Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
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 > > > 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 hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for > the > > > whole problem...) > > > > > > > > Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can > > be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum > > graduation requirements documented on the policy page: > > > > "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are > > at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company > or > > entity that is vital to the success of the project)" > > - http://incubator.apache > > .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator > > > > Great example - it's reasonably clear but incorrect (as well as being > imprecise as you illustrate). We don't require a minimum of 3 independent > committers. We require a community that doesn't exclude anyone. > > I don't have the time to look it up but there was quite some discussion > about this point some time ago. I seem to remember the IPMC agreeing the > docs need to be updated. > > Ross > > That would be further evidence that the doc is often "ignored" right? (Would be interested in a link if you/anyone can find it, to see if a decision was clearly made about this) ...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies > wrote: >> ...Chris proposes that this >> committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in >> large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard >> from so far has been less than enthusiastic... > > That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more - > deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me, > both as a board member and as an ASF member. I am interested in graduating podlings into TLPs when ready. I think the incubator is an excellent place that has done tremendous efforts in fulfilling the mission of the ASF - software for the public good. It pains me to continue to read Chris's continual efforts to disband. It is wearying and demotivating. Upayavira made an effort to just discuss problems, yet Chris continues to push his poison pill solution. Now I'll do my best to do the shepherd thing and look at long time podling's like VXQuery - which is slowly working towards their second release and probably needs a new Mentor. I have less time this year for the IPMC, I am not sure I have time to Mentor for awhile, but Shepherding is fun. It's time for some fledgling's to be pushed out of the nest. Regards, Dave > > -Bertrand > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] S4 0.6.0 Incubating Release Candidate 3
Hi, Matthieu, It sounds like you folks are trying hard to get this right -- kudos! On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Matthieu Morel wrote: > 1/ about the content of LICENSE and NOTICE, is the following correct? > > - in the LICENSE file of the binary distribution, in addition to references > to non-ASL included dependencies (already there), we need to reference all > included dependencies that use ASL2, with the following statement: "The > Apache License, Version 2.0 applies to the following libraries: A, B, C" I haven't reviewed the release candidate, but that description sounds fine. Some might argue that it's not necessary, but it doesn't hurt -- and if one of those libraries ever changes its license, the discrepancy should serve as a red flag for you to review and fix. > - in the NOTICE file of the binary distribution, we add notices that > dependency libraries explicitly ask for. That is already done and no > change is required. That also sounds correct, assuming that your interpretation of "notices that the dependency libraries explicitly ask for" and what the dependency licenses actually require are in harmony. :) Hopefully the Licensing How-to gives you enough information to guide your choices. For BSD-3, MIT, and ALv2 dependencies, the requirements are reasonably straightforward. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps The NOTICE requirements for other licenses are not yet documented by Apache Legal Affairs; this is an area where the ASF needs to do some work, so that our PMCs and PPMCs don't have to pore over licenses making judgment calls. > 2/ about the inclusion of the gradle wrapper jar + script in the source > distribution: > > We currently use gradle for building the project. Gradle provides a basic > wrapper script so that the project can be built without installing gradle > beforehand. That is why we include the script + wrapper lib. > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools says that specific > [build] tools have been OK'ed for inclusion in Apache distribution when used > for that specific purpose [of building]. > > Should we exclude the gradle wrapper from our distribution? Since Gradle appears to be under the Apache License 2.0, the section on the "build tools" doesn't really come into play. That passage refers to certain tools with licenses which would ordinarily raise concerns. The rationale for not including the gradle wrapper jar file in the canonical source distribution is that a jar file is not source code. There was a discussion on this topic in March 2012 on general@; here's ASF Board member Roy Fielding: http://markmail.org/message/a4kbf33vn57dkz2j Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts. Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release (even if it was derived from open source). Feel free to bundle ALv2 tools with the binary redistribution, or in a separate `-deps` package, though. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: committee-info.txt and the incubator PMC
On 3 April 2013 16:36, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > >> So how about having just historical info in the text file, and LDAP >> for current info? >> > > Isn't this the current rationale? I see the LDAP group answering the > question "Does the person A belong to group B now?" and committee-info.txt > answering other questions, like how long A has belonged to group B or the > composition of group B in time. > The only way to change the composition of a PMC is via an e-mail to the board, which is then ACKed. After 72 hours the change is official. Ideally, the LDAP group and committee-info.txt are then both updated together. However that does not always happen; I'm not sure that either is necessarily more accurate than the other. Note that the file contains reporting details as well as historical info. Regards, > Andrea. > > > --**--**- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > general-help@incubator.apache.**org > >
Re: [VOTE] S4 0.6.0 Incubating Release Candidate 3
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Matthieu Morel wrote:
Hey there, just back from vacation, hopefully Sebb can weigh in but
here's my thinking:
> We have 2 key questions, which I reproduce below:
>
> 1/ about the content of LICENSE and NOTICE, is the following correct?
