Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Harbs wrote: >... > If there is a disagreement, it seems to be part semantics, part version > control technologies (i.e. SVN optimized workflow vs Git optimized > workflow) and part an actual difference in how to handle certain >

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > I have now, days later, Reviewed this Thread and Commit to a veto of the > RTC > whole debate, Can't agree That it is Rewarding for anyone... ;-) > CTR ... I saw what you did there :-)

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

emember the model here is that the author is never allowed to commit their > own code. > > Ralph > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The Apache Subversion project does something similar: > > > > > htt

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

The Apache Subversion project does something similar: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat. On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" wrote: > Some projects

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >... > of people wanting to join. I am sure this is going to be a controversial > statement, but I have noticed that the projects that I’ve seen do this > often have a fair number of committers who are paid to work

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

which of your three arguments for CTR > are not present in RTC. > > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerni

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > None of your statements below are any different between RTC or CTR. The > > only time it makes aa difference is if no one does

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe the issue here is that with CTR it is very easy to miss the 72h > lazy consensus voting (with an assumed +1 absence any votes cast) that most > CTR projects operate under... and thus it can

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to > whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. > That seems rather melodramatic. Speaking for myself, I've said that I find RTC a terrible basis for

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

question that. But it is better done there. > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hunh? How do you get

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >... > And by the way, this has little to do with trust. More with hope. As in: we > hope they won't abuse our trust. It seems you're projecting trust issues! > It is ALL about trust. I've worked in the httpd, apr, and

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

ommit. -g On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is what I say: you're projecting. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

In RTC, a contributor sending in a patch, a pull request, or a JIRA/patch is handled exactly the same as any other committer. None are trusted to apply their change, until they receive review and permission from others. So you would think that "everybody" would get committer status on Day One. Why

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute code in > the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new people > contributing to the project. > "level playing field"?? seriously?? I find

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a complex > project with zero oversight. I currently work on a project that I > I have always found the "complex project" to merely be an excuse for

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > >... > > > 1) You're righ

Re: [VOTE] Retire Corinthia

+1 (binding) On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Greetings, > > The Corinthia community has voted to retire: > > http://s.apache.org/odN > > This is a vote of the IPMC to confirm the decision to retire the podling. > > [ ] +1 to retire Corinthia

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran > wrote: > >> ...is JIRA-first

Re: Releases during incubation?

Yup. Subversion 1.6.9 was released while we were incubating. Further: Subversion 1.6.x had patch releases for three years (given our support rules), after we became Apache Subversion. 1.7.0 was our first Apache release, occurring about 18 months after we became a TLP. We distinguished them by

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >... > Huh? The development of this document, > > > > > was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of > time. It

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

My belief is that committer != PMC is the ideal choice, based on my long history of watching communities at the ASF. It allows for onboarding committers rapidly and with a lower bar. That helps to draw them further into the community, reduces the workload of others (who would otherwise need to

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC > > as a strict requirement to graduation: > >

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > ...what would the action item the community should take away from > > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Jira issues are (IMO) a bit too passive to be focal points for community interaction. The *active* process of an email arriving in your inbox? Much better for enabling community members to participate. And a uniform and easy way to do so. Especially against the *transient* nature of Jira issues.

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >... > I'd noted that > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_h2-clearance.html > never had a corresponding clearance/acceptance thread at general@i.a.o, > so it appears that the current instructions no

Re: Not just yet

On Oct 23, 2015 1:01 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2015 9:57 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >>... > >

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at > all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. > > What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that > as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on

Re: Short form IP clearance

nt legal > concerns that are being overlooked. > > And I'm not trying to create more work for whatever ASF entity is charged > with policing the process. ;) > > -Taylor > > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >&g

Re: Not just yet

On Oct 22, 2015 9:57 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >... > I've also opened another issue that I would appreciate feedback on: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIMSY-28 Cross-check is nice. I'd suggest another possibility: a web tool to *add* a template-based resolution

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this… > hehe... I did too :-) > But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and > I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

re's a vote tally: > > Non-binding +1s: > Jim Jagielski > Marvin Humphrey > Bertrand Delacretaz > > Binding +1s: > P. Taylor Goetz > Justin Mclean > Greg Stein > Jean Baptiste Onofré > > No 0 or -1 votes. > > Thanks, > Sterling > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > I would suggest that Owen O'Malley has not had enough time to be a viable > > mentor recently and should not be on the list of mentors.

