Re: A smaller IPMC

Just to point out the obvious... On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > > Some suggestions: > 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and > see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this > list so we need to identify and send

Re: Using GPLv3 in the build?

Yup. This seems concordant with most of the GPL exception clauses on generated output. That is fine, we don't prohibit through use of GPL for target architecture buildable tarballs of sources, so long as the consumers of those source tarballs are not imposed restrictions beyond the AL 2.0. Many

Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance

Would it be helpful if incubator submissions came with a [IP Review] subject line? All accepted incubator and already-evaluated TLP records would still be presented, with a [IP Recorded] or [IP Reviewed] subject line. I suspect it is helpful to show all incoming projects the conclusion of other

Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> ...In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't > be

Re: IP Clearance terms

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being > relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed. Well, it is needed, even where that devolves to "has all SGA paperwork for this incoming

Re: SVN Change?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:02 AM Marvin Humphrey > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:21 AM, John

Re: Possible ASF Incubator Project transfer..

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Reza Rahman wrote: > Yep, understood. We will give it an honest effort > No doubt, we appreciate the sincerity. Note that there are multiple aspect that would require license grants and provisions that complicate any Java-ecosystem grant

Re: Single person developed project

The technical reason for "no solo projects" that already answer your question lies in the ASF governance model, which is based on meritocracy where all who participate in the project are expected to be part of its oversite (there is no allowance for a "BDFL" (Benevolent Dictator For Life)

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

On Jan 10, 2016 4:26 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. > > So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4] > > Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

Agreed this is in the scope of comdev, but in terms of the data collection and aggregation process, you have many willing test subjects aggregated on this list, which sure beats broadcast mails to pmcs@. On Jan 10, 2016 7:15 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > jira is exactly

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

On Jan 9, 2016 14:58, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > > Everyone should read the subject and reset. +1 - the original subject line corresponds to that projects interested in new activity. 3-5 times a week a student or IT hobbiest or professional developer or website designer

Re: Non-voted Release Candidate binary downloadable from project homepage possible?

On Jan 7, 2016 20:48, "John D. Ament" wrote: > > All, > > I wanted to get others opinions. Currently Freemarker creates two > artifacts - one is a GAE compatible module, the other is a regular > library. They are created from two distinct branches in their SCM. Are >

Re: Concerted may be in need of help

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Chris Nauroth wrote: > > As a Concerted mentor, I agree with the concern about lack of activity. I > think this was a difficult month for the project considering both the > general drop in participation and the typical drop in activity

Re: Help for the Log4cxx podling

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Thorsten Schöning <tschoen...@am-soft.de> wrote: > Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr, > am Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 um 15:33 schrieben Sie: > > > Forty forks means 40 prospective committers. > > Or just people, like some of those currently invo

Re: Help for the Log4cxx podling

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:31 AM, wrote: > As a user (and small time contributor once) of log4cxx, I would vote for a > move to a central hosting on github. I don't mind what happens to the > project in terms of the apache organization as I use log4cxx as a >

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

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > On 11/02/2015 06:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some >> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest >> concern is

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > >> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at >

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

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Coming in late. A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at

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

On Aug 21, 2015 1:54 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: 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

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

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Coming in late. A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick

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

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution

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

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/ release. Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our source code

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

On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Coming in late. A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/ release. I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really have never read something so stupid or ill phrased... Every

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

On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a 'kick

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: I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle (though I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root of my disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier

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

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks. Perhaps I could try to return it there? If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes that adapt it to the

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

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote: It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license declaration attached to the project. No, the license is that which was granted

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

On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a 'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their ICLA/CCLA, nothing could

Re: apache binary distributions

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start

Re: apache binary distributions

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the developers of the packaging system have the right to define

Re: apache binary distributions

On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible

Re: Are tests part of the release?

On Aug 9, 2015 4:05 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, Are tests are part of the release? If they are included as source code in the released artefact yes :-) Well put. The Apache HTTP Server has several 'test' modules which are embedded in release tarballs. The 'test

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

On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase gch...@pivotal.io wrote: Does ...based on Apache Hadoop require a clear dependency notation as to which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial

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

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: Hi! while answering a question on release policies and ALv2 I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got documented over here:

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] HornetQ code grant

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: This link is only available to ActiveMQ PMC Members. Do you have a members link? Ideally I'm just looking for a link back to the CCLA/SGA. In every case where you encounter this... On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

I am a proposed mentor associated with Pivotal, well away from my own technology and engineering teams. I'm not good enough with darts to hit that side of the org chart from this side of the room, but really would like to see the contribution succeed, so I'm approaching this as always with my ASF

RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

Ross, do we evaluate source code at the incubation-entry level, or do we evaluate proposed development goals and development community propositions? I'm curious about your thoughts. Yours, Bill On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Pivotal

Re: Committer Voting and Vetos

Understand there is a radical difference between majority, consensus and unanimity. The HTTP Server project has successfully operated by unanimity, although many of us have experience of having the single holdout block progress. I don't believe majority is sufficient in these sorts of matters.

