Re: [MENTOR] Re: Missing Release Distribution in Clutch Status?

[Mattmann, Chris A (398J)]

Thanks David..

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++






-Original Message-
From: David Crossley 
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:05 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" 
Cc: "d...@knox.incubator.apache.org" 
Subject: Re: [MENTOR] Re: Missing Release Distribution in Clutch Status?

>Mattmann, Chris A (398J) wrote:
>> Hey Guys,
>> 
>> Sorry I missed this.
>> 
>> Real quick CC to general@i.a.o. I'm not an expert in the Clutch.
>> IPMC peeps that know the clutch, Knox has a release in the dist
>> area:
>> 
>> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/knox/
>> 
>> 
>> (^^ for example the 0.2.0 release)
>> 
>> Can someone give us some insight as to why the clutch indicates
>> we don't have a release in the distro area?
>
>See the Knox entry in the "Other issues" section:
>http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#other
>
>It is because Knox is missing the required file naming convention:
>http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#h-hasRelease
>So the cron job that scans for releases does not find it.
>
>-David
>
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>> ++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: larry mccay 
>> Reply-To: "d...@knox.incubator.apache.org"
>>
>> Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:46 AM
>> To: "d...@knox.incubator.apache.org" 
>> Subject: [MENTOR] Re: Missing Release Distribution in Clutch Status?
>> 
>> >adding mentor prefix...
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM, larry mccay 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Touching this to bring it back to the top...
>> >>
>> >> @Chris - do you have any insight into this status indicator for us?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, larry mccay
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is the location of ambari - who has a true for release bits
>> >>>column -
>> >>> of course this is just one mirror - not sure how to map the mirrors:
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>>http://www.us.apache.org/dist/incubator/ambari/ambari-0.9-incubating/
>> >>>
>> >>> relative path seems to map correctly to me...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Kevin Minder <
>> >>> kevin.min...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  We do have release bits in
>>  
>> 
>>http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/knox/0.2.0/>or
>> g/dist/incubator/knox/0.2.0/>
>> 
>>  I wonder if they need to be in the root?
>> 
>> 
>>  On 6/13/13 1:29 PM, larry mccay wrote:
>> 
>> > All -
>> >
>> > This page shows the "status of clutch currently in incubation".
>> >
>> > It indicates that we don't have a release in our distribution
>>area.
>> > Does this mean that we don't have our release in the right place?
>> >
>> > 
>> 
>>>http://incubator.apache.org/**clutch.html>>g/
>> >clutch.html>
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > --larry
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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] Mandatory podling exit interviews

[Eric Johnson]

Part of how best to handle this is to remind people, when they're 
complaining, to keep two things in mind:


a) only state the behavior you observed/read/witnessed, and be specific, 
rather than using generalizations such as "always", or "never."


b) Keep to "I" statements. As silly as the template may be:

I __ when you _, because ___.  (and variants thereof).

As in:

"I felt like our podling was ignored by one of our mentors, because he 
only voted for one of the seven releases that we did."


-- or --

"I got frustrated whenever I had to send an email to "general", because 
it usually generated a long email thread, and only one or two responses 
directly addressed my problem."


Doing the above will do much to reduce possible contention.

Perhaps add the above to the "what to expect" introduction to the incubator?

Eric.

On 6/21/13 5:52 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira  wrote:


As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes it
can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not mention
their name, we should give them that opportunity.

"Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough.  It would be
irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be revealed
"sometimes".

If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the very
least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to
private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts discussion
that ought to take place in public onto a private list.  Furthermore, we
should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think no
IPMC members will be able to guess who they are.

I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of 1 to
10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool of
potential respondents.  We're going to have to think really hard about what we
ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm going to
feel really bad.

Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed privately is
the price of consensus, I'm still on board.  It's better than nothing.

