Should have sent this a week or two ago.

The proposed resolution for a testing.apache.org was tabled until next
month (ie: June 21st) because the board were concerned about yet another
umbrella - with this one feeling too artificial.

They made the point that size of TLP is not a concern - jmeter.apache.org
would not be a problem - though I know that the JMeter guys weren't very
into the idea. The conversation was more on JMeter than Cactus. I was
listening in, but didn't do a very good job of selling the testing.apache
idea.

----

I don't have any great ideas for how to take things further. The idea was
formed around db.apache/logging.apache style umbrellas that at one point
were the solution to language centric umbrellas - seems that the focus is
clearly on single projects now.

Hen

------=_Part_4907_14209068.1149600899379
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I hope I'm not "butting in" in the middle of a known conversation, but was
testing.apache.org generally supposed to hold any sort of shared libraries
for testing?

If so I've got some things I could donate right away, like a dojo test ant
task / others.

On 6/6/06, Henri Yandell <bayard [at] generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
> Should have sent this a week or two ago.
>
> The proposed resolution for a testing.apache.org was tabled until next
> month (ie: June 21st) because the board were concerned about yet another
> umbrella - with this one feeling too artificial.
>
> They made the point that size of TLP is not a concern - jmeter.apache.org
> would not be a problem - though I know that the JMeter guys weren't very
> into the idea. The conversation was more on JMeter than Cactus. I was
> listening in, but didn't do a very good job of selling the testing.apache
> idea.
>
> ----
>
> I don't have any great ideas for how to take things further. The idea was
> formed around db.apache/logging.apache style umbrellas that at one point
> were the solution to language centric umbrellas - seems that the focus is
> clearly on single projects now.
>
> Hen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>


--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

------=_Part_4907_14209068.1149600899379--

Hi Jesse,

Initially, the idea was to provide Java-related testing projects. Not
that we were against a language-agnostic project - we just didn't think
about that. After the proposal, someone raised the questions if we would
accepts contributions from other languages and we said it would be fine.

So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you
mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
(although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility).

-- Felipe



Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> I hope I'm not "butting in" in the middle of a known conversation, but was
> testing.apache.org generally supposed to hold any sort of shared libraries
> for testing?
>
> If so I've got some things I could donate right away, like a dojo test ant
> task / others.

On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <jakartalists1 [at] felipeal.net> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you
> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses incompatibility).
>
<snap/>

Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some
existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active
developers (amongst other things).

Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
comments yet?

-Rahul


> -- Felipe
>
>
<snip/>

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:

> On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <jakartalists1 [at] felipeal.net> wrote:
> <snip/>
>>
>> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
>> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
>> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
>> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you
>> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
>> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses
>> incompatibility).
>>
> <snap/>
>
> Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
> formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some
> existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active
> developers (amongst other things).
>
> Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> comments yet?

It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think.
I asked them a couple of times for a bit more in the way of info to bring
back, but didn't get a reply (by memory from the meeting wasn't very
good - it lasted 2.5 hrs).

Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea.
Otherwise Jakarta Test Components it is ;) [joke]

Hen

Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <jakartalists1 [at] felipeal.net> wrote:
> <snip/>
>>
>> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
>> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
>> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
>> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you
>> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
>> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses
>> incompatibility).
>>
> <snap/>
>
> Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
> formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some
> existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active
> developers (amongst other things).
>
> Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> comments yet?
I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
disallows Testing.

Phil

------=_Part_31619_5268464.1149854146283
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some of
the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of
development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) .

What would go into testing.apache.org? I'm all for it as testing in general
has to be good thing and there is potential for all sorts of shared support
if it is made easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the web
based items world.

At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could
~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing.

On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
>
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <jakartalists1 [at] felipeal.net> wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
> >> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
> >> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
> >> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2
> you
> >> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
> >> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses
> >> incompatibility).
> >>
> > <snap/>
> >
> > Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
> > formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some
> > existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active
> > developers (amongst other things).
> >
> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > comments yet?
> I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
> mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
> appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
> Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
> disallows Testing.
>
> Phil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>


--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

------=_Part_31619_5268464.1149854146283--

On 6/6/06, Henri Yandell <bayard [at] generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
<snip/>
> >
> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > comments yet?
>
> It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think.
> I asked them a couple of times for a bit more in the way of info to bring
> back, but didn't get a reply (by memory from the meeting wasn't very
> good - it lasted 2.5 hrs).
>
<snap/>

I actually think of this as a two-step process:

Step 0: Convince you (Hen, the "messenger", seem a bit tentative at
this point?).

