It would be my pleasure to pick up TLP Chair responsibilities if nobody objects.
Andrew, it would be really great and beneficial to the community if you could stay on mentoring as PMC of the new TLP. Could you also help update the project status page on the incubator site please? I will reference other podling's graduation proposal and draft a board resolution. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Donald would be great. > Donald - please think about it. > > It was suggested privately to me that I stay on from mentoring as PMC. If > you'll have me, I would be glad to help the new TLP as/if needed. > > > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > > > This has been an informal poll and it looks like people are ready. I > suggest we push for graduation after the next release, which will be done > by someone not Donald, I think we have 2 volunteers? I think this will be a > requirement since it’s been mentioned by several IPMC members. > > > > I’d like to think several people could be our candidate VP but since > most of them are too busy and since we have another great candidate in > Donald, I’d like to nominate him for TLP Chair/VP. > > > > I’d suggest we poll the committers and PMC members to see if any want > out of the TLP, and otherwise go with the current list. We should try to > add any committers that are ready before the graduation push, the more the > better to the IPMC. > > > > We should put this in a proposal and get mentors feedback before > applying since mentors are also IPMC members. > > > > Andy has mentioned several choices for convention that we should > discuss, like our choice of git flow for commit process. He mentioned > rotating Chair, which seems better suited to a larger project IMO but > please chime in if you like the idea. > > > > If that is all clear we have to release, have a podling vote, then have > the IPMC vote. If there is anything else regarding how we are run speak up > now. > > > > > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:01 AM, takako shimamoto <chiboch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I'd like to remain as committer and contribute my humble efforts to > > the prosperity of the project. > > > >> I propose we stay with the current PMC and committer list unless > someone wants to remove themselves. > > > > It may be good. In fact, most of committers carry out a task with > > limited time. Anyway I hope the project will progress in a good > > direction. > > > > > > > > 2017-09-06 3:43 GMT+09:00 Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com>: > >> I personally don’t see much benefit in removing people unless they > prove the exception. AFAIK this generally does not happen in ASF. I’m > certainly not aware of the process except that it is easier in moving from > podling to TLP. You prove some worthiness and once that’s done, it’s done. > A poll might just ask project members if they want to be removed. I have > seen people ask to be removed from PMC and also “go emeritus” and those are > cases of the individuals making the choice. > >> > >> So to settle the role call issue I propose we stay with the current PMC > and committer list unless someone wants to remove themselves. > >> > >> As to maturity I agree with Donald that the checklist is heavy in our > favor. > >> > >> > >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Simon Chan <si...@salesforce.com> wrote: > >> > >> +1 for graduation > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Donald Szeto <don...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for the clarification Pat! It always help to have Apache > veterans to > >>> provide historical context to these processes. > >>> > >>> As for me, I'd like to remain as PMC and committer. > >>> > >>> I like the idea of polling the current committers and PMC, but like you > >>> said, most of them got pretty busy and may not be reading mailing list > in a > >>> while. Maybe let me try a shout out here and see if anyone would > >>> acknowledge it, so that we know whether a poll will be effective. > >>> > >>> *>> If you're a PMC or committer who see this line but hasn't been > replying > >>> this thread, please acknowledge. <<* > >>> > >>> Regarding the maturity model, this is my perception right now: > >>> - CD10, CD20, CD30, CD40 (and we start to have CD50 as well) > >>> - LC10, LC20, LC30, LC40, LC50 > >>> - RE10, RE20, RE30, RE50 (I think we hope to also do RE40 with 0.12) > >>> - QU10, QU30, QU40, QU50 (we should put a bit of focus to QU20) > >>> - CO10, CO20, CO30, CO40, CO60, CO70 (for CO50, I think we've been > >>> operating under the assumption that PMC and contributors are pretty > >>> standard definitions by ASF. We can call those out explicitly.) > >>> - CS10, CS50 (We are also assuming implicitly CS20, CS30, and CS40 from > >>> main ASF