[rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Leo Simons
<rant>
It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the
websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people,
and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And
then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees
"something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new
"rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".

The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
"glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly'
there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate
a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it
must be very confusing.

Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to
do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
"in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released"
one*.

Interested or concerned ASF members popping up out of the blue every
now and then (Re: the threads on members@ about this) should then be
restricting themselves to discussing the general case, so that specific
ones can be somewhat less contentious at the start, which is probably
quite healthy from a community-building point of view. Communities
starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly rulemaking seems
an unhealthy thing.

Perhaps we should have two mailing lists.
</rant>

WDYT?

LSD

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Sanjiva Weerawarana
ABSOLUTELY +1! I also feel really terrible about our "unprofessionalism"
when it comes to handling proposals.

+1 for another list for proposal submissions- [hidden email] and
for this to remain for the current purpose.

Sanjiva.

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Leo Simons wrote:

> <rant>
> It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the
> websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people,
> and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And
> then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees
> "something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new
> "rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".
>
> The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
> "glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
> certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly'
> there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate
> a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it
> must be very confusing.
>
> Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
> could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to
> do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
> "in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
> rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released"
> one*.
>
> Interested or concerned ASF members popping up out of the blue every
> now and then (Re: the threads on members@ about this) should then be
> restricting themselves to discussing the general case, so that specific
> ones can be somewhat less contentious at the start, which is probably
> quite healthy from a community-building point of view. Communities
> starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly rulemaking seems
> an unhealthy thing.
>
> Perhaps we should have two mailing lists.
> </rant>
>
> WDYT?
>
> LSD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

William A Rowe Jr
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Leo Simons wrote:
>> <rant>
>> It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the
>> websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people,
>> and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And
>> then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees
>> "something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new
>> "rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".

+1 - this is a very confusing situation and unlike almost every other
project.  Typically, you read the last few months threads to get an idea
of where things are at and how to 'slide into the conversation'.  Here,
that's likely to backfire :(  And in part, I blame side conversations on
the members channel etc; when that list comes to a conclusion, it really
aught to be posted here for all to know.

>> The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
>> "glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
>> certainly was accepted practice

Agreed, and +1; I can't find a reason to not accept this name under our
established practice; if it should change then fine, let the project
decide that.  It's a -place name-.  Not a person/culture issue.

>> *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released" one*.

As a general practice, +1

>> Communities starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly
>> rulemaking seems an unhealthy thing.

Unfortunately this is partly inevitable, because the rules that get
toggled may not come from general@, but discussions on other forums.
Hopefully the folks who point out what rule was tripped over point out
why it's a rule, and why for a project to come out healthy, it should
be addressed up front, or in incubation.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> +1 for another list for proposal submissions- [hidden email] and
> for this to remain for the current purpose.

-1 to that; it makes it even -harder- for incoming participants to follow
which list says what and how the incubator operates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Justin Erenkrantz
In reply to this post by Sanjiva Weerawarana
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:17:25PM +0530, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> +1 for another list for proposal submissions- [hidden email] and
> for this to remain for the current purpose.

-1.  Eww.  Please not another list.  Folks just need to exhibit common sense
towards proposals.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Brett Porter
In reply to this post by Sanjiva Weerawarana
+42 (which, I believe, is also the average number of messages per
single thread on this list at the moment).

Anyway, I'm definitely in agreement with "versioning" policy. Podlings
should comply to the latest agreed set at the time of entry, and then
a more recent one on graduation (so even if something comes up on the
way in, there's time to resolve it before they go out).

I agree with the idea of a separate list of proposals, but could take
it or leave it.

