Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Joseph Schaefer
 wrote:
> The typical escalation path is either board@ or board-private@ assuming 
> private messages
> to the chair are ineffective.  Most of the time, for most of our projects, 
> this has worked well enough.

So isn't learning this bit of information a crucial part of graduation? After
all, once the project leaves the incubator its commiters and PMC won't have
an access to the Ombudsman, isn't it in all of our best interest to teach
them from the get-go what you've just described above?

What's the danger of hooking up poddlings to the very channels they should
be using once they graduate?

> The real issue for the IPMC boils down to the judgement call of whether the 
> standard
> escalation procedures are working to everyone's satisfaction,

Do we have real indication they are not?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

[Joseph Schaefer]

The typical escalation path is either board@ or board-private@ assuming private 
messages to the chair are ineffective.  Most of the time, for most of our 
projects, this has worked well enough.

The real issue for the IPMC boils down to the judgement call of whether the 
standard escalation procedures are working to everyone's satisfaction, or are 
we now able to recognize a clear need for an independent, neutral contact 
point.  All I can say is that I've seen this debated in the past while 
seemingly always failing to capture the core decision that really needs to be 
made. I trust this time round we'll stay focus on the practical issues and 
ignore our gut feelings about artificiality or other semantic concerns.

When you task someone to serve in this capacity, you don't necessarily wind up 
in a better place than when you started, because separating the wheat from the 
chaff in terms of new information gathered requires patience and skill. It's 
not easy to remain unbiased and objective and it can be emotionally draining 
and seemingly unrewarding, especially if it becomes a backdoor for leveling 
misconduct charges against each other.

But you have to have faith that there will be an upside to doing the outreach 
necessary to help us understand our true impact on these podlings.  Reasonable 
people can disagree about the time and the place for an ombudsman, but I hope 
our willingness to grow and learn affords us some room for having some 
purposeful faith in where this could lead in our quest to do a better job at 
this.  If this isn't the time or the place, what would be?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2013, at 1:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
>> Since I realize that most of you can't be
>> bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-),
>> I'll go ahead and post the current content
>> here for commentary.  I hope the bulk of it
>> is non-controversial, though some of it may
>> not belong on the page...
> 
> In general, I like it very much and I think it should
> be prominently displayed on Incubator web someplace.
> 
> One comment thought:
>>5. Podlings have the right to express private concerns about anything 
>> related
>> to their incubation to the Incubator Ombudsman ,
>> who will handle such communications as if they were sent anonymously.
> 
> For as long as there was a talk about Ombudsman the very
> idea of something like that in ASF has rubbed me the wrong
> way. The best way I can explain it is that it feels very artificial
> and asymmetric: suppose you are a committer on project "foo"
> and you feel like what's going on in the project is counterproductive
> to the ASF's charter. What's your recourse? Why isn't it the
> same for the poddling?
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Samisa Abeysinghe]

+1 (non-binding)


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Milinda Pathirage <
milinda.pathir...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Thanks
> Milinda
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Lahiru Sandaruwan 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:49 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> > > > separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> > > > incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
> > > >
> > > > This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
> > > >
> > > > [X] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> > >
> > > +1: (binding)
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Lahiru Sandaruwan
> > Software Engineer,
> > Platform Technologies,
> > WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com
> > lean.enterprise.middleware
> >
> > email: lahi...@wso2.com cell: (+94) 773 325 954
> > blog: http://lahiruwrites.blogspot.com/
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/lahirus
> > linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/pub/lahiru-sandaruwan/16/153/146
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Milinda Pathirage
> PhD Student Indiana University, Bloomington;
> E-mail: milinda.pathir...@gmail.com
> Web: http://mpathirage.com
> Blog: http://blog.mpathirage.com
>

Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Since I realize that most of you can't be
> bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-),
> I'll go ahead and post the current content
> here for commentary.  I hope the bulk of it
> is non-controversial, though some of it may
> not belong on the page...

In general, I like it very much and I think it should
be prominently displayed on Incubator web someplace.

One comment thought:
> 5. Podlings have the right to express private concerns about anything 
> related
> to their incubation to the Incubator Ombudsman ,
> who will handle such communications as if they were sent anonymously.