Fwd: [ANN] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC3-incubating released

This seems very odd to me, certainly unusual among Apache projects. The -dev and -user lists (and even general@incubator) are used to announce that a release candidate is available and should be tested for readiness to become an actual release. Some projects use differently-numbered alpha and

Re: Lucene.NET status (Was: [Incubator Wiki] Update of May2012 by PrescottNasser)

On 5/9/2012 6:34 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Jukka: Thanks my friend. The way you have been running the IPMC during your tenure as chair addresses just about everything I have ever bitched about regarding the Incubator. I really appreciate what you are doing and the time it must take to do

Re: Shepherds for podling reports

On 5/4/2012 1:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote: In the Board agenda, we have a line where each Director can state they have reviewed the report (before the meeting). They can also append queries and comments. Little mini-discussions kinda happen in those comments. Point here is: provide a similar

Re: Question RE a non-ASF hosted project requiring contributors to have a signed ICLA submitted to the ASF

On 4/19/2012 9:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: I have a non-ASF hosted project (jszip.org hosted on github in case you are interested), which I am hoping to build enough of a developer community (currently it is just me) around to be able to bring it into the ASF. To this end, I am

Re: [VOTE] Graduate JSPWiki from Incubator

On 4/15/2012 5:46 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: we have made two releases following the ASF policies and guidelines. Thanks to the mentorship we have received through this period, we have learnt to self-govern and grow our community using accepted Apache practices. As noted by

Re: [VOTE] Graduate JSPWiki from Incubator

On 4/17/2012 3:57 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: -1 Unless I am mistaken JSPWiki has not yet made a release under the Apache license: Release 2.9 as first Apache release https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-717 http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/ Apparently this was

Re: Extraordinary OpenOffice security patch (Was: [Incubator Wiki] Update of April2012 by robweir)

On 4/12/2012 2:59 AM, ant elder wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: ... Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was wrongly done. I don't know a

Re: Extraordinary OpenOffice security patch (Was: [Incubator Wiki] Update of April2012 by robweir)

On 4/12/2012 2:37 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:48:05 -0700: Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was wrongly done. I don't know a better way What about expanding the membership of ooo-security@? Currently it has

Re: Extraordinary OpenOffice security patch (Was: [Incubator Wiki] Update of April2012 by robweir)

On 4/11/2012 2:36 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: It should be noted though that even though the /dist/incubator/ooo space was used to distribute these patches, they were and are not officially blessed by the Incubator PMC on behalf of the ASF. Should a similar case arise in the future, I'd

Re: Is there an ASF license for Apple's Apple Developer Program ?

On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 3/31/2012 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: There isn't (to my knowledge), I can imagine

Re: Is there an ASF license for Apple's Apple Developer Program ?

On 3/31/2012 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote: There isn't (to my knowledge), I can imagine an increasing number of projects wanting such a thing though. Unless someone tells me I'm wrong and we already have one would

IP Clearance? NAK

On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't seem to be coming from the committer. IP clearance for an existing committer is BULLSHIT. I already cleared

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote: Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the short form IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they *should*, along the lines Roy suggests in

Re: IP Clearance? NAK

On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if these processes are different than the ones

Re: [VOTE] RAT Ready To Graduate As Apache Creadur Top Level Project

On 2/26/2012 10:03 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: --8--- [X] +1 the RAT community feels ready to graduate as Apache Creadur --- Cheers!

Re: A modest proposal to use JIRA

On 2/14/2012 5:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I propose a JIRA project for the incubator as a better way to recruit PMC members for tasks such as granting karma to new committers. +1. Shown to be highly effective at legal and infrastructure.

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for PMC Chair

On 2/13/2012 1:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Hi Noel, Thanks, for the record, the VOTE passes On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I believe that we can call this vote, now, and request that the Board install Jukka as the new PMC Chair. Action item: Board

Re: [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

With all three other candidates having checked it, sure looks like we found consensus! [X] +1 Recommend Jukka Zitting for the IPMC chair position. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/9/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote: Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates and see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate is odd. Agreed. I suggest that this VOTE be

Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Jukka Zitting for IPMC Chair (was Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/9/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: (1) Why is the IPMC different from other PMCs and holding a personnel VOTEs on a public ML? Just to clarify this single issue; by rights, adding committers and committee members is a personal issue about those individuals. But choosing a