Step 1: Convince them.

The umbrella concern is genuine, IMO. The legend may possibly (pure
speculation) have also grown due to the fact that we said we won't
discriminate based on programming language. To me, the crux of
Felipe's answer to that question was the bit about an existing
community and developers willing to consistently (as consistent as you
can be on your own time) invest time into the project.

I think we have said that any codebase (beyond the seed set) that
comes into Testing will have to have:

a) A developer base willing to invest energies
b) Existing community (for any that get incubated in -- ofcourse, that
will be overseen by the Incubator as well)
c) Binding support that will look for (a) and (b), amongst other things

Do we agree on this? Any other comments?

Beyond that, IMO, it comes to having the board understand that we are
as discerning of the umbrella concern as they are. And that the
benefits seem to outweigh this concern.


> Mostly I think we need to detail the cross-ASF interest in the idea.
<snap/>

Until now, we have seen interest from folks who are participants in
Jakarta, Tomcat and Tapestry (and possibly more, I didn't consult any
resource to check where all of the participants' interests lie). And I
suspect that is only because we haven't talked much about Testing
outside Jakarta (AFAIK). Towards the feedback in the initial email in
this thread then, IMO, this doesn't feel artificial (perhaps we need
some more clarification what that meant in the first place).

-Rahul


> Otherwise Jakarta Test Components it is ;) [joke]
>
> Hen
>

On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
<snip/>
> >
> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > comments yet?
>
> I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
> mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
> appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
> Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
> disallows Testing.
>
<snap/>

While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger
context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument
towards the cause.

If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the
merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than
some sort of comparative analysis.

The easy way out of your concern above may be to simply say that the
board has now changed its mind about the existence of potential
umbrella projects based on the "lessons" learnt in the meantime (Hen
actually alludes to that in his email) -- for me atleast, that would
probably be an acceptable answer to the question posed.

-Rahul


> Phil
>

On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some of
> the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of
> development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) .
>
> What would go into testing.apache.org?
<snip/>

Elements of the seed set (see Felipe's prior email) and over time,
other codebases with active developer support. Ofcourse, this is the
all important question, so all input is welcome, both on what should
go in and what shouldn't.


> I'm all for it as testing in general
> has to be good thing and there is potential for all sorts of shared support
> if it is made easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the web
> based items world.
>
> At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could
> ~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing.
>
<snap/>

Not sure what you mean, but IIUC, probably not as high a concern,
since if jmeter.apache.org is substantial looking (see Hen's initial
email in this thread), then surely { jmeter , cactus , foo } is
substantial looking to me.

-Rahul

------=_Part_38278_18470049.1149876321758
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

You may want to pull in someone from the webwork/struts (I don't know what
it's called right now) project. Specifically - Patrick Lightbody is pretty
active in the area of testing so getting him to dump in thoughts might help.


You also have ibm and what they are doing in atf-dev [at] eclipse. Not a
completely related project, but the java xpcom bindings hint at all manner
of good full-browser based web testing. (there's also
http://jrex.mozdev.org/, but I've not tried it.) I know a couple of the devs
there have expressed definite interest in anything related to
javascript/web/XHR unit testing solutions. (Javier Pedemonte/Adam Peller [at]
ibm )

On 6/9/06, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > It makes sense that people want to be careful about a tl subdomain. Some
> of
> > the projects you mentioned are fairly staple diets to a good majority of
> > development projects. (ie struts/logging/xml/commons/etc) .
> >
> > What would go into testing.apache.org?
> <snip/>
>
> Elements of the seed set (see Felipe's prior email) and over time,
> other codebases with active developer support. Ofcourse, this is the
> all important question, so all input is welcome, both on what should
> go in and what shouldn't.
>
>
> > I'm all for it as testing in general
> > has to be good thing and there is potential for all sorts of shared
> support
> > if it is made easy to contribute into and collaborate on...Esp in the
> web
> > based items world.
> >
> > At the same time, if it's not substantial looking enough it could
> > ~potentially~ be viewed as a negative thing.
> >
> <snap/>
>
> Not sure what you mean, but IIUC, probably not as high a concern,
> since if jmeter.apache.org is substantial looking (see Hen's initial
> email in this thread), then surely { jmeter , cactus , foo } is
> substantial looking to me.
>
> -Rahul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe [at] jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help [at] jakarta.apache.org
>
>