>
> - in the LICENSE file of the binary distribution, in addition to references
> to non-ASL included dependencies (already there), we need to reference all
> included dependencies that use ASL2, with the following statement: "The
> Apache License, Version 2.0 applies to the following libraries: A, B, C"
> - in the NOTICE file of the binary distribution, we add notices that
> dependency libraries explicitly ask for. That is already done and no change
> is required.
>
Have you reviewed this section of the release guide?
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
Also the license howto was recently updated, a good test of the work done there:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html (see also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-155)
>
> 2/ about the inclusion of the gradle wrapper jar + script in the source
> distribution:
>
> We currently use gradle for building the project. Gradle provides a basic
> wrapper script so that the project can be built without installing gradle
> beforehand. That is why we include the script + wrapper lib.
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools says that specific
> [build] tools have been OK'ed for inclusion in Apache distribution when used
> for that specific purpose [of building].
>
> Should we exclude the gradle wrapper from our distribution?
>
I don't see any prior LEGAL issue mentioning gradle:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20LEGAL%20AND%20text%20~%20gradle
however a number of other projects seem to depend on it, you should
check what they are doing:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22gradle%22
Once you go through that process cut another RC and we'll see.
Regards,
Patrick
>
> On Mar 28, 2013, at 18:15 , Matthieu Morel wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your comments,
>>
>> Inline, I provide some explanations and ask for guidance on some topics.
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:59 , sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
Thanks for the feedback,
I replied inline.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>> this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
>>
>>
>> A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed for RC3 with
>> 6+1's with 5 of them binding:
>>
>> +1 IPMC (phunt)
>> +1PPMC (mmorel, kishoreg, leoneu, fpj)
>> +1 committer non PPMC (dferro)
>>
>>
>> Here is the vote thread on s4-dev:
>> http://markmail.org/thread/n5totrx7jkh2nvzu
>>
>>
>> This release fixes the following issues:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12312322&version=12321702
>>
>>
>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
>> convenience.
>>
>> Source and binary packages in zip format:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~mmorel/s4-0.6.0-incubating-release-candidate-3/
>>
>>
>>
>> The (git) tag to be voted upon: 0.6.0-RC3:
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-s4.git;a=tag;h=9b178170d76333579a9c56564dd060ccd173f115
>
> NOTICE says:
>
> Apache S4
> Copyright 2012 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> Have there been no substantive changes this year?
I think you are reading from the master branch in the git repository. In
our development process (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/S4-35) the
master branch holds the released code, while the dev branch holds the code
accepted for inclusion and that will be part of the next release. So we
cut the release candidate from dev branch. The year in the NOTICE file is
2013.
>>>
>>> I followed the git link above that you provided, then clicked on tree.
>>> I don't know otherwise how to review the source tag.
>>
>> The tag 0.6.0-RC3 points to commit 96938d5afe060f8213f66b3269e6c846cfc045e3
>>
>> If you use the web interface of the apache git site, in order to reach that
>> commit from the provided link, you may either click on the commit id, on the
>> tag, or on the "commit" link.
>>
>>
>>>
>
> gradlew and gradlew.bat don't have AL headers; nor does s4.
The s4 file does have headers in the release artifacts.
>>>
>>> These also need to be added to the GIT copies; and the GIT tag must
>>> agree with the source files in the archive(s).
>>
>> By checking out from the git tag for the release and building the
>> distribution ("gradlew srcDist"), we get the same content than the release
>> candidate. In this case and for t
Re: [VOTE] S4 0.6.0 Incubating Release Candidate 3
Hello all,
after getting valuable comments about our release candidate 3 for S4 0.6.0,
we'd like to cut a new release candidate.
However, we are still not sure about how to address the comments we received,
and we cannot work on a new release candidate without understanding the proper
actions to take.
We are also a bit short on active mentors in the S4 podling, that's why I'm
asking to the broader community.
We have 2 key questions, which I reproduce below:
1/ about the content of LICENSE and NOTICE, is the following correct?
- in the LICENSE file of the binary distribution, in addition to references to
non-ASL included dependencies (already there), we need to reference all
included dependencies that use ASL2, with the following statement: "The Apache
License, Version 2.0 applies to the following libraries: A, B, C"
- in the NOTICE file of the binary distribution, we add notices that dependency
libraries explicitly ask for. That is already done and no change is required.
2/ about the inclusion of the gradle wrapper jar + script in the source
distribution:
We currently use gradle for building the project. Gradle provides a basic
wrapper script so that the project can be built without installing gradle
beforehand. That is why we include the script + wrapper lib.