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: >... > To be fair, I will circle one more time to existing mentors for Eagle > to confirm their commitment for active participation in the podling. > Would that be acceptable solution? > Acceptable to whom? I bet

Short form IP clearance

Hey all, On the following page: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble, and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8. Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there

Re: Short form IP clearance

lt;>. > > That <> is TBD. > > John > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@int

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a > > VP that is an Offic

Re: Short form IP clearance

[trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >... > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month? > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > On the following page: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-tem

Re: Not just yet (was: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Brooklyn from incubator)

Several things: the description of the project in para 1 and 3 do not match. Second, the wording of the (current) last paragraph doesn't refer to "podling" like other Incubator graduation resolutions. Third, the final paragraph from the template, releasing the Incubator from responsibility. See

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

Hey there, Arun! ... I have no commentary on the proposal itself, as it looks like a great proposal. I would suggest being a bit wary of the name, as "Eagle" is a *very* popular PCB design program. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Manoharan, Arun wrote: > Hello Everyone,

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

1 because... > > > > > > > > > This vote is now closed and passes with 4 binding +1 votes, > > 3 non-binding +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > Thanks to all who helped with the proposal and cast the vote! > > > > Here's a vote tally: > &g

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > Perhaps defining exact criteria that the board uses to evaluate such > resolutions would be useful. > The Board evaluates them differently based on the path. I explained Direct else-thread. Historically, the

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start > thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when > there are gaps in straight to TLP. Lets identify what those gaps > There

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >... > The Maturity Model defines evaluation criteria. It is probably the most > useful for the task we're focused on now, which is how to decide when a > proposed TLP is ready, regardless of the path it took

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

I concur, and similarly pushed back just a few days ago on another suggestion of such "policy". Not really sure that an ASF-wide metric is appropriate (ie. all communities are different, and freedom to set their own path is important), but there is definitely value in some in the model. It can

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Filip Hanik wrote: > On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny > wrote: > > Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit : > >... > > > Who > > > evaluates the results? > > > > Either the board, or a group gathered for that

Re: Require projects to have solid API docs

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > > Should != Must > > Yes, I know. But I didn't want to have everyone leap into yet another > long-winded debate with no one even having

Re: [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

r either an > Apache or BSD license. > > == Cryptography == > > None > > == Required Resources == > > === Mailing lists === > > * d...@mynewt.incubator.apache.org > * comm...@mynewt.incubator.apache.org > * notificati...@mynewt.incubator.apa

Re: A suggestion: podling post-mortems

Pierre: by "time to graduate", Rich meant "ready to graduate". Not the amount of time from entry until graduation. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Since when is the incubation process a race that must be completed in the > least amount of time? If

Re: Concerted Proposal

Always! On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Atri Sharma wrote: > If Incubator PMC sees fit, can I move this thread to a discuss thread to > discuss accepting of Concerted into ASF Incubator? > On 5 Oct 2015 14:24, wrote: > > > As a member of Concerted

Re: Concerted Proposal

The Board created the Incubator as a mechanism to bring projects into the ASF. Whether that could be construed as "provide a space for a project to bootstrap itself, into a new ASF project" is arguable. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: > Well, I think

Re: Permissive UI Libraries

k, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_(software)>. >> >> - [;<). >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 08:12 >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Permissive UI Librar

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

On Sep 7, 2015 4:12 PM, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote: >... > I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. And that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then why

Re: ODF Toolkit may need help

domain names? The podling came in with the domain > name offtoolkit.org. What happens to that? > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The Attic is for Apache projects. Po

Re: ODF Toolkit may need help

The Attic is for Apache projects. Podlings are simply retired/removed. On Sep 4, 2015 9:23 AM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:12 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:56 AM

Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ... So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to differentiate it from an official release of the foundation. In the

Re: third party tooling.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...you can call yourself open source software all you want, but unless you get an exception from Fedora Packaging Committee you