--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

------=_Part_38278_18470049.1149876321758--

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:

> On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
>> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> <snip/>
>> >
>> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
>> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
>> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
>> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
>> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
>> > comments yet?
>>
>> I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
>> mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
>> appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
>> Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
>> disallows Testing.
>>
> <snap/>
>
> While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger
> context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument
> towards the cause.

Yep, this was the basis of my previously weak case. :)

Hen

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:

> On 6/6/06, Henri Yandell <bayard [at] generationjava.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>
> <snip/>
>> >
>> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
>> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
>> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
>> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
>> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
>> > comments yet?
>>
>> It's more in our court to come up with something to convince them I think.
>> I asked them a couple of times for a bit more in the way of info to bring
>> back, but didn't get a reply (by memory from the meeting wasn't very
>> good - it lasted 2.5 hrs).
>>
> <snap/>
>
> I actually think of this as a two-step process:
>
> Step 0: Convince you (Hen, the "messenger", seem a bit tentative at
> this point?).

The next month is going to be weird, so my tentative ness is from not
wanting to commit any time. My Internet time dives, and there are board
elections happening in a couple of weeks so the board who pick up the
tabled motion are not the same as the board who tabled it.

You've got the right idea though, show the value of a testing.apache.org
community to the ASF, and the wide interest in it.

It's less convincing me, and more putting together something to convince
the board that doesn't require me to do sales (as I won't be able to
listen in on the next board meeting I think).

Hen

Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
>> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> <snip/>
>> >
>> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
>> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
>> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
>> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
>> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
>> > comments yet?
>>
>> I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
>> mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
>> appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
>> Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
>> disallows Testing.
>>
> <snap/>
>
> While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger
> context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument
> towards the cause.
>
> If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the
> merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than
> some sort of comparative analysis.
That's not what I meant. If the objection is "this looks like an
umbrella, and umbrellas are evil" it is fair and reasonable for us to
ask what exactly is meant by an umbrella so that we can address the
specific concerns directly.

Phil

On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> You may want to pull in someone from the webwork/struts (I don't know what
> it's called right now) project. Specifically - Patrick Lightbody is pretty
> active in the area of testing so getting him to dump in thoughts might help.
>
>
> You also have ibm and what they are doing in atf-dev [at] eclipse. Not a
> completely related project, but the java xpcom bindings hint at all manner
> of good full-browser based web testing. (there's also
> http://jrex.mozdev.org/, but I've not tried it.) I know a couple of the devs
> there have expressed definite interest in anything related to
> javascript/web/XHR unit testing solutions. (Javier Pedemonte/Adam Peller [at]
> ibm )
>
<snip/>

Thanks for your input. While it should be possible to initiate these
conversations with both, probably half of the Struts devs are here
(the WW bits are called SAF2 BTW, Struts Action Framework 2) and I
only spend my whole day at the big blue, I had no such plans (and
still don't have any at this time). Looking at the number of people
who've already shown interest in Testing, I think we can go by the
mantra "If we build it, they will come" (they may not, but I believe
we have enough to keep ourselves busy ;-)

OTOH, it will help to "socialize" Testing within the Apache community,
so if you participate in projects that may be interested (or are
attending ApacheConEU, for instance), please "spread the word".

-Rahul



>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
>

On 6/9/06, Henri Yandell <bayard [at] generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
<snip/>
> >
> > I actually think of this as a two-step process:
> >
> > Step 0: Convince you (Hen, the "messenger", seem a bit tentative at
> > this point?).
>
> The next month is going to be weird, so my tentative ness is from not
> wanting to commit any time. My Internet time dives, and there are board
> elections happening in a couple of weeks so the board who pick up the
> tabled motion are not the same as the board who tabled it.
>
<snap/>

OK.