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools says that specific
[build] tools have been OK'ed for inclusion in Apache distribution when used
for that specific purpose [of building].
Should we exclude the gradle wrapper from our distribution?
Thanks for bringing us lights here, if possible!
Matthieu
On Mar 28, 2013, at 18:15 , Matthieu Morel wrote:
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Inline, I provide some explanations and ask for guidance on some topics.
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:59 , sebb wrote:
>
>> On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>>> Thanks for the feedback,
>>>
>>> I replied inline.
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
>>>
On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
>
>
> A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed for RC3 with
> 6+1's with 5 of them binding:
>
> +1 IPMC (phunt)
> +1PPMC (mmorel, kishoreg, leoneu, fpj)
> +1 committer non PPMC (dferro)
>
>
> Here is the vote thread on s4-dev:
> http://markmail.org/thread/n5totrx7jkh2nvzu
>
>
> This release fixes the following issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12312322&version=12321702
>
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
> convenience.
>
> Source and binary packages in zip format:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~mmorel/s4-0.6.0-incubating-release-candidate-3/
>
>
>
> The (git) tag to be voted upon: 0.6.0-RC3:
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-s4.git;a=tag;h=9b178170d76333579a9c56564dd060ccd173f115
NOTICE says:
Apache S4
Copyright 2012 The Apache Software Foundation
Have there been no substantive changes this year?
>>>
>>> I think you are reading from the master branch in the git repository. In
>>> our development process (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/S4-35) the
>>> master branch holds the released code, while the dev branch holds the code
>>> accepted for inclusion and that will be part of the next release. So we cut
>>> the release candidate from dev branch. The year in the NOTICE file is 2013.
>>
>> I followed the git link above that you provided, then clicked on tree.
>> I don't know otherwise how to review the source tag.
>
> The tag 0.6.0-RC3 points to commit 96938d5afe060f8213f66b3269e6c846cfc045e3
>
> If you use the web interface of the apache git site, in order to reach that
> commit from the provided link, you may either click on the commit id, on the
> tag, or on the "commit" link.
>
>
>>
gradlew and gradlew.bat don't have AL headers; nor does s4.
>>>
>>> The s4 file does have headers in the release artifacts.
>>
>> These also need to be added to the GIT copies; and the GIT tag must
>> agree with the source files in the archive(s).
>
> By checking out from the git tag for the release and building the
> distribution ("gradlew srcDist"), we get the same content than the release
> candidate. In this case and for that file, isn't what we distribute properly
> licensed and matching the git tag?
> But we can certainly add the licensing to the s4 file itself.
>
>>
>>> gradle/gradlew scripts to not have the ASL header because this is generated
>>> code.
>>>
>>> According to the RAT tool, generated code does not need to bear the license
>>> header.
>>
>> The RAT tool is just a tool, it does not make the rules.
>>
>>> This issue was identified and discussed during the voting proce
Re: [Shepherds] Incubator report reminders sent for Apr 2013
Hello, the kafka project needs to clean up. Steps are described here: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#project-first-steps Cheers Christian On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Jun Rao wrote: > Could you remove Kafka from the incubator report since it already graduated > to a top level project last Nov? > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry, I just realized I had replied in private and this is a comment for >> general@. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> > I added a Shepherd signup area at the front of the report wiki page. >> > >> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2013 >> > >> > I signed up for three podlings. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Dave >> > >> > On Apr 1, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Marvin wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The next board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 17 April 2013, 10:30:00:00 >> PST. >> >> >> >> I have just sent reminder emails to the below addresses, requesting them >> >> to supply board reports 2 weeks before the above date (Wed, Apr 3rd). >> >> >> >> Please recall that the Incubator report is due Wed, Apr 10th. >> >> >> >> Celix Developers >> >> Chukwa Developers >> >> CloudStack Developers >> >> Curator Developers >> >> DeviceMap Developers >> >> Falcon Developers >> >> Hadoop Development Tools Developers < >> d...@hdt.incubator.apache.org> >> >> Helix Developers >> >> JSPWiki Developers >> >> Kafka Developers >> >> Knox Developers >> >> Marmotta Developers >> >> Mesos Developers >> >> MRQL Developers >> >> ODF Toolkit Developers >> >> Open Climate Workbench Developers < >> d...@climate.incubator.apache.org> >> >> Provisionr Developers >> >> Ripple Developers >> >> Tajo Developers >> >> Tashi Developers >> >> Tez Developers >> >> VXQuery Developers >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: private-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: private-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [Shepherds] Incubator report reminders sent for Apr 2013
Could you remove Kafka from the incubator report since it already graduated to a top level project last Nov? Thanks, Jun On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry, I just realized I had replied in private and this is a comment for > general@. > > Regards, > Dave > > On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > > I added a Shepherd signup area at the front of the report wiki page. > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2013 > > > > I signed up for three podlings. > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > On Apr 1, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Marvin wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> The next board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 17 April 2013, 10:30:00:00 > PST. > >> > >> I have just sent reminder emails to the below addresses, requesting them > >> to supply board reports 2 weeks before the above date (Wed, Apr 3rd). > >> > >> Please recall that the Incubator report is due Wed, Apr 10th. > >> > >> Celix Developers > >> Chukwa Developers > >> CloudStack Developers > >> Curator Developers > >> DeviceMap Developers > >> Falcon Developers > >> Hadoop Development Tools Developers < > d...@hdt.incubator.apache.org> > >> Helix Developers > >> JSPWiki Developers > >> Kafka Developers > >> Knox Developers > >> Marmotta Developers > >> Mesos Developers > >> MRQL Developers > >> ODF Toolkit Developers > >> Open Climate Workbench Developers < > d...@climate.incubator.apache.org> > >> Provisionr Developers > >> Ripple Developers > >> Tajo Developers > >> Tashi Developers > >> Tez Developers > >> VXQuery Developers > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: private-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: private-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: committee-info.txt and the incubator PMC
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: So how about having just historical info in the text file, and LDAP for current info? Isn't this the current rationale? I see the LDAP group answering the question "Does the person A belong to group B now?" and committee-info.txt answering other questions, like how long A has belonged to group B or the composition of group B in time. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
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 > > 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 hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the > > whole problem...) > > > > > Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can > be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum > graduation requirements documented on the policy page: > > "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are > at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or > entity that is vital to the success of the project)" > - http://incubator.apache > .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator > Great example - it's reasonably clear but incorrect (as well as being imprecise as you illustrate). We don't require a minimum of 3 independent committers. We require a community that doesn't exclude anyone. I don't have the time to look it up but there was quite some discussion about this point some time ago. I seem to remember the IPMC agreeing the docs need to be updated. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
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 hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the > whole problem...) > > Yep I don't know that "ignored" is the best word, and i agree the doc can be incomplete and confusing. For another example take the minimum graduation requirements documented on the policy page: "The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is vital to the success of the project)" - http://incubator.apache .org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator That seems reasonably clear. Based on that policy we have people saying a poddling can't graduate yet because they don't have three independent committers. Or maybe they do have three committers listed but some haven't been active for ages. How long is ages though? Or what is active - actually committing something or is the odd email enough? Or what about if we think they would vote in a new person if someone came along in the future, maybe thats enough? Or how about if some of the mentors agree to stick around on the new PMC to make up the numbers? All of those things get debated. Not so long ago we had a "what to do with small slow poddlings" debate and a couple of small poddlings were allowed to graduate anyway despite not quite meeting that minimum requirement, then just a little while later Chuwka in a very similar state was nearly retired. ...ant
Re: Process, policy and best practice
On Apr 1, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > As I see it, the primary attraction here is that we could end up with > *one* coherent body of documentation on policies and procedures, > available to project new and old. For whatever it's worth, I'd like to participate in such an effort in whatever role would be useful. I've written a thing or two, and can also assist in arranging already-written content into coherent shapes. You know, assuming Shane was mistaken. ;-) -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
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 hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the whole problem...) On 3 April 2013 09:29, ant elder wrote: > 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 the variation in opinion > and in who happens to decide to be active at particular moment means it can > be hard to tell what the reaction will be to any particular action, and > once there is a disagreement the diversity of opinion means it can be hard > to find any consensus. > > I didn't offer any solutions yet, just getting some agreement on what the > issues are first would be good. But I'm not convinced more doc is going to > help this much, and moving the doc to be under the control of comdev would > IMHO just make the doc even more ignored than it is today. > >...ant > -- NS
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
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 the variation in opinion and in who happens to decide to be active at particular moment means it can be hard to tell what the reaction will be to any particular action, and once there is a disagreement the diversity of opinion means it can be hard to find any consensus. I didn't offer any solutions yet, just getting some agreement on what the issues are first would be good. But I'm not convinced more doc is going to help this much, and moving the doc to be under the control of comdev would IMHO just make the doc even more ignored than it is today. ...ant
Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus)
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > ...Chris proposes that this > committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in > large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard > from so far has been less than enthusiastic... That's my case, and I'm not interested in arguing this much more - deconstructing the Incubator PMC does not look like a good idea to me, both as a board member and as an ASF member. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: committee-info.txt and the incubator PMC
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >>... The real question might be why this needs to be duplicated (I assume) >> between LDAP and a file - any advice from infra? > > It is not strictly duplicated. committee-info.txt contains historical > information that you won't find in LDAP (for example, PMC members who have > decided to go emeritus or leave) So how about having just historical info in the text file, and LDAP for current info? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