Marvin Humphrey

-
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] Mandatory podling exit interviews

[Alex Harui]

On 6/21/13 5:58 AM, "Upayavira"  wrote:

>
>
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 01:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira  wrote:
>> 
>> > As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes
>>it
>> > can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not
>>mention
>> > their name, we should give them that opportunity.
>> 
>> "Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough.  It would be
>> irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be
>> revealed
>> "sometimes".
>> 
>> If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the
>> very
>> least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to
>> private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts
>> discussion
>> that ought to take place in public onto a private list.  Furthermore, we
>> should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think
>> no
>> IPMC members will be able to guess who they are.
>> 
>> I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of
>>1
>> to
>> 10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool
>>of
>> potential respondents.  We're going to have to think really hard about
>> what we
>> ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm
>> going to
>> feel really bad.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed
>> privately is
>> the price of consensus, I'm still on board.  It's better than nothing.
>
>Exactly. I've seen many surveys where the name is optional, but 5 of 6
>people fill in their name. So much for anonymity.
>
>I would say make the name field optional and have a 'keep my comments
>private' tickbox, default unticked. They likely won't be able to keep it
>from any members of the IPMC, but at least would allow them to say "you
>are a complete bunch of loosers" without it getting into the public
>domain.

As a newbie, it seemed like the IPMC and ASF as a whole was like how the
movies portray the Mafia in the sense that you had to earn your way in,
and folks were pretty tight-knit and knew each other personally.  There is
no way I would name any names in any email where I didn't know exactly who
would read it, so I would never name names in a survey or in an email to
an ombudsman or private@.  Not because of fear that a 'hit' would be put
on me, but just that it could burn bridges I might need later. That's why
I just offered another section to the "What to expect" thread about
finding a mentor or ASF member to work with to resolve complaints against
individuals.  If the matter cannot be resolved directly and off-list, that
mentor or ASF member should help the crafting of any email that ends up
on-list.  Just because the person you are complaining about isn't in the
IPMC, there is no guarantee they won't be invited to join the day after
you write your email to private@.  I would actually suggest giving up on
trying to find a way to provide anonymity and adding a warning to the
survey/exit-interview to caution folks about naming names.  In theory, the
complaints about individuals you are worrying about missing have been
alluded to on the dev list of that project and addressed via the help of
mentors or other ASF members long before the project graduates and an exit
interview happens.  If some person filling out the exit interview has
something else to say that requires they remain anonymous, they should
also voice that with a mentor or ASF member, and they should have done so
long before graduation as well back when the incident or issue was taking
place.

My five cents,
-Alex



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

Re: Instead of a Bill how about a Booklet? (was Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights)

[Alex Harui]

On 6/21/13 7:12 AM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:22:00PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
>> If, for whatever reason, they are unable or
>> unwilling to, you can ask on the incubator general list. If the optic is
>> too sensitive to discuss in public (eg a potential committer) you may
>> contact the incubator ombudsman at x...@apache.org.
>
>Shouldn't this be priv...@incubator.apache.org *first*, and then the
>ombudsman only when it's a "complaint" that doesn't seem to be addressed
>through normal list discussions?

Even private@ could be readable by the person you are complaining about,
plus this assumes there will be an ombudsman, which isn't clear will be
the case.

I would say it this way:

11) Expect to be frustrated (or annoyed or even angered) at least once by
the failure of people to act as you justifiably think they should based on
whatever documents or emails you've read, or the role they claim
responsibility for, or even based on common sense.  You might need one
more binding vote, or need consensus on what looks like a simple question
but ends up being debated for days when you need a ruling "yesterday".  If
you choose to lodge a complaint against an individual, remember that every
mailing list is archived, some of them publicly, and the individual you
are complaining about may someday see what you have written.  Before
complaining about an individual, find a mentor or ASF member and approach
them off-list, mainly as a sanity check to make sure your complaint is
justified in someone else's view, but also so that mentor or ASF member
can offer different ways to potentially resolve the problem.  It is
generally wise not to name names in your early emails as you may not be
able to predict any existing relationship between the person you are
writing to and are writing about.  A good way to choose an ASF member is
by getting a sense for who they are by their writings on general@incubator
or other ASF mailing lists.  In other words, if you are new to the
neighborhood, it is prudent to be careful complaining about one of your
neighbors to the other neighbors until you understand the relationships
between them.

-Alex


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

RE: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Stephen,

I support your choice to have a different name.  