> You've got the right idea though, show the value of a testing.apache.org
> community to the ASF, and the wide interest in it.
>
<snip/>

This is the part that is still a bit fuzzy to me. For me, a mere look
around us reveals the kind of wide interest and cross-pollination that
is beginning to happen in the testing space (and it is quite an
exciting space at this time, IMO). Since Struts was mentioned, the
Shale "Test Framework" is being (re)used by MyFaces, a nice example
where testing ideas and code are cross-cutting project boundaries. It
is time we provided a first class project at the ASF around testing,
but I'm not sure what this "showing value" is? Indeed, what is the
deliverable?


> It's less convincing me, and more putting together something to convince
> the board that doesn't require me to do sales (as I won't be able to
> listen in on the next board meeting I think).
>
<snap/>

But it will require someone to do the sales by the looks of it.

-Rahul


> Hen
>

On 6/10/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> <snip/>
> >
> > While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger
> > context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument
> > towards the cause.
> >
> > If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the
> > merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than
> > some sort of comparative analysis.
> That's not what I meant. If the objection is "this looks like an
> umbrella, and umbrellas are evil" it is fair and reasonable for us to
> ask what exactly is meant by an umbrella so that we can address the
> specific concerns directly.
>
<snip/>

Agreed.

Phil, are you going to fill in for Hen at the next board meeting? I
have no clue who attends board meetings (members? officers of the
foundation? -- we have a few members listed on the proposal). We need
someone to talk to this proposal when it is picked up at the next
meeting. Are you willing and able?

-Rahul



> Phil
>
>

Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/10/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
>> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>> <snip/>
>> >
>> > While it may make sense to say something along those lines in a larger
>> > context, I do not believe this can be part of any central argument
>> > towards the cause.
>> >
>> > If we're going to stand, we are going to do it on the basis of the
>> > merit of our proposal and the community support for it, rather than
>> > some sort of comparative analysis.
>> That's not what I meant. If the objection is "this looks like an
>> umbrella, and umbrellas are evil" it is fair and reasonable for us to
>> ask what exactly is meant by an umbrella so that we can address the
>> specific concerns directly.
>>
> <snip/>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Phil, are you going to fill in for Hen at the next board meeting? I
> have no clue who attends board meetings (members? officers of the
> foundation? -- we have a few members listed on the proposal). We need
> someone to talk to this proposal when it is picked up at the next
> meeting. Are you willing and able?
I was not planning to attend the board mtg - I just volunteered to fill
in by preparing the Jakarta report and submitting it on Hen's behalf. I
don't think delegates / proxies are allowed at board mtgs. I am happy
to do whatever I can to help make sure the proposal gets fairly
reviewed, though.

It would seem a reasonable request to have one of the people on the
proposal attend the meeting to represent Testing. Does anyone know how
this kind of thing has been handled in the past at board meetings?

Phil

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Phil Steitz wrote:

> I was not planning to attend the board mtg - I just volunteered to fill
> in by preparing the Jakarta report and submitting it on Hen's behalf. I
> don't think delegates / proxies are allowed at board mtgs. I am happy
> to do whatever I can to help make sure the proposal gets fairly
> reviewed, though.

Any member can call in to the board meeting as a guest - for the last few
I've been calling in as a guest just out of interest to see what goes on,
and as I'm there I get asked about the Jakarta bits that come up.

> It would seem a reasonable request to have one of the people on the
> proposal attend the meeting to represent Testing. Does anyone know how
> this kind of thing has been handled in the past at board meetings?

Imprompty IRC conversations I suspect, and someone on the board being
tasked with sending a reply to the people taking up the resolution. I
didn't do a very good job of making notes of that when I was listening in,
so my passing of information back is a bit anaemic.

