Thx Rodric, >> 1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and >> SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious if >> there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if this >> is for the private list, I can start a thread there).
We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for donation at Apache which went no where... My personal forays in addition that are mainly what I am reflecting upon in the above statements. I would feel better about talking about corporate donations (and the history) on private to be honest. It is my hope that we can work to address 2 things that MAY make public PGs easier 1) get all private PG tests into open (and never see another private PG reference anywhere) and parallelize these tests in Travis (as much as possible) 2) Author criteria / steps for running a PG and referencing on a PR (as evidence of passage). These two general steps seem to be supported by my previous discussions both within and outside IBM. >> 2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license headers*" >> this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've >> noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a vote >> on a release candidate soon - are we ready? Almost. First, massive kudos to Vincent for all his work in automating and documenting process in our releae repo. For the record, I am reviewing the draft letter which would be sent to the Incubator PMC today but am waiting for PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3720 to get reviewed/merged by someone other than myself. Once merged, I plan to begin the process (JIRA) and submit the letter. Will provide latest details on interchange call tomorrow and hope to answer any questions. -mr PS have been stealing rr's abbreviated-style signature lately... From: Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org Date: 06/05/2018 02:04 PM Subject: Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report Thanks Matt for assembling the report. Two questions 1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious if there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if this is for the private list, I can start a thread there). 2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license headers*" this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a vote on a release candidate soon - are we ready? -r On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Rob Allen <r...@akrabat.com> wrote: > Matt, > > Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for your > attention. > > Regards, > > Rob > > > On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mrutkow...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Whiskers, > > > > I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan > to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or > on our CWiki: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action? > pageId=85475755 > > > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > PS message me if you need CWiki access > > >