 - Dennis

I'm not sure how "Olingo" is pronounced in Spanish but I'm certain there will 
be much fun creating artwork of the little critter.  It looks like an animal 
that must be on the cover of an O'Reilly book somewhere.  (I find raccoons, 
their cousins, more appealing, except when they are pillaging the cherry tree 
at my house.)

-Original Message-
From: Klevenz, Stephan [mailto:stephan.klev...@sap.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 06:34 AM
To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator
Importance: High

Hi Dennis,

Sorry for coming back so late to your valuable feedback. After re-thinking
about the trademark issue and your thoughts about confusion we come to
conclusion to use a different name for the project. I would like to change
our project name to

Apache Olingo

Olingo is a little bear [1] and that name should avoid any confusion with
the OASIS standard or any other potential trademark holder. If there are
no concerns then I will go and change our proposal to Apache Olingo.

WDYT?

Regards,
stephan

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olingo

On 18.06.13 15:58, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

>I think there will be an issue with regard to trademarks and you will
>have to deal with folks seeing the trademark of "Apache OData" as a
>land-grab at "OData" itself.  The simplicity you think is avoiding
>confusion is, in that respect, causing confusion.
>
>In any case, it is always wise to avoid confusion of a (standard)
>specification, even OASIS Standard OData v3.0 or whatever, with the name
>of an implementation.  OASIS is going to make their own claims about some
>of those terms as well, if the past practice is any guide.
>
> - Dennis
>
>The ODF Toolkit snuck by, much to my dismay, even capturing odf as their
>incubator repository name, but they may have to deal with that to
>graduate to a TLP.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Klevenz, Stephan [mailto:stephan.klev...@sap.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 06:27 AM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator
>
>Hello Dennis,
>
>Good point! The project naming was a challenge for us and maybe I just can
>explain why we prefer Apache OData as project name. The main reason is
>search. 
>
>Someone who is interested in OData will use this term and the result page
>will today list odata.org as the protocols homepage, Wikipedia which is
>fine and the OASIS TC. In future we would like to see that Apache OData is
>highly ranked and completes the search result list.
>
>If we use a different name someone has to know this name and has to search
>for it explicitly. We would like to keep it simple and avoid confusion.
>
>We had also a look into the ASF project naming guidelines and I think most
>of the points there are considered by the name Apache OData.
>
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
>On 18.06.13 03:28, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
>
>>I think one concern here is appropriation of a generic, specified-tied
>>name to an implementation, even a reference implementation.
>>
>>"Apache OData" seems over-reaching in that respect, especially since
>>there are other projects, at ASF and elsewhere, that may employ OData
>>bindings and services of one sort or another.
>[ ... ]
>


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

Re: Instead of a Bill how about a Booklet? (was Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights)

[Chip Childers]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:22:00PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
> If, for whatever reason, they are unable or
> unwilling to, you can ask on the incubator general list. If the optic is
> too sensitive to discuss in public (eg a potential committer) you may
> contact the incubator ombudsman at x...@apache.org.

Shouldn't this be priv...@incubator.apache.org *first*, and then the
ombudsman only when it's a "complaint" that doesn't seem to be addressed
through normal list discussions?

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

Re: Instead of a Bill how about a Booklet? (was Re: [DISCUSS] PodlingBillOfRights)

[Chip Childers]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:22:02AM -0700, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi,  As a newbie, I've generally quietly watched from the sidelines, but
> now I'm jumping in.
> 
> +1 about "expectations" vs "rights".  In fact, it occurred to me that a
> booklet or pamphlet more like the "What to expect whenŠ" book would be
> better.  IMO, correctly set expectations make for happier people.  Here is
> my draft of  "What to expect when you enter the Apache Incubator".

This it a fantastic idea, and I feel like you have a *really* strong
start with your draft.  Almost all of the issues that I (and others)
within CloudStack ran into were in your text...  great distillation of
what to expect and how to deal with things!

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

Re: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator

[Klevenz, Stephan]

Hi Dennis,

Sorry for coming back so late to your valuable feedback. After re-thinking
about the trademark issue and your thoughts about confusion we come to
conclusion to use a different name for the project. I would like to change
our project name to

Apache Olingo

Olingo is a little bear [1] and that name should avoid any confusion with
the OASIS standard or any other potential trademark holder. If there are
no concerns then I will go and change our proposal to Apache Olingo.