Hen

Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> I was not planning to attend the board mtg - I just volunteered to fill
>> in by preparing the Jakarta report and submitting it on Hen's behalf. I
>> don't think delegates / proxies are allowed at board mtgs. I am happy
>> to do whatever I can to help make sure the proposal gets fairly
>> reviewed, though.
>
> Any member can call in to the board meeting as a guest - for the last
> few I've been calling in as a guest just out of interest to see what
> goes on, and as I'm there I get asked about the Jakarta bits that come
> up.
>
Thanks for clarifying this, Hen. I thought PMC chairs always attended
the meeting and that they were otherwise closed. Sorry for the
confusion. I will plan to join as a guest. If any of the other
sponsoring members are available, please feel free to step up for this.
>> It would seem a reasonable request to have one of the people on the
>> proposal attend the meeting to represent Testing. Does anyone know how
>> this kind of thing has been handled in the past at board meetings?
>
> Imprompty IRC conversations I suspect, and someone on the board being
> tasked with sending a reply to the people taking up the resolution. I
> didn't do a very good job of making notes of that when I was listening
> in, so my passing of information back is a bit anaemic.
OK, I will plan to join the meeting and do my best to get a clear
picture of what the board is looking for.

Phil

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <jakartalists1 [at] felipeal.net> wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >>
> >> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support
> >> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such
> >> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing
> >> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you
> >> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit
> >> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses
> >> incompatibility).
> >>
> > <snap/>
> >
> > Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the
> > formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some
> > existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active
> > developers (amongst other things).
> >
> > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > comments yet?
> I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
> mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
> appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
> Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
> disallows Testing.

(this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased)

the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not
objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past
decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions.

there is no rule against umbrella projects and so no single consensus
definition is needed. their is quite a diversity of opinions on umbrella
nature amongst the members. (i won't give my opinions on umbrella nature
now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and may
be misleading.)

the board is elected by the members and so reflects the opinions of the
membership. there is a strong consensus that umbrella-ness is a warning
sign. just as there isn't a single objective definition, there is no one
definitive reason why members believe this. (again, i won't give my
opinions now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the
membership and so may be misleading.)

recently (for various reasons) there has been a definite hardening of
attitudes.

- robert

On 6/11/06, Phil Steitz <phil [at] steitz.com> wrote:
<snip/>
> OK, I will plan to join the meeting and do my best to get a clear
> picture of what the board is looking for.
>
<snap/>

Great, thanks Phil.

-Rahul


> Phil
>
>

On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > Rahul Akolkar wrote:
<snip/>
> > >
> > > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > > comments yet?
> > I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
> > mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
> > appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
> > Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
> > disallows Testing.
>
> (this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased)
>
> the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not
> objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past
> decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions.
>
<snap/>

Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had
anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level.

The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven
(as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this
point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested)
observer.

-Rahul


> there is no rule against umbrella projects and so no single consensus
> definition is needed. their is quite a diversity of opinions on umbrella
> nature amongst the members. (i won't give my opinions on umbrella nature
> now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and may
> be misleading.)
>
> the board is elected by the members and so reflects the opinions of the
> membership. there is a strong consensus that umbrella-ness is a warning
> sign. just as there isn't a single objective definition, there is no one
> definitive reason why members believe this. (again, i won't give my
> opinions now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the
> membership and so may be misleading.)
>
> recently (for various reasons) there has been a definite hardening of
> attitudes.
>
> - robert
>

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 14:24 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 6/11/06, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> <snip/>
> > > >
> > > > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any --
> > > > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with
> > > > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is
> > > > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so
> > > > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those
> > > > comments yet?
> > > I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what
> > > mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much
> > > appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging,
> > > Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow
> > > disallows Testing.
> >
> > (this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased)
> >
> > the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not
> > objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past
> > decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions.
> >
> <snap/>
>
> Thanks for that input Robert, seems in line with what I had
> anticipated -- nice and fuzzy on an objective level.

you know me too well :)

often fuzziness indicates that the issues haven't really been completely
settled as yet

> The thing that is clear, however, is that this is membership driven
> (as it should be too, IMO) so I'll pretty much step aside at this
> point and return to my seat as a casual (yet keenly interested)
> observer.

we don't have the answers. we may not even know the questions. but we do
have confidence in our ability to learn and evolve. that's one reason
why the ASF chooses to grow policy and why policy changes over time.

it's important that every consensus is challenged. once any consensus
opinion of the membership is accepted as true just because it is
received from that group, ossification and group speak sets in.
evolution and growth stops. these are the real threats to apache.

we need to people to ask 'why?' (so please don't stop)

coming back to henri's comments: the ASF prefers self-organisation.
reorganisations are much more likely to be approved if it's the
committers involved who are pushing for them. if the communities are
effected are strongly in favour then this has great weight.

- robert