doc) > >>> - IN10, IN20 > >>> > >>> Let me know what you think. > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The Chair, PMC, and Committers may be different after graduation. > >>>> PMC/committers are sometimes not active committers but can have a > >>> valuable > >>>> role as mentors, in non-technical roles, as support people on the > mailing > >>>> list, or as sometimes committers who don’t seem very active but come > in > >>>> every so often to make a key contribution. So I hope this doesn’t > become > >>> a > >>>> time to prune too deeply. I’d suggest we only do that if one of the > >>>> committers has done something to lessen our project maturity or wants > to > >>> be > >>>> left out for their own reasons. An example of bad behavior is someone > >>>> trying to exert corporate dominance (which is severely frowned on by > the > >>>> ASF). Another would be someone who is disruptive to the point of > >>> destroying > >>>> team effectiveness. I personally haven’t seen any of this but > purposely > >>>> don’t read everything so chime in here. > >>>> > >>>> It would be good to have people declare their interest-level. As for > me, > >>>> I’d like to remain on the PMC as a committer but have no interest in > >>> Chair. > >>>> Since people can become busy periodically and not read @dev (me?) we > >>> could, > >>>> maybe should, poll the current committers and PMC to get the lists > ready > >>>> for the graduation proposal. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Don’t forget that we are not just asking for dev community opinion > about > >>>> graduation. We are also asking that people check things like the > Maturity > >>>> Checklist to see it we are ready. http://community.apache.org/ > >>>> apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html < > >>>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project- > >>> maturity-model.html> > >>>> People seem fairly enthusiastic about applying for graduation, but are > >>>> there things we need to do before hand? The goal is to show that we do > >>> not > >>>> require the second level check for decisions that the IPMC provides. > The > >>>> last release required no changes but had a proviso about content > >>> licenses. > >>>> This next release should fly through without provisos IMHO. Are there > >>> other > >>>> things we should do? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:16 AM, takako shimamoto <chiboch...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I entirely agree with everyone else. > >>>> I hope the PIO community will become more active after graduation. > >>>> > >>>>> 2. If we are to graduate, who should we include in the list of the > >>>> initial > >>>>> PMC? > >>>> > >>>> Don't all present IPMC members are included in the list of the initial > >>> PMC? > >>>> > >>>> Personally, I think we may as well check and see if present IPMC > >>>> members intend to become an initial PMC for graduation. > >>>> Members who make a declaration of intent to become it will surely > >>>> contribute to the project. > >>>> It is a great contribution not only to develop a program but also to > >>>> respond to email aggressively or fix document. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2017-08-29 14:20 GMT+09:00 Donald Szeto <don...@apache.org>: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> Since the ASF Board meeting in May ( > >>>>> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2017/board_ > >>>> minutes_2017_05_17.txt), > >>>>> PredictionIO has been considered nearing graduation and I think we > are > >>>>> almost there. I am kickstarting this thread so that we can discuss on > >>>> these > >>>>> 3 things: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Does the development community feel ready to graduate? > >>>>> 2. If we are to graduate, who should we include in the list of the > >>>> initial > >>>>> PMC? > >>>>> 3. If we are to graduate, who should be the VP of the initial PMC? > >>>>> > >>>>> These points are relevant for graduation. Please take a look at the > >>>>> official graduation guide: > >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html. > >>>>> > >>>>> In addition, Sara and I have been working to transfer the > PredictionIO > >>>>> trademark to the ASF. We will keep you updated with our progress. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would also like to propose to cut a 0.12.0 release by merging JIRAs > >>>> that > >>>>> have a target version set to 0.12.0-incubating for graduation. 0.12.0 > >>>> will > >>>>> contain cleanups for minor license and copyright issues that were > >>> pointed > >>>>> out in previous releases by IPMC. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me know what you think. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Donald > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