WDYT?

Regards,
stephan

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olingo

On 18.06.13 15:58, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

>I think there will be an issue with regard to trademarks and you will
>have to deal with folks seeing the trademark of "Apache OData" as a
>land-grab at "OData" itself.  The simplicity you think is avoiding
>confusion is, in that respect, causing confusion.
>
>In any case, it is always wise to avoid confusion of a (standard)
>specification, even OASIS Standard OData v3.0 or whatever, with the name
>of an implementation.  OASIS is going to make their own claims about some
>of those terms as well, if the past practice is any guide.
>
> - Dennis
>
>The ODF Toolkit snuck by, much to my dismay, even capturing odf as their
>incubator repository name, but they may have to deal with that to
>graduate to a TLP.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Klevenz, Stephan [mailto:stephan.klev...@sap.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 06:27 AM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: dennis.hamil...@acm.org
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] OData Proposal for Incubator
>
>Hello Dennis,
>
>Good point! The project naming was a challenge for us and maybe I just can
>explain why we prefer Apache OData as project name. The main reason is
>search. 
>
>Someone who is interested in OData will use this term and the result page
>will today list odata.org as the protocols homepage, Wikipedia which is
>fine and the OASIS TC. In future we would like to see that Apache OData is
>highly ranked and completes the search result list.
>
>If we use a different name someone has to know this name and has to search
>for it explicitly. We would like to keep it simple and avoid confusion.
>
>We had also a look into the ASF project naming guidelines and I think most
>of the points there are considered by the name Apache OData.
>
>
>Regards,
>Stephan
>
>On 18.06.13 03:28, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
>
>>I think one concern here is appropriation of a generic, specified-tied
>>name to an implementation, even a reference implementation.
>>
>>"Apache OData" seems over-reaching in that respect, especially since
>>there are other projects, at ASF and elsewhere, that may employ OData
>>bindings and services of one sort or another.
>[ ... ]
>


-
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

[Upayavira]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 01:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira  wrote:
> 
> > As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes it
> > can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not mention
> > their name, we should give them that opportunity.
> 
> "Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough.  It would be
> irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be
> revealed
> "sometimes".
> 
> If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the
> very
> least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to
> private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts
> discussion
> that ought to take place in public onto a private list.  Furthermore, we
> should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think
> no
> IPMC members will be able to guess who they are.
> 
> I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of 1
> to
> 10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool of
> potential respondents.  We're going to have to think really hard about
> what we
> ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm
> going to
> feel really bad.
> 
> Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed
> privately is
> the price of consensus, I'm still on board.  It's better than nothing.

Exactly. I've seen many surveys where the name is optional, but 5 of 6
people fill in their name. So much for anonymity.

I would say make the name field optional and have a 'keep my comments
private' tickbox, default unticked. They likely won't be able to keep it
from any members of the IPMC, but at least would allow them to say "you
are a complete bunch of loosers" without it getting into the public
domain.

Upayavira

-
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

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira  wrote:

> As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes it
> can be deduced, but not always, and if someone would rather not mention
> their name, we should give them that opportunity.

"Sometimes" preserving anonymity is not good enough.  It would be
irresponsible of us to solicit candid feedback when identity will be revealed
"sometimes".

If respondents state that they would prefer to remain anonymous, at the very
least we must limit publication of any natural language responses to
private@incubator -- which would be unfortunate because it shunts discussion
that ought to take place in public onto a private list.  Furthermore, we
should tell them outright that they are fooling themselves if they think no
IPMC members will be able to guess who they are.

I'm not even sure we can realistically preserve anonymity for "scale of 1 to
10", multiple choice, true/false and so on given the very limited pool of
potential respondents.  We're going to have to think really hard about what we
ask and what we publish -- and if we try hard to scrub and fail, I'm going to
feel really bad.

Nevertheless, if an "anonymous" option that can only be discussed privately is
the price of consensus, I'm still on board.  It's better than nothing.

Marvin Humphrey

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