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Aapche Lens 2.2.0-beta-incubating released

Hello, Lens people! In the future, please ensure that *all* release announcements include the Incubating Disclaimer in them. Your download page should be updated (asap) to include the same. Thanks, -g On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Amareshwari Sriramdasu amareshw...@apache.org wrote: Hi

Re: Licensing Issue

hahaha funny that the template at that site says the software is in the public domain, but then goes on to state what can be done with it, and to provide a disclaimer. If it is truly in the public domain, then no futher discussion is needed. And note that some jurisdictions (eg France) don't

Re: Blog policy for poddlings

To clarify one step further: podlings are not official projects, so any outreach via apache.org (and its name/recognition) needs appropriate messaging. That is why we have press@ :-) On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not ComDev

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... In case you're curious -- I'd ask the same question, for example, about a community that decided to produce software that is be only applicable as an add-on for a small market share commercial offering. The

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: I'd suggest striking the user@ mailing list. Keep the community (such as it is) on dev@ until traffic gets too heavy. I've seen early splitting

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote: ... our own project operations, which we'll do in any case. The presumed pTLP would be to develop the code; I could easily imagine some of the code being useful as examples outside of the ASF. Being a pTLP would

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

I'd suggest striking the user@ mailing list. Keep the community (such as it is) on dev@ until traffic gets too heavy. I've seen early splitting of the user/dev keep a new project from reaching a good critical mass. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: Initial

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross:

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Niclas, I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has been

Re: pTLP process amendments

This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Ok let me try

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ... Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

forget it like I did. Greg Stein wrote: Heh. Just saw how old this release was... :-P On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote: This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Streams 0.1-incubating release

This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Steve Blackmon sblack...@apache.org wrote: I'm pleased to announce immediate availability of

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Josh Elser els...@apache.org wrote: The Apache Slider team is proud to announce Apache

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

Heh. Just saw how old this release was... :-P On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html On Mon

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

There are a few things that I would suggest for next steps: 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even agreed to try

Re: my pTLP view

Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: my pTLP view!!). THAT is what we're talking about. Not the Strawman. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the Strawman proposal there for a minute. In the pTLP

Re: my pTLP view

on, we vote on releases, new committers, and elevating committers to PMC. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. Yes, everyone

Re: my pTLP view

Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1. probationary text is prominent,... ...2. the initial PMC is comprised of only ASF Members... I like that proposal, it's simple and looks actionable. The only worry

Re: my pTLP view

On Jan 23, 2015 8:53 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 23 January 2015 at 14:42, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ... I agree with everything else you write, but the demand for only ASF Members seems very hard. If I come to ASF with a community and a project, I really would feel unhappy

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ... Time is on the side of those who think shepherd institution should die. It would be better if it died quickly, vacating the report review mindspace and making way for Mentor commentary supplemented by

Re: my pTLP view

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:18 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Saturday, January 24, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com'); wrote: No, the PMC is *not* the driving force. The project community is, even

Re: my pTLP view

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 1/23/15, 1:34 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: A good mentor is a guide, not a manager. The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are not. OK, I'll accept

Re: my pTLP view

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: ... project, they become a PPMC, a podling. Sure, the IPMC provides oversight, and the board again, but the PPMC can make binding votes on committers, releases, everything that matters - provisionally, of course, which

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Hi Greg, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There is nothing stopping the IPMC from designating certain Mentors as shepherds for their podlings. Having volunteers step forward

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

And another +1 from myself, as a Director voting on that proposal/resolution. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:04 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell andrew.purt...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead

Re: How do reporting groups get assigned?

Leveling. Which group has the fewest? Boom. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: I always assumed that it was based on the month the podling joins. Since there are 3 reporting groups, the decision on who to report is on the mod of the current month

Re: Committer Voting and Vetos

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote: ... Specifically, we (CouchDB) see voting as the failure mode of a discussion (a useful one non-the-less), or as a last-step requirement to officiate a particular set of project-level decisions (that are fully enumerated

Re: Committer Voting and Vetos

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: To the concrete question, the Subversion project never calls a strict [VOTE] for new committers or PMC members. We discuss first, and that sets

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >