Hi Marvin, I had a look, that README being pointed to is just build
instructions on how to build the svn trunk isn't it, so not to some
released artifacts. Thats allowed isn't it, i'm pretty sure other projects
and podlings have done something similar anyway. Is it that the website
describes it as
te:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:42 PM, David Crossley
> wrote:
> >> ant elder wrote:
> >>> Hi Marvin, I had a look, that README being pointed to is just build
> >>> instructions on how to build the svn trunk isn't it, so not to some
> >&g
hey fixed it in less than a day, so all
credit to them for keeping on trying.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Thanks for doing that so promptly Till.
>
>...ant
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Till Westmann wrote:
>
>> Just for the record: Th
lunteer to be a mentor to help try to keep them alive if they
want to keep trying.
...ant
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:01 AM, ant elder wrote:
> > To me VXQuery looks like an example of a project being let down by the
> &
n, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> Moving this[1] to general@
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:55 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Tim Williams wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> I've included references inline for your conv
Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect,
lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
...ant
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:56 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 September 2013 14:16, Tim Williams wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM, ant elder
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> As Tim and Luciano have already stated, artifacts which were not voted on
> by
> the IPMC cannot continue to be distributed though our channels.
>
Is that actually the case? AIUI the ASF only releases open source code. We
vote on the sou
ope of responsibility of
> the Apache Chukwa Project; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
> hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
> Apache Chukwa Project:
>
> * Ahmed Fathalla (af
I closed LEGAL-178 with the resolution "Not A Problem", which is quite
different to a resolution of "Fixed" or "Resolved" or "Answered".
>From my investigation, things like the text of the AL and various posts in
the mailing lists over the years answered the question to my satisfaction.
I doubt ev
Hi Vinayak, I offered to help mentor if necessary when VXQuery came up a
few weeks ago so i can help with this. I'll go have a look at whats going
on and help.
...ant
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Vinayak Borkar wrote:
> Dear Incubator,
>
> The VXQuery podling is currently stalled at bei
ing/apache-vxquery-0.2-incubating-source-release.zip.sha1>
>>>
>>> MD5: 381c212e2573b467855aa682a5e3ab**22
>>> SHA1: f07fe151ddea24457c6497a1abd485**28f9c02462
>>>
>>> The RAT report is at:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~**tillw/a
t; On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:03 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> > Dave/Vinayak,
> >
> > My understanding is that the ODC-BY license only needs to be run by ASF
> > legal if there is a concern about it, I've read the license when voting
> on
> > this and AFAICT its
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>>
>> The Incubator has a fundamental structural flaw: it lacks a mechanism to
>> reward merit earned by individual podling contributors.
>
> Idea: Allow for podlings to nominate, and ele
Ha ha ha ha. Does the same also apply to maintaining the records, for
clutch, the vote monitoring and other tools, signing reports, writing
reports for that matter, and all the other aspects of the incubator -
all of that might get done eventually one day if people can ever find
the time, don't mak
ing 0.2 passes after more
> than 72 hours with 3 +1 votes of IPMC members (Jochen Wiedmann, Ant Elder,
> Marvin Humphrey) and no 0 or -1 votes.
>
> The vote thread on vxquery-dev can be found here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-vxquery-dev/201310.mbox/%3C511917E
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still be the element of oversight that a mentor vote
gives but avoids all the p
full committee,
not any one member of it.
On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
>> they don't require at least three binding votes,
et at least Roy’s approval because release
>> votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
>> not any one member of it.
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder wrote:
useful step for some. Lets give it a try.
What do you say?
...ant
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Suresh Marru wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM, ant elder wrote:
>>> So, we _can_ let podlings have their o
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> What i'd like to try is more similar to the pTLP approach previously
>> talked about. So take some existing podling, eg Stratos and/or
>> VXQuery, and give th
Hi Benson,
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> If the board were offering us another structural approach, this would
> be a different discussion. But, unless I've gotten lost in the torrent
> of email, the board isn't offering an alternative.
Yep you must have gotten los
The reason it might be dis-empowering is that currently one of the main
roles of the PPMC is voting in new committers so if the PPMC is initially
just the mentors then the other podling members wont be involved in that.
It might still be worth trying the approach as an experiment if a willing
podli
. Seems simple
> enough.
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> > The reason it might be dis-empowering is that currently one of the main
> > roles of the PPMC is voting in new committers so if the PPMC is initially
> > just the mentors then the ot
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Still, this isn't the hill I want to die on. I think that starting with an
> empty PPMC is good policy for a variety of reasons, but I'm willing to be
> flexible for the sake of building consensus on how to address the truly
> damaging di
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>> I think this is getting too hung up on vetting releases is the be all and
>> end all of PMC m
I'm in favour of trying this. And its just experiment remember so not
a change for ever for all podlings so please people try to support it
or at least not try to block it.
...ant
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> The possibility of an experiment with making PPMC votes
Do these sort of experiments really need consensus? The Incubator PMC
is so big and diverse now it makes getting consensus on some things
all most impossible, after the change a little while back we don't
even need consensus for voting in new Incubator PMC members now.
...ant
On Sat, Nov 23, 2
Just fyi so I'm not accused of not saying anything - I'm not totally sure
what the intention is for this and I'm all for doing some experiments and
wouldn't get in the way if this is to be tried with a podling, however this
looks like its becoming a fairly complex and arduous process to me.
...
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
> mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> >>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commit
r doing podling releases it would make a massive improvement to
everyones experience of the Incubator.
...ant
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release sho
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> ...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
>> should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
>
> I wouldn
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
>> voting against this proposal.
>
> I plan to propose this as an experiment
Well ok
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> If we deleted every
> release from the main Foundation distro area that had some divergence
> from some policy, no matter how tiny, my suspicion is that the distro
> area would become rather sparse.
>
Yes quite. And lets not forget how
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
For a release tagged with the "incubating"
> label and disclaimer, filing bugs rather than blocking seems reasonable.
>
>
I may have edited away more than you like but yes - "filing bugs rather
than blocking" is the approach we should try us
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dave Fisher
> wrote:
>
> So...
>
> * Ant likes the voting rule change, but is opposed to the checklist.
>
I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will be voting against
this just for that
n Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will be voting against
>> this just for that. Its just an experiment so you don't need to be making a
>> permanent change to the policy
The N word wasn't particularly helpful or constructive, sorry. I do think
the policy page should be kept simple and generic though, so isn't the
place to be describing this experiment.
...ant
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Well sorry but IMHO thats nonsen
Obviously +1 from me on doing experiments, and -1 for the silly policy
update stuff.
...ant
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting
> process,
> I propose that we run an experiment allowing
+1
Looks ok to me
...ant
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Klevenz, Stephan
wrote:
> No progress on Olingo's release vote. Still one binding vote is missing.
> What else can we do to get it done?
>
> Regards,
> Stephan
>
> On 06.02.14 23:01, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Feb 6, 2014
Also, why doesn't Olingo go for graduation? I had a little look around the
project and don't see anything holding it up.
...ant
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ant elder wrote:
> +1
>
> Looks ok to me
>
>...ant
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:52 AM,
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> FWIW as far as I am concerned, you can 'conditionally' sign off on a
> report, that is, with comments, if there's things you need to say.
>
> Upayavira
>
+1 to that. And its still over a week till the baord meeting and lots of
mentors active in
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2014, at 21:27, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> >>> On 24 Jun 2014, at 7:24, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for a belated reply -- at first I was following Doug's rule
> and then I got distracted ;-)
>
> That said -- I really would like to drive us to some kind
> consensus (even if we have to do the vote) because
> the current situ
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 04:23 AM, ant elder wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Sorry for a belated reply -- at first I was following D
with a few of the old podlings first to see what happens and from that
find what sort of rule might work?
...ant
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:01 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> Right, and thats why i don't think a rule like that would be
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
> > On 12 Jul 2014, at 8:05, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> That's actually the part of the thread that I have a lot of interest in.
> >> Is there any reason not to use attic fo
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> >> ...Including the patch below...
> >
> > Sorry to come in late but I had a look at [1] and it's way too
> >
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Richard Frovarp wrote:
>
>> A lot of wind was taken out of the sails in the fights to get the IPMC votes
>> necessary to finish a release. We had two votes, but needed to request
>> several times for help
-1
In the vote on their dev list there wasn't unanimous support for retiring
the project, that should be sorted out first before forcibly retiring them
and while there are still people who want to give it a go to try to make it
work.
...ant
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Alan Cabrera wrot
Great to hear, one month seemed too short to accomplish so much. I'd be
happy to volunteer as another mentor if some fresh eyes will help.
...ant
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> If we decide to give the podling another chance I would prefer to give it
> another six mon
I'd hope we can demonstrate finding consensus rather than using the vote to
resolve this.
I still think forced retirement doesn't seem the right thing in this case
so my -1 stands. In the other thread Alan now seems open to giving them
another try, i've offered to help with that (any other offers
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > If people who -1 the retirement agree to mentor Chukwa to give it
> > another chance, like you seem to be ready to do, I have no problem
> > with that.
>
> As usual a
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> One interesting point about consensus decision-making process is the
> need to define the starting point. The process assumes that there is a
> clear 'status quo', and that a consensus is required to change it.
> This may not always be th
Unless there are compelling reason to stop, i.e continuing breaches of
basic ASF polices and principles, then where possible letting a poddling
continue incubation or just graduate seems better to me than making them go
elsewhere. Its not like a small slow problem is chewing up ASF resources,
but i
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I have only one point of discomfort with Ross' writing here.
>
> Ross's position, in this and other messages, seems to me to be that it
> a podling can persist indefinitely, so long as (a) it has involved
> mentors, and (b) there's no ongo
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > ...Slow poddlings don't use much ASF resource so aren't a burden...
>
> I disagree: podlings do use mentor's energy - graduating or retiring
> the
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> > ...What difference does it make to
> > the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>
> IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
> needed, an
I've already voted +1 for this on the easyant list but +1 again to bring
the vote up again. Still need one more vote please anyone...
...ant
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
> This is a call for a vote of the release of EasyAnt 0.9-incubating. We are
> releasing the pl
+1
...ant
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The EasyAnt community would like to graduate as an subproject of Ant.
>
> The Ant PMC has just accepted:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/201303.mbox/%3CBD5DB6B8-13BC-421F-800C-CE6CB21D7BF4%40hibn
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edward J. Yoon >wrote:
>
> > > could you please close the "Create MRQL" tasks in the Infra Jira until
> > > the situation has been cleared up. Whenever this all has been sorted
> > > out you can reopen the
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 3:01 PM, ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Alex Karasulu > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Edward J. Yoon <
> edwardy...@apache.org
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Edward J. Yoon wrote:
> The required action has been taken, so let me close this thread again.
> I apologize again for my mistake.
>
> The Sponsors are changed as following:
>
> == Champion ==
>
> * Alex Karasulu
>
> == Nominated Mentors ==
>
>* Alex Kar
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>> We're also missing Ant Elder from the Nominated Mentors list no?
>> Fixed.
Please find that the MRQL mailing lists have been created and are
ready to be used for further discussion:
d...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
u...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
priv...@mrql.incubator.apache.org
Would everyone named on the proposal please go subscribe to them, and
happy MRQL'ing.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
> on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
>
> We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1.
> Another voter had concerns an voted -1.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Matthias Friedrich wrote:
> On Monday, 2013-03-25, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> IMO it's the podlings who need to make sure they have enough mentor
>>> energy available
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> Now, you might argue that mentoring is a lot more than voting, but we
> could create another bottleneck in getting release votes through,
> requiring votes from incubator PMC members who are not particularly
> focused on the podling.
>
Thats
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
> IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship - that would solve several of the problems
> we've being having including this one, it would open up a much bigger
> pool of
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
>
> Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this large,
> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings.
Thats more how i see it. Using consensus instead of
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> Ok, i propose we have an "experiment" [1] where we try having a mentor
>> or two
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
> with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
> consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
> time. Our goal he
w.
> Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
> self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
> you talking to yourself.
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
&
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer wrote:
> No more so than they already had.
>
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example.
Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible
incubator mentor, and its not the first time.