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 2/6/2012 12:49 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge of the transition. It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need to decide what they as volunteers want

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/6/2012 12:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about this As

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: It seems to me that one of the ideas would require some board assistance: Roy's 'IPMC as board' structure, in which, it seems to me, podlings (sooner or later) take binding votes on their own releases and committers, but the board delegates

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 2/5/2012 10:20 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: No. With all respect for Noel - we have discussed this multiple times now. There is a need for a change because some administrative stuff was delayed. There is a need for a change because on of us demanded it (Bill if I remember right). Why

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/5/2012 12:37 AM, Luciano Resende wrote: One thing that is not clear on the proposal is that it says that releases will be responsibility of the TLPs, but it doest not suggest or require that the actual existing ASF members that are part of the TLP have to vote on the release. This might

Re: PMC chair vs. reorg proposals

On 2/5/2012 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: Just to set the record straight and get out of the way, *my* position is that I do not feel particularly qualified to lead the charge in presiding over the disassembly of the incubator. My alternative proposal is not my 'election platform' -- it's

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/4/2012 2:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: [offlist] (sorry, trying to respond individually to keep down the noise, stupid trackpad+palm of my thumb sometimes lets notes fly prematurely. My bad.) - To unsubscribe, e

Re: TL;DR

On 2/4/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: If it is different from Chris's then I think Bill should write his proposal. Dave, mine is not difference in process, substance or requirements. Chris and 7 board members are now familiar with the delta, which is really not up for incubator to choose.

Re: TL;DR

On 2/4/2012 3:05 AM, ant elder wrote: I also agree with a comment from Sam on another thread about wouldn't it be possible to get to just a single chair candidate. That doesn't seem to be happening yet so as there are all these plans going on to get rid of the Incubator altogether can't we

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t thoughts/positioning below. While I agree that in

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were the board, I would want to pilot the

Re: Mentors as the core of the IPMC

On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: One thing I would like to be bantered about: Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling. Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier. By the same measure, there is a role of Champion. If we can avoid fracturing that role

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote: +1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions. One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and ask everyone who has a new plan for the incubator to draft proposals on the wiki as

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the problem. That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem, so little wonder you are confused. Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a PPMC to have binding votes. I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one. I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. That

Re: Anyone care to talk to ComDev? (was Re: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they see for ComDev? Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal Committee: Previous responsibility --- Revised responsibility _ ___

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a project that reports to the board whose mentors stop

Re: TL;DR

On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as it currently stands reads, to me, as nuke the IPMC and pass all responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to ComDev. Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the authority to make the

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional

Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)

On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the community has demonstrated viability. I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling communities. The IPMC never served that purpose. Projects were scuttled even in its first year. The IPMC served to

Re: TL;DR

On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the board. The projects then turn

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake. Anyways, just one commment; On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote: I can easily see a

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing is the following: You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps a

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working optimally, then why have him/her? Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise it.

Re: Time to vote the chair?

On 2/2/2012 8:15 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I support your direction of delegating more authority to podlings by identifying qualified contributors and adding them to the IPMC. I also support the general direction of Bill's proposal to demolish the incubator Credit where credit is due,

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/2/2012 10:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: Thanks Christian. I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and Joe, and the comments from Benson and others. I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that I don't intend to be in it

Re: Time to vote the chair?

On 2/2/2012 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all the time and need to be fed to the board;

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/2/2012 11:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-) :) Nope, it doesn't actually. Please read the thread carefully. That is what is being suggested by Bill

Re: [DISCUSS] Syncope to Join the Apache Incubator

On 2/1/2012 12:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:56, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm also trying, more pointedly, to head off the 'AWOL mentor' problem by asking mentors to think about, and state, the commitment they are making. But your approach is

re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 1/31/2012 5:05 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ... This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at the advice of a small iPMC. No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely does not want to have to provide direct

Re: Incubator, or Incubation?

On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very small operational committee just to help move the podling through the entire process of wrangling

Re: Nomination of Chris Mattman for the IPMC Chair (was: Re: NOMINATIONS for Incubator PMC Chair)

On 2/1/2012 6:52 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: don't we also have jukka? Jukka expressed (to be found somewhere in the archives) he does not need additonal workload at the moment. In addition he is already

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel votes are by

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On 1/31/2012 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Plainly wrong: It has been repeatedly established (even by the Chair) that policy decisions here are not subject to veto. This is one of those times. Furthermore the documentation [1] clearly points out that procedural issues are to be decided

Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes

On 1/31/2012 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote: I'm a little unclear on wrowe's original message talking about supermajority and whether that was for *addition* or for *removal*. I'm assuming that it was only about addition because I've never seen any PMC-based ejection of a PMC member. The Board

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >