On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
...For projects developed the Apache way, decision making requires 3
binding +1's. Once the electorate population falls below 3, no
decisions can be taken and so no new electors elected. So, a
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
It's a technical minimum, I agree, but I wouldn't accept graduating a
project with only 3 PMC members.
5 looks like a more realistic minimum to make sure the project can
actually get 3 votes when needed.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
...For projects developed the Apache way, decision making requires 3
binding +1's. Once the electorate population
On 10/30/2011 8:05 PM, David Crossley wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP
and provide oversight?
Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:50 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 10/30/2011 8:05 PM, David Crossley wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote:
...Certainly there is no way for us to compete with projects like Subversion
or Open Office and there is no way for us to ever get
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote:
...Certainly there is no way for us to compete
Perhaps I'm biased here (and I'm also an ASF newbie), but, coming from many
one-band-man projects I feel 5 diverse, active and regular committers
that can keep their user base happy is more than enough to be described as
a succesful project. Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Raffaele
On Mon, Oct 31,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi
raffaele.p.gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm biased here (and I'm also an ASF newbie), but, coming from many
one-band-man projects I feel 5 diverse, active and regular committers
that can keep their user base happy is more than enough to be
, 2011 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi
raffaele.p.gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm biased here (and I'm also an ASF newbie), but, coming from many
one-band-man projects I feel 5 diverse, active and regular committers
that can
, October 31, 2011 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi
raffaele.p.gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm biased here (and I'm also an ASF newbie), but, coming from
many
one-band-man projects I feel 5 diverse, active and regular
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Raffaele P. Guidi
raffaele.p.gu...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin said:
[...] Self-organising communities are only sustainable with a big
enough population.
I would also add that enough is a relative measure. Maybe (just maybe)
for empiredb enough is 5.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
AFAICT this problem is pretty common in many long-term podlings. They
have the seeds for becoming large, sustainable TLPs, but for one
reason or another haven't been able to grow their communities to
like Subversion or
Open Office and there is no way for us to ever get there.
But I hope that it is not only size that matters.
Regards,
Rainer
from: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
to: general@incubator.apache.org
re: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Rainer Döbele doeb...@esteam.de wrote:
Hi all,
thanks Jukka for your view on this issue and thank you Benson for bringing
this topic up.
I am one of the Empire-db committers and certainly we would appreciate it
very much if there is a way for us to
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
The current RAT situation leads me to suggest that we graduate Empire.
As a mentor, I'd characterize Empire-Db as a project that was long ago
ready, save for the same issue as RAT: a small group that grows very,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
In any case it seems like a good idea to impose some sort of soft time limit
on the continuation strategy.
Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work
out, a project which might have been perfectly
Prospective podlings are well-advised to consider that if things don't work
out, a project which might have been perfectly viable elsewhere for years to
come will have to deal with both the disruption of a name change and the
stigma of having a big red termination stamp applied by the
On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
[...snip...]
Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if
someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the
board to shoot my head off for asking it to weigh in.
+1 to that Benson. I agree with
On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
[...snip...]
Even so, my basic view is that these folks are viable as a TLP, and if
someone really disagrees, I might feel strongly enough to ask the
board to shoot my head
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from
the podling phase -- termination, continuation and graduation -- may
need some adjustment. That could mean introducing new exit strategies
or relaxing the
some of the initial comitters are not active any more.
Regards
Rainer
from: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
to: general@incubator.apache.org
re: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduating empire?
On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Benson
Two quick comments, haven't read the context:
Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
To me this suggests that our current three state transitions [1] from
the podling phase -- termination, continuation and
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO 5 diverse, active and regular committers is enough to sustain a TLP
Agreed. Our key metric here is having at least three independent (and
active) committers, which sounds like to be the case for
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Two quick comments, haven't read the context:
Marvin Humphrey wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:26:57 -0700:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:55:01PM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
To me this suggests that our current three
Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400:
Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent
home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the
'incubator' disclaimer and branding requirements for these projects,
and retaining the
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Benson Margulies wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 15:33:25 -0400:
Could the incubator, or a clone of the incubator, serve as a permanent
home for small projects? Essentially, this amounts to removing all the
'incubator'
Benson Margulies wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Thinking out load: perhaps just promote the project into a TLP, while
having a few IPMC members volunteer to become PMC members of the new TLP
and provide oversight?
Yup. No muss, no fuss, no new mechanisms.
Good solution. Presume that the
28 matches
Mail list logo