For as long as there was a talk about Ombudsman the very
idea of something like that in ASF has rubbed me the wrong
way. The best way I can explain it is that it feels very artificial
and asymmetric: suppose you are a committer on project "foo"
and you feel like what's going on in the project is counterproductive
to the ASF's charter. What's your recourse? Why isn't it the
same for the poddling?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ODF Toolkit 0.6-incubating(RC6)

[Florian Hopf]

Hi,

the voting period has passed but we had another IPMC +1 from our mentor 
Nick Burch on odf-dev. Our other mentor Yegor seems to be pretty busy 
currently so it would be great if somebody else could have a look at the 
release candidate.


Regards
Florian


On 06.06.2013 07:43, Florian Hopf wrote:

Hi all,

RC 6 of the ODF Toolkit 0.6-incubating is ready for release. We
restructured the distribution so that only the source zips are in the
top level directory. Also we updated the distributed KEYS file so the
release can be verified.

We had a successful vote in the PPMC and already one IPMC +1 from Dave
Fisher. The vote result is here:
http://markmail.org/message/6l4nmnhpf4rw6zol

We need two more IPMC votes to pass.

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache ODF Toolkit
(incubating) version 0.6.

http://people.apache.org/~fhopf/odftoolkit-release/0.6-incubating-rc6/

The release artifacts are build from this tag in SVN:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/tags/0.6-incubating-rc6/

The keys that are used for signing our releases can be found here:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/odftoolkit/KEYS

The change notes for 0.6-incubating can be found at here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/tags/0.6-incubating-rc6/CHANGES.txt


The vote is open for 72 hours, or until we get the needed number of
votes (3 +1).

   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache ODF Toolkit 0.6-incubating
   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

To learn more about Apache ODF Toolkit, please visit
http://incubator.apache.org/odftoolkit/.

Regards
Florian




--
Florian Hopf
Freelance Software Developer

http://blog.florian-hopf.de

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact,
> when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear
> benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's
> generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build.
>
> There should not be a need to apologize for Doing The Right Thing.
>
> I find it Wrong that others should make you feel like you've done
> something wrong. Grrr.
>
> Great first steps for Marvin before the Board votes him to be the new
> IPMC Chair. :-(

The Incubator has started to acquire a habit of altering proposals while VOTEs
are underway.  In my opinion, the principle that we VOTE on frozen proposals
with fixed language is worth an occasional protest vote.

Arguably, personnel VOTE threads which duplicate the +1s expressed in a
preceding DISCUSSION thread are wasteful, since the only meaningful action is
a subsequent Board ACK in response to a VP request.  Podling graduation votes
are similar in that they gauge consensus and yield a recommendation but the
only meaningful action is a subsequent Board resolution.  Podling *proposal*
votes, however, are different because they do not trigger an escalation to the
Board, but instead set a long chain of events in action supervised by the
Incubator alone.

The Incubator has previously experienced significant problems when
controversies have arisen over the legitimacy of podling proposals which were
not thoroughly vetted.  The IPMC can take weeks and hundreds of emails to hash
out the meaning of a disputed proposal.  I don't know about anybody else, but
I've started spending a little more time on proposal review in the hopes of
avoiding another such fiasco.

That said, I may have miscalibrated the numeric value of my protest vote.  I
deliberately did *not* vote -1 or request that the VOTE be cancelled because
that would have been stupid overkill.  My goal was to reach the membership of
the IPMC with a gentle reminder (the third this month) that ostensibly, we
VOTE on "final" proposals[1] rather than moving targets.  Reaching Sanjiva was
unintended; the error was neglecting to mark the wiki page as "final" before
the VOTE was kicked off -- not the subsequent edit.

It's inconceivable to me that this will have an ounce of impact on either
someone of Sanjiva's accomplishments or a future podling with the momentum of
Stratos, but to ensure that my positive assessment is communicated
unequivocally to one and all in the VOTE tally as it was during the PROPOSAL
thread, I hereby change the value of my vote from -0 to +0.9.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether this remedy will suffice to reassure
any Board members whose faith may have been shaken by this incident, though.

Marvin Humphrey

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#vote

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Joseph Schaefer]

I'll grant you that it is an imperfect analogy, but I have no idea why you 
continue to make such a fuss about things we've all come to accept about roles 
and responsibilities of a chair.  Nobody is questioning the traditional role 
you seek for yourself, and you can take comfort in the idea that you were 
elected in part because of your position on this subject.

So just chill out for a moment or two and try to take in the more substantive 
issue around having someone who is proactively tasked with gathering data about 
our overall performance as seen through the eyes of our consumers.  This isn't 
an activity past chairs have shown a real willingness to tackle themselves 
other than to claim the standard open door policy we all make.  Alan is right, 
the IPMC has little more than anecdotal evidence that we are doing the needful 
and from what I've heard that evidence is mixed.  If you agree that this merits 
some attention, I would be a little disappointed in your delegation skills if 
you refused on principle to let someone who is not chair actually try.  But at 
least I will know your heart is in the right place :).

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:02 AM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Schaefer
>  wrote:
>> This argument reminds me of the current debate in Congress about whether or
>> not military sex offense reporting should remain within the chain of
>> command. Proponents argue that it's hard to hold commanders accountable if
>> they aren't empowered to act; adversaries say victims are afraid to report
>> while retribution remains possible.
> 
> I don't agree with that line of reasoning because the PMC Chair is not
> supposed to be the commanding officer of a project.  I think it's an abuse of
> the position to act that way, and personally, I do not covet that power.  To
> my mind, the analogy with the military justice system does not apply because
> the PMC chair is *only* the ombud, not the commander.
> 
> If others consider that view of the PMC Chair role too idealistic, I guess I
> find that disappointing.  But maybe it's so tempting to wield the VP title to
> further your own agenda that having some percentage of Apache PMC Chairs fail
> as ombud is a statistical certainty.
> 
> If the IPMC arrives at a consensus that an independent ombud is necessary, so
> be it.  Until that time, I consider that role the chair's responsibility as
> part of the instruction to "ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard"[1].
> Should the Board pass the resolution appointing me as IPMC Chair on Wednesday,
> I think anyone who has read my posts over the years knows that I'd pursue the
> task with zeal.
> 
> Marvin Humphrey
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair
> 
> -
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Schaefer
 wrote:
> This argument reminds me of the current debate in Congress about whether or
> not military sex offense reporting should remain within the chain of
> command. Proponents argue that it's hard to hold commanders accountable if
> they aren't empowered to act; adversaries say victims are afraid to report
> while retribution remains possible.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning because the PMC Chair is not
supposed to be the commanding officer of a project.  I think it's an abuse of
the position to act that way, and personally, I do not covet that power.  To
my mind, the analogy with the military justice system does not apply because
the PMC chair is *only* the ombud, not the commander.

If others consider that view of the PMC Chair role too idealistic, I guess I
find that disappointing.  But maybe it's so tempting to wield the VP title to
further your own agenda that having some percentage of Apache PMC Chairs fail
as ombud is a statistical certainty.

If the IPMC arrives at a consensus that an independent ombud is necessary, so
be it.  Until that time, I consider that role the chair's responsibility as
part of the instruction to "ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard"[1].
Should the Board pass the resolution appointing me as IPMC Chair on Wednesday,
I think anyone who has read my posts over the years knows that I'd pursue the
task with zeal.

Marvin Humphrey

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Alex Harui]

On 6/16/13 10:36 AM, "Alan Cabrera"  wrote:

>
>On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Joseph Schaefer 
>wrote:
>
>> This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
>>counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
>>themselves.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>The usual reason for an ombudsman is to have a safe third party to bring
>up issues up privately.  Podling members may feel too intimidated to
>complain to mentors/IPMC chairs to complain.  Maybe the complaint may be
>an absentee, or problem, mentor or chair.  One never knows.

Just curious, is the ombudsman not allowed to be a mentor for a podling?
Otherwise, that podling doesn't have a safe third-party?

-Alex


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE] Release Apache jclouds 1.6.1-incubating, RC3

[Andrew Bayer]

Hello,

This is the third release candidate for Apache jclouds 1.6.1-incubating,
the first jclouds release at Apache.

This is the IPMC vote. The PPMC vote passed, with three +1s from mentors
(David Nalley, Olivier Lamy, and Suresh Marru).

It fixes the following issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12324412&styleName=Html&projectId=12314430

*** Please download, test and vote by Wednesday, June 19th, 7pm PDT.

Note that we are voting upon the source (tag). In addition, a discussion of
why certain files are excluded from RAT checks can be found at
https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues.

Source files:
http://people.apache.org/~abayer/jclouds-1.6.1-incubating-candidate-3

Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejclouds-016

The tags to be voted upon:
 - jclouds -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-jclouds.git;a=tag;h=8ed5571b0ecf7d79c64bc16642264684882f0311
- jclouds-labs -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-jclouds-labs.git;a=tag;h=54b084e474e0c22b539ed7cce0b0ebbc82b310cb
- jclouds-chef -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-jclouds-chef.git;a=tag;h=4adced11f4e74513c06023d6b3cde0642fd4017f
- jclouds-karaf -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-jclouds-karaf.git;a=tag;h=9e1f0d14285c8edeb35499f313aa7dbfab4a86f6
- jclouds-cli -
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-jclouds-cli.git;a=tag;h=2e3575f56de2bf67469782d94d72ce8e621ddda5

jclouds KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jclouds/KEYS

[ ] +1
[ ] 0
[ ] -1 (explain why)

Thanks!

A.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Eric Tschetter is a new committer for Apache Curator

[Joe Stein]

Yeah! Congrats Eric!!!

A fantastic library and great addition to keeping it awesome!


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Jordan Zimmerman wrote:

> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Curator has asked Eric
> Tschetter to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has
> accepted.
>
> Eric Tschetter is the lead architect of Druid, Metamarkets' distributed,
> in-memory database. He held senior engineering positions at Ning and
> LinkedIn before joining Metamarkets. At LinkedIn, Eric productized
> LinkedIn's PYMK with Hadoop. He holds bachelors degrees in Computer Science
> and Japanese from the University of Texas at Austin, and a M.S. from the
> University of Tokyo in Computer Science. Eric has made significant
> contributions to Curator and will be a valued member of the team.
>
> -Jordan
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 

/*
Joe Stein
http://www.linkedin.com/in/charmalloc
Twitter: @allthingshadoop 
*/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Joe Schaefer]

Baby steps- let's see how the role evolves here in the incubator
before trying to do something foundation-wide.  At this point it's
still not clear that the role is even desirable by the rest of the
IPMC.


- Original Message -
> From: Alan Cabrera 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
> 
> I think that it would be a great idea to have an ASF wide ombudsman instead.
> 
> There's been a few times where I've been personally asked to watch the 
> goings on in another project by a committer, or ASF member, to provide an 
> outside opinion as to what's going on, only to receive the ire of the 
> project that's being watched.  I'd much rather refer the concerned 
> person to a ombudsman.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Alexei Fedotov  
> wrote:
> 
>>  Let me add that a TLP sometimes get confused when it faces a problem. :-)
>> 
>>  Why these problem solving superheroes should limit themselves to the
>>  incubator?
>>  15.06.2013 19:53 пользователь "Alan Cabrera" 
>  написал:
>> 
>>> 
>>>  Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a 
> problem.
>>> 
>>>  Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
>>>  and sometimes mentors are the problem.
>>> 
>>>  Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Alan
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  -
>>>  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
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Alan Cabrera]

Not a lot of power.  Just a designated safe person to bring issues up with.  I 
trust the relevant, empowered, parties in the ASF to work with the ombudsman to 
resolve the issues in a confidential safe manner.
  

Regards,
Alan

On Jun 16, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:

> Yeah I get that, but I'm wondering what sort of power we'd
> impart to the position besides information gathering.  It
> might make an interesting complementary position to the
> chair that's more directly focused on the Incubator as it
> presents itself to podlings, which is something we recently
> discussed in relation to the recent chair vote.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: Alan Cabrera 
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Joseph Schaefer  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical 
>> counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide 
>> themselves.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> The usual reason for an ombudsman is to have a safe third party to bring up 
>> issues up privately.  Podling members may feel too intimidated to complain 
>> to 
>> mentors/IPMC chairs to complain.  Maybe the complaint may be an absentee, or 
>> problem, mentor or chair.  One never knows.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>> 
> 
> -
> 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: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Alan Cabrera]

I think that it would be a great idea to have an ASF wide ombudsman instead.

There's been a few times where I've been personally asked to watch the goings 
on in another project by a committer, or ASF member, to provide an outside 
opinion as to what's going on, only to receive the ire of the project that's 
being watched.  I'd much rather refer the concerned person to a ombudsman.



Regards,
Alan


On Jun 16, 2013, at 1:26 AM, Alexei Fedotov  wrote:

> Let me add that a TLP sometimes get confused when it faces a problem. :-)
> 
> Why these problem solving superheroes should limit themselves to the
> incubator?
> 15.06.2013 19:53 пользователь "Alan Cabrera"  написал:
> 
>> 
>> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>> 
>> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
>> and sometimes mentors are the problem.
>> 
>> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Joe Schaefer]

Yeah I get that, but I'm wondering what sort of power we'd
impart to the position besides information gathering.  It
might make an interesting complementary position to the
chair that's more directly focused on the Incubator as it
presents itself to podlings, which is something we recently
discussed in relation to the recent chair vote.


- Original Message -
> From: Alan Cabrera 
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman
> 
> 
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Joseph Schaefer  
> wrote:
> 
>>  This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical 
> counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide 
> themselves.
>> 
>>  Sent from my iPhone
> 
> The usual reason for an ombudsman is to have a safe third party to bring up 
> issues up privately.  Podling members may feel too intimidated to complain to 
> mentors/IPMC chairs to complain.  Maybe the complaint may be an absentee, or 
> problem, mentor or chair.  One never knows.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Alan Cabrera]

On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Joseph Schaefer  wrote:

> This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical 
> counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide 
> themselves.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

The usual reason for an ombudsman is to have a safe third party to bring up 
issues up privately.  Podling members may feel too intimidated to complain to 
mentors/IPMC chairs to complain.  Maybe the complaint may be an absentee, or 
problem, mentor or chair.  One never knows.


Regards,
Alan

Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

[Upayavira]

FWIW, I read it, and liked it. I would support something like this in
terms of making it clearer what we are promising to podlings.

I guess a question that it would be worth clarifying - what happens to a
perfectly reasonable podling who's mentors resign/go awol, when the
Incubator PMC cannot recruit replacements? Can we make any promises at
that point?

Upayavira

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013, at 03:16 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Since I realize that most of you can't be
> bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-),
> I'll go ahead and post the current content
> here for commentary.  I hope the bulk of it
> is non-controversial, though some of it may
> not belong on the page...
> 
> 
> 
> First a clarification- as provisional constructs of the Incubator PMC,
> podlings have no official standing in the corporation known as The Apache
> Software Foundation. So technically, it is a farce to claim that podlings
> have any formal rights whatsoever. What we write about here are promises
> and covenants the Incubator PMC will make a good-faith effort to honor.
> 
> 1. First, podlings have a right to expect active participation and 
> guidance from their mentors. That minimally includes participation in release 
> votes, discussions and votes on new personnel, and signing off on a podling's 
> quarterly reports.
> 
> 
> 2. Mentoring is done solely for the podling's benefit, and as such 
> podlings have the right to fire mentors for any reason by a majority 
> consensus vote on their private list. Just don't be denigrating about it, 
> since mentors are always volunteers and not paid staff.
> 
> 
> 3. Podlings who find themselves in need of additional mentors have the 
> right to ask general@incubator for more mentors to volunteer.
> 
> 
>     4. Podlings have the right to expect their quarterly reports to be read, 
> reviewed, and critiqued by "shepherds" on the Incubator PMC, who are 
> typically outside the podling's set of mentors.
> 
> 
> 5. Podlings have the right to express private concerns about anything 
> related to their incubation to the Incubator Ombudsman , 
> who will handle such communications as if they were sent anonymously.
> 
> 
> 6. Podlings have the right to express their opinions concerning their 
> incubation efforts post-graduation (or post-mortem) in the form of an 
> anonymous survey.
> 
> 
> 7. Podlings have the right to ignore commentary made on general@incubator 
> in the middle of a VOTE thread, especially during releases. Reminder- release 
> votes are a majority consensus vote, so seeing a few -1's occasionally is 
> expected and often ignorable by the RM should they otherwise see a majority 
> of at least 3 binding IPMC votes.
> 
> 
> 8. Podling committers have the right to remain unsubscribed to 
> general@incubator. Any relevant policy/process changes will be passed along 
> by the podling's mentors.
> 
> 
> Comments and critiques welcome.  I'd like to
> move the ball forward to a ceremonial endorsement
> VOTE on this over the course of the remainder
> of June, so please be constructive!
> 
> -
> 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

[ANNOUNCE] Eric Tschetter is a new committer for Apache Curator

[Jordan Zimmerman]

The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Curator has asked Eric 
Tschetter to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has 
accepted.

Eric Tschetter is the lead architect of Druid, Metamarkets' distributed, 
in-memory database. He held senior engineering positions at Ning and LinkedIn 
before joining Metamarkets. At LinkedIn, Eric productized LinkedIn's PYMK with 
Hadoop. He holds bachelors degrees in Computer Science and Japanese from the 
University of Texas at Austin, and a M.S. from the University of Tokyo in 
Computer Science. Eric has made significant contributions to Curator and will 
be a valued member of the team.

-Jordan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Milinda Pathirage]

+1 (non-binding)

Thanks
Milinda


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Lahiru Sandaruwan  wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:49 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> > > separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> > > incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
> > >
> > > This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
> > >
> > > [X] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> >
> > +1: (binding)
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> Lahiru Sandaruwan
> Software Engineer,
> Platform Technologies,
> WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com
> lean.enterprise.middleware
>
> email: lahi...@wso2.com cell: (+94) 773 325 954
> blog: http://lahiruwrites.blogspot.com/
> twitter: http://twitter.com/lahirus
> linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/pub/lahiru-sandaruwan/16/153/146
>



-- 
Milinda Pathirage
PhD Student Indiana University, Bloomington;
E-mail: milinda.pathir...@gmail.com
Web: http://mpathirage.com
Blog: http://blog.mpathirage.com

[DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights

[Joe Schaefer]

Since I realize that most of you can't be
bothered to look at the wiki page I created ;-),
I'll go ahead and post the current content
here for commentary.  I hope the bulk of it
is non-controversial, though some of it may
not belong on the page...



First a clarification- as provisional constructs of the Incubator PMC, podlings 
have no official standing in the corporation known as The Apache Software 
Foundation. So technically, it is a farce to claim that podlings have any 
formal rights whatsoever. What we write about here are promises and covenants 
the Incubator PMC will make a good-faith effort to honor.

1. First, podlings have a right to expect active participation and guidance 
from their mentors. That minimally includes participation in release votes, 
discussions and votes on new personnel, and signing off on a podling's 
quarterly reports.


2. Mentoring is done solely for the podling's benefit, and as such podlings 
have the right to fire mentors for any reason by a majority consensus vote on 
their private list. Just don't be denigrating about it, since mentors are 
always volunteers and not paid staff.


3. Podlings who find themselves in need of additional mentors have the 
right to ask general@incubator for more mentors to volunteer.


    4. Podlings have the right to expect their quarterly reports to be read, 
reviewed, and critiqued by "shepherds" on the Incubator PMC, who are typically 
outside the podling's set of mentors.


5. Podlings have the right to express private concerns about anything 
related to their incubation to the Incubator Ombudsman , 
who will handle such communications as if they were sent anonymously.


6. Podlings have the right to express their opinions concerning their 
incubation efforts post-graduation (or post-mortem) in the form of an anonymous 
survey.


7. Podlings have the right to ignore commentary made on general@incubator 
in the middle of a VOTE thread, especially during releases. Reminder- release 
votes are a majority consensus vote, so seeing a few -1's occasionally is 
expected and often ignorable by the RM should they otherwise see a majority of 
at least 3 binding IPMC votes.


8. Podling committers have the right to remain unsubscribed to 
general@incubator. Any relevant policy/process changes will be passed along by 
the podling's mentors.


Comments and critiques welcome.  I'd like to
move the ball forward to a ceremonial endorsement
VOTE on this over the course of the remainder
of June, so please be constructive!

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews

[Joe Brockmeier]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like mandatory
> activities for volunteers.

Yet, Apache does have mandatory reporting for podlings and TLPs. It's
not like this is particularly onerous. (Note, I read the proposal as an
exit interview for the project/podling, not each and every individual
committer/PPMC member.)

But if the "mandatory" thing is too much for people, I think "strongly
encouraged" exit interviews are a good idea. 

I am curious how the reports would be scrubbed, though - given that the
timing of an exit interview would strongly indicate which project had
graduated, and there's usually a fairly small number of mentors and
project participants to provide feedback. 
 
Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
j...@zonker.net
Twitter: @jzb
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Lahiru Sandaruwan]

+1 (non-binding)


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:49 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> > separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> > incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
> >
> > This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
> >
> > [X] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
>
> +1: (binding)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
--
Lahiru Sandaruwan
Software Engineer,
Platform Technologies,
WSO2 Inc., http://wso2.com
lean.enterprise.middleware

email: lahi...@wso2.com cell: (+94) 773 325 954
blog: http://lahiruwrites.blogspot.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/lahirus
linked-in: http://lk.linkedin.com/pub/lahiru-sandaruwan/16/153/146

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:49 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
> 
> This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
> 
> [X] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project

+1: (binding)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Olivier Lamy]

+1 (binding)

2013/6/15 Ross Gardler :
> 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
>
> This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
>
> [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> because... (provide reason)
>
> It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run
> well into next week to allow for the weekend.
>
> Thank you for your votes.
> Ross
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Ross Gardler]

Good point. For non-incubator problems they shouldn't limit themselves to
the incubator. They should be (and are) on the relevant committees.

For me the ombudsmen would be the people that speak for the incubation
process and point those suffering from ISSUE 01 in the right direction.

Again I refer to the suggestions on ISSUE 03 this proposal seems to be
similar too those suggestions.

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 16 Jun 2013 09:26, "Alexei Fedotov"  wrote:

> Let me add that a TLP sometimes get confused when it faces a problem. :-)
>
> Why these problem solving superheroes should limit themselves to the
> incubator?
> 15.06.2013 19:53 пользователь "Alan Cabrera" 
> написал:
>
> >
> > Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
> >
> > Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
> >  and sometimes mentors are the problem.
> >
> > Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Mandatory podling exit interviews

[Alexei Fedotov]

I believe a set of automatically generated monthly metrics including a
number of commits, total number of letters to the project mail list and
number of mentor letters to the list will give a good picture which
projects experience which problems.
 15.06.2013 19:48 пользователь "Alan Cabrera" 
написал:

>
> Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the
> areas of improvement are for the Incubator.
>
> Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings'
> experiences were during incubation.
>
> Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as part
> of the graduation requirements.  These exit interviews will be suitably
> scrubbed and organized by the Incubator Ombudsman; see next proposal.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Creation of the Incubator Ombudsman

[Alexei Fedotov]

Let me add that a TLP sometimes get confused when it faces a problem. :-)

Why these problem solving superheroes should limit themselves to the
incubator?
15.06.2013 19:53 пользователь "Alan Cabrera"  написал:

>
> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>
> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
>  and sometimes mentors are the problem.
>
> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Accept Stratos proposal as an incubating project

[Isuru Haththotuwa]

+1 (non-binding)


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:

> Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact,
> when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear
> benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's
> generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build.
>
> There should not be a need to apologize for Doing The Right Thing.
>
> I find it Wrong that others should make you feel like you've done
> something wrong. Grrr.
>
> Great first steps for Marvin before the Board votes him to be the new
> IPMC Chair. :-(
>
> -g
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana 
> wrote:
> > Marvin my apologies - I didn't get a chance to do it immediately and then
> > because I don't have edit rights currently I asked Azeez to edit that
> > sentence in but that was a few days later ..
> >
> > As Ross said that's what I sent via email before and in any case its a
> > positive thing for the proposal.
> >
> > However, I understand the principle violation and accept your -0 vote.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey <
> mar...@rectangular.com>wrote:
> >
> >> -0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the
> VOTE
> >> started.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diff&rev1=46&rev2=47
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 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 acceptance or otherwise of the probationary TLP idea is a
> >> > separate issue that will be explored during the first month of
> >> > incubation, potentially resulting in a further IPMC vote.
> >> >
> >> > This vote is *only* for accepting the Stratos project as a podling.
> >> >
> >> > [ ] +1 Accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> >> > [ ] +0
> >> > [ ] -1 Do not accept the Stratos project as an incubating project
> >> > because... (provide reason)
> >> >
> >> > It's late on Friday evening here in the UK. I'll let this vote run
> >> > well into next week to allow for the weekend.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your votes.
> >> > Ross
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
> > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.;  http://wso2.com/
> > email: sanj...@wso2.com; phone: +94 11 763 9614; cell: +94 77 787 6880| +1
> > 650 265 8311
> > blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
> >
> > Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Thanks and Regards,

Isuru H.