There's a big debate within the PMC,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> As Doug points out, votes are structured away
> from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
> continue on with previously agreed to issues
> just to circumvent the voting process.
>
Ok thanks Joe and Doug. So to be absolutely clear, the wor
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Matthias Friedrich wrote:
>
> As someone who is relatively new to the ASF and who's first behind the
> scenes contact with Apache was the incubation process, I can tell that
> this is absolutely true. Podlings find themselves in a kafkaesque
> world where many rul
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Chris,
>
> What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
> problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
> common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
> all to accep
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
> is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
> understand, in relation to releases.)
>
>
Hi Noah, i suggested that one of the problems was
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
> look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
> confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
> rhetoric. I har
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
> > Whenever I
> > > loo
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Just a thought.
>
> Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
> project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
> egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good thing.
>
>
The
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
> already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
> Why not say "where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can go
> straight to TLP" (
Come back after being away its a bit hard to tell where this vote is but i
think its still open and you're wondering what to do.
+1 on the release from me.
I see the issues being discussed about the legal docs and i see on you're
addressing them as much as you can workout and nothing looks like a
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt.
>
> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if
> those discussions drove some of us to distraction.
>
> A bit before the wiki crashed, I wrote:
>
> h
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>>
>> Discussions on Ross' and Chris' proposals ground to a halt.
>>
>> In my view, there are real issues that drove those discussions, even if
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> If this was a software project, and the appropriate answer was unknown, they
> you might apply a "lean startup" approach, and figure out how to run tests
> to see which way works best.
>
> Given the number of incubating projects, should be eas
dation. It could tell the whiney
> VP to JFDI -- make some decisions and get on with it. (Consensus is
> desirable, but read one of the board resolutions that installs a VP.)
>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 2:39 AM, ant elder wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Eric Joh
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's
>> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not.
>
> Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list
> recently pointing out
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been following along with the
> progress of this project at all, but I happened to notice that, according
> to the incubator projects page, this project has been in incubation for
> almost 6 years. Th
Its good that we can help keep BeanShell going by bring it to the ASF, but
my vote here is -1.
There was some discussion on this proposal back in April and one of the
last emails there was this one saying:
"If the intention is to have Beanshell become a part of Apache Commons then
the IPMC feels
>From the subject line I thought this was going to be another attempt to
sort out the incubator :-/
...ant
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Dear ASF members,
>
> We would like to propose MetaModel for the incubator.
>
> Matt Franklin will be the Champion for this proje
I agree with Mark and John, the terms mean different things, and the term
"retired" is reasonably well understood now and mentioned in various places
in the Incubator documentation so wouldn't it be better to keep it as is?
Are there really any dormant poddlings? If so probably they are really
reti
e, and either status
does that.
...ant
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:36 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > I agree with Mark and John, the terms mean different things, and the term
> > "retired" is reasonably well unde
I think a lot of the "poddling" occurrences might be down to me and my
atrocious spelling and getting it wrong so often i don't even notice it
looks wrong now. I'll try to proofread more closely.
...ant
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:32 PM, sebb wrote:
> I keep seeing the word Poddling being used
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Simple as that.
>
If only.
This is the old "what goes in the NOTICE file" debate that has
probably caused more emails and confusion than any other topic here.
My understanding of the current thinking on this is to only include
something in
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2013 4:22 AM, "ant elder" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Simple as that.
>> >
>>
>> If only.
>>
>> This
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
wrote:
> Hey Alan,
>
> Great question if there is an "official" policy here. My read is
> that no it's based on tribal knowledge and informal assumption.
>
There is an official policy which is documented on the Incubator
policy page. That s
I'm also +1 (and excited!) on trying out this as a "probationary TLPs", and
with doing that using the approaches outlined by Ross and others in other
emails on this thread (which is basically having a vote now to accept this
as a podling so we can get started and then working up a probationary TLP
+1
...ant
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> policy. The
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
>
Don't assume its that clear, i think at least some agree with you that this
is just ISSUE3 and kept quiet, thats what i did.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
> understand the written words instead of needing to interject
> your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
>
>
Don't be so abrasive Joe, I'm a mentor for this podli
1 - 100 of 536 matches
Mail list logo