Cheers,
Brett

On 08/08/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ABSOLUTELY +1! I also feel really terrible about our "unprofessionalism"
> when it comes to handling proposals.
>
> +1 for another list for proposal submissions- [hidden email] and
> for this to remain for the current purpose.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:24 -0700, Leo Simons wrote:
> > <rant>
> > It must be sooo frustrating for new projects coming in. They read the
> > websites, read the mail archives, talk to loads and loads of people,
> > and when they think they get it all right they send in a proposal. And
> > then, more often than not, someone somewhere within the ASF sees
> > "something" that is somehow wrong, and off we go to institute a new
> > "rule" on the fly to make the new proposal somehow "invalid".
> >
> > The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
> > "glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
> > certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly'
> > there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate
> > a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it
> > must be very confusing.
> >
> > Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
> > could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to
> > do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
> > "in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
> > rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released"
> > one*.
> >
> > Interested or concerned ASF members popping up out of the blue every
> > now and then (Re: the threads on members@ about this) should then be
> > restricting themselves to discussing the general case, so that specific
> > ones can be somewhat less contentious at the start, which is probably
> > quite healthy from a community-building point of view. Communities
> > starting off ever so slightly irritated at on-the-fly rulemaking seems
> > an unhealthy thing.
> >
> > Perhaps we should have two mailing lists.
> > </rant>
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > LSD
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

jaaronfarr
In reply to this post by Leo Simons
On 8/8/06, Leo Simons <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
> could have a "released" version of all the things we want a project to
> do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
> "in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
> rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the "released"
> one*.

+1

This is one of my biggest concerns -- the rapidly changing requirements.

This is easy enough to do as well.  The released version (with a
release number) is on the public website and the "in progress" version
could be on the wiki.  Proposals should include the version number
they were written against.

--
  jaaron

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

David Blevins
A big +1.  And I also really like the idea that the proposals contain  
the version number they were written against.

-David

On Aug 8, 2006, at 6:34 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote:

> On 8/8/06, Leo Simons <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should try and seperate this somewhat more rigidly. Eg we
>> could have a "released" version of all the things we want a  
>> project to
>> do and/or comply with (this is our website) and we could have an
>> "in progress" version of the same thing (this is what changes more
>> rapidly). And *new proposals should be evaluated against the  
>> "released"
>> one*.
>
> +1
>
> This is one of my biggest concerns -- the rapidly changing  
> requirements.
>
> This is easy enough to do as well.  The released version (with a
> release number) is on the public website and the "in progress" version
> could be on the wiki.  Proposals should include the version number
> they were written against.
>
> --
>  jaaron
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Dain Sundstrom
In reply to this post by Brett Porter
On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:57 AM, Brett Porter wrote:

> +42 (which, I believe, is also the average number of messages per
> single thread on this list at the moment).
>
> Anyway, I'm definitely in agreement with "versioning" policy. Podlings
> should comply to the latest agreed set at the time of entry, and then
> a more recent one on graduation (so even if something comes up on the
> way in, there's time to resolve it before they go out).

+1 I couldn't agree more

I think having official (voted upon) version numbers is important.  
Also, I suggest we require that a "rule" be fully documented before  
being added to a release.

-dain
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [rant] seperate policy change from proposal discussion

Danny Angus-2
In reply to this post by Leo Simons
On 08/08/06, Leo Simons <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The latest example is all the debate surrounding whether or not the
> "glasgow" name is appropriate. Up until about a week or two ago, it
> certainly was accepted practice (just look around), and now 'suddenly'
> there's messiness. Its ok if opinions change (we had a loooong debate
> a few years ago about "geronimo" as a name and that made it), but it
> must be very confusing.

> Perhaps we should have two mailing lists.

> WDYT?

Mea culpa.
I made the mistake of provoking a debate on name policy within the
Glasgow threads. This, with hindsight, was wrong. I should have
started a new thread and used Glasgow as an example instead.
I understand that this must have confused and pissed off the Glasgow
folks. Please believe that this was never my intention. If I was
having a go at anyone it was at the incubator's ASF folks who are much
more immune to this kind of random venting in any case. I suppose I
expected my voice to be largely ignored, not to whip up a mailstorm.

Glasgow folks, please accept my appologies for being a bit ham fisted
about the way I did that.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]