.  Jeremy says two indepdendents.
> You're saying more than three.

I think the breakdown is: current active committers are from IBM, RougeWave
and two independents.

I'm not sure exactly who does how many hours for a day job but i _think_ at
least 3 of those IBM committers don't participate at all for their day
jobs.

Tuscany has 11 inactive committers (not contributed for months), from BEA,
IBM, IONA and Redhat and two independents, I don't know if any of those will
contribute again, last time i spoke to one of them they said they would but
they were busy on other things just now.

There's two more new people being voted on presently, and the STATUS file
[1] shows new committers have been getting added every month or two over
most of the incubation.

So from that Tuscany does "more than meet" the minimum requirement of "at
least 3 legally independent committers". I've not seen this detail on
diversity and active versus inactive committers in other graduations - how
does Tuscany compare with other previously graduating poddlings?

   ...ant

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/STATUS

[Jim Marino]

On Oct 21, 2007, at 10:52 AM, ant elder wrote:

> On 10/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ant Elder wrote:
>>
>>>> Apparently a bare minimum, with very little active work from
>> independents?
>>
>>> If the bare minimum is the "3 legally independent committers" as  
>>> defined
>> in
>>> the Incubator policy documents then Tuscany has more than the bare
>> minimum -
>>> and thats "active" committers.
>>
>> Can you compare those figures with Jeremy's statment:
>>
>>> at this time there are only 2 committers active[2] who don't work  
>>> for
>>> that organization, compared to 11 who do. Neither of the two
>>> independents are active in the core project areas of Java SCA or SDO
>>> (they are committing to the C++ implementation or to DAS).
>>
>> and Simon Nash's:
>>
>>> In the last 2 months, 3 new committers have been added, one is in
>> progress
>>> as Paul has said, and one is being discussed.  Of these 5 people,  
>>> one is
>>> IBM "day job" (me), one is IBM "non-day-job", and 3 are non-IBM.
>>
>> Simon seems to say three non-IBM and one IBM as a hobby, not day  
>> job.  But
>> two of the five aren't committers *yet*.  Jeremy says two  
>> indepdendents.
>> You're saying more than three.
>
>
> I think the breakdown is: current active committers are from IBM,  
> RougeWave
> and two independents.
>
> I'm not sure exactly who does how many hours for a day job but i  
> _think_ at
> least 3 of those IBM committers don't participate at all for their day
> jobs.
>
> Tuscany has 11 inactive committers (not contributed for months),  
> from BEA,
> IBM, IONA and Redhat and two independents, I don't know if any of  
> those will
> contribute again, last time i spoke to one of them they said they  
> would but
> they were busy on other things just now.

Without getting involved in the rest of the discussions associated  
with this thread, I do want to clarify one point...

About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative  
direction with the other active independents working on SCA at the  
time when our goals diverged from others in the community. Speaking  
for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that while we wished  
Tuscany success, given the divergent interests, we were satisfied  
with our decision to participate elsewhere. It is unlikely we will  
revisit this decision in the future.

Regards,
Jim
     

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

[Matthieu Riou-5]

On 10/20/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > > Wouldn't the community be healthier if it focused some effort
> > > on bringing in independent committers?
>
> > Its my understanding that the project is very focussed on encouraging
> > new committers and that this is having results.
>
> Where?  It seems to me that if it were having results, we wouldn't be
> having
> this discussion.
>
> I am happy to hear that Tuscany is open to new developers, but if we want
> a
> base level of diversity, we need to actually have those new developers,
> not
> just be open to them.  Cross-fertilization between projects (Tuscany, Ode,
> CXF, Synapse, ServiceMix, et al) is one way to improve diversity, as well
> as
> improve synergies and integration.

My impression is that the current discussion only arises because Tuscany has
so many committers. If there were only 3 or 4 of them from a single
organization, nobody would be so worried about it, even if they had the bare
minimum of 3 independent committers. But they did welcome enough independent
committers while being in the incubator and there's actually a second
organization supporting the project as well.

Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being in the
incubator is pretty hard, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect them to
find enough independents to balance all others.

Matthieu

        --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

[Jim Jagielski]

For the record, I am voting -1 on graduation.
I do not feel that Tuscany has sufficient "real" diversity,
at this time, for graduation.

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

[Jim Jagielski]

On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:58 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:

> Noel
>
>> Wouldn't the community be healthier if it focused some effort on  
>> bringing
> in
>> independent committers?
>
> Its my understanding that the project is very focussed on  
> encouraging new
> committers and that this is having results.
>

In which case, I would guess that diversity will be
better improved in a handful of months...


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

[pzfreo]

Thanks for voting. I think the PPMC needs this sort of concrete feedback.

Paul

On 10/22/07, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:58 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > Noel
> >
> >> Wouldn't the community be healthier if it focused some effort on
> >> bringing
> > in
> >> independent committers?
> >
> > Its my understanding that the project is very focussed on
> > encouraging new
> > committers and that this is having results.
> >
>
> In which case, I would guess that diversity will be
> better improved in a handful of months...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@...

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

[Matthieu Riou-5]

On 10/22/07, Jim Jagielski <jim@...> wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:58 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > Noel
> >
> >> Wouldn't the community be healthier if it focused some effort on
> >> bringing
> > in
> >> independent committers?
> >
> > Its my understanding that the project is very focussed on
> > encouraging new
> > committers and that this is having results.
> >
>
> In which case, I would guess that diversity will be
> better improved in a handful of months...

Thanks for your vote. Could you just clarify what you would consider a good
level of diversity for Tuscany? I think it would be very beneficial to the
project to know what they're shooting for and at which point they can
consider bringing this topic back to the IPMC.

Thanks,
Matthieu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

[Jim Jagielski]

I would refer people to the

    Re: Graduation: how do we check "three or more independent  
committers" ?

thread, and message (<3EDFBD3C-1101-4C34-91B2-FAD7E26C4E1D@...>)

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

[Noel J. Bergman]

Jim Marino wrote:

> About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative
> direction with the other active independents working on SCA
> at the time when our goals diverged from others in the community.
> Speaking for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that
> while we wished Tuscany success, given the divergent interests,
> we were satisfied with our decision to participate elsewhere.
> It is unlikely we will revisit this decision in the future.

This should be a cautionary tale to communities if a project cannot serve
the interests of all its members.

        --- Noel



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

[Noel J. Bergman]

Matthieu Riou wrote:

> they did welcome enough independent committers while being in the
> incubator

> Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being
> in the incubator is pretty hard

Yes, but it seems to be emerging that there *were* more independents, and
they have left to work actively elsewhere (as indicated by Jim Marino for
BEA).  Is this an indicator that the community wasn't able to embrace the
interests of more than one vendor?  Since SCA is a standard, why was there a
need to fork the implementation?

        --- Noel

P.S.  I've removed [VOTE], since Ant indicates that the vote is being tabled
for now.



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

[Noel J. Bergman]

Paul Fremantle wrote:

> I think the PPMC needs this sort of concrete feedback.

And perhaps needs to consider that diversity means supporting a broader
community of interests.

        --- Noel



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

[dims]

Noel,

<decloak>
I was there when it happened. It was actually the other way
around..Short story, the "independents" had trouble letting anyone
else work or suggest ideas which went against their own mental model
of how things should be. When i argued for a middle path vociferously,
they left.
</decloak>

-- dims

On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

> Matthieu Riou wrote:
>
> > they did welcome enough independent committers while being in the
> > incubator
>
> > Attracting a large quantity of independent developers while being
> > in the incubator is pretty hard
>
> Yes, but it seems to be emerging that there *were* more independents, and
> they have left to work actively elsewhere (as indicated by Jim Marino for
> BEA).  Is this an indicator that the community wasn't able to embrace the
> interests of more than one vendor?  Since SCA is a standard, why was there a
> need to fork the implementation?
>
>         --- Noel
>
> P.S.  I've removed [VOTE], since Ant indicates that the vote is being tabled
> for now.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

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

[dims]

Noel,

FYI, I could plainly see who was working hard to co-exist and who
wasnt'. IMHO, the people who left clearly did not want to
play/participate. It was sacrilege to do anything that was against
their mental model of things had to work.

My 2 cents.

-- dims

On 10/23/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@...> wrote:

> Jim Marino wrote:
>
> > About seven months ago, BEA decided to pursue an alternative
> > direction with the other active independents working on SCA
> > at the time when our goals diverged from others in the community.
> > Speaking for BEA, we made it clear on multiple occasions that
> > while we wished Tuscany success, given the divergent interests,
> > we were satisfied with our decision to participate elsewhere.
> > It is unlikely we will revisit this decision in the future.
>
> This should be a cautionary tale to communities if a project cannot serve
> the interests of all its members.
>
>         --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

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