Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Hi, I have a small update on the below. Will add to the original thread. Michael On 06.06.18, 15:24, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > ...We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for > donation at Apache which went no where... IIUC you mean donating resources for automated testing? The ASF now has a Targeted Sponsors [1] program meant specifically for that. If you think that's not useful, or if there are obstacles, I'm happy to help figure out how to fix that. Ideally here or on private lists if really required. -Bertrand [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Thanks for changed it -cs On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:36 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:34 PM Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > ...Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to > > maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase > > contributions" or something similar?.. > > I have now changed that to "Increase contributions to ensure all > project repos are maintained. and address Issue / PR backlog". > > Happy to discuss if someone's not happy with that. > > -Bertrand >
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:34 PM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > ...Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to > maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase > contributions" or something similar?.. I have now changed that to "Increase contributions to ensure all project repos are maintained. and address Issue / PR backlog". Happy to discuss if someone's not happy with that. -Bertrand
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Carlos Santana wrote: > ...I think the company is referring to that to my understanding is that the > project to graduate should have at least 3 companies sponsoring the > project... It's not exactly that. To graduate, a project must have "sufficient diversity" so that it's not overly dependent on a single entity which might lose interest and cause the project to stop. That diversity is generally defined by having PMC members affiliated with at least 3 different entities, which do not have to be companies - people from two companies along with a few independents is fine. What's most important is for all things to happen in the open, "if it didn't happen on the dev list it didn't happen" so that anyone can participate in decisions. My other thread about asynchronous communications is related - it must be easy to collaborate with the project even if one isn't working 100% on it. -Bertrand
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
I think the company is referring to that to my understanding is that the project to graduate should have at least 3 companies sponsoring the project, which typically in practice sponsoring means that they are behind the project in case 1 company drops, there are at least 2 to continue the project. In practice the company will have a set of people really involved int the project and these people would be part of IPPMC and committers. Is there is a better way to articulate the distinction between the normal Apache way that at the end of the day is individuals are the contributors and maintainers of the projects, vs. maybe a graduation criteria (initial stages of project) I'm good with to make it explicit and more clear. -- Carlos On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:34 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Matt Rutkowski > wrote: > ... > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755 > ... > > Thanks for this! Great report as usual. > > Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to > maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase > contributions" or something similar? > > It's individuals who contribute to ASF projects, not companies. > > -Bertrand (nitpicking, with my incubation mentor hat on - but that's > an important nuance) >
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Matt Rutkowski wrote: ... > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755 ... Thanks for this! Great report as usual. Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase contributions" or something similar? It's individuals who contribute to ASF projects, not companies. -Bertrand (nitpicking, with my incubation mentor hat on - but that's an important nuance)
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Hi, On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Matt Rutkowski wrote: > ...We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for > donation at Apache which went no where... IIUC you mean donating resources for automated testing? The ASF now has a Targeted Sponsors [1] program meant specifically for that. If you think that's not useful, or if there are obstacles, I'm happy to help figure out how to fix that. Ideally here or on private lists if really required. -Bertrand [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Matt, Thanks for spending time doing the report, I can't express more gratitude about this. On one of the board meetings, someone mentioned that "OpenWhisk" report is one of the best incubator reports they have seen in years. Kudos !! I don't know how you come up with so excellent detail report of the things we have done I updated the report with the following, other than adding is lgtm - For blocker for graduation, I remove the kubernetes/mesos statement, this should not be related to graduation (Tyson pointed out in a comment) - Added trademark handoff to graduation blockers - Added what James Thomas suggested on Slack activity - check box for "initial setup" (Rob pointed out in a comment) -cs On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:19 AM James Thomas wrote: > LGTM - nice work Matt. > > On the "Community" section? Would it be worth adding the growth of the > Slack community? We're ~800 members and it is really active. > > On 5 June 2018 at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski 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 > > > > > > -- > Regards, > James Thomas >
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
LGTM - nice work Matt. On the "Community" section? Would it be worth adding the growth of the Slack community? We're ~800 members and it is really active. On 5 June 2018 at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski 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 > -- Regards, James Thomas
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
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 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 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 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 > > >
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
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 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
