[VOTE] Release Apache Twill-0.5.0-incubating
Hi all, This is to call for a vote on releasing Apache Twill 0.5.0-incubating. This is the sixth release for Twill. Apache Twill is an abstraction over Apache Hadoop YARN that reduces the complexity of developing distributed applications. Vote on twill-dev: http://s.apache.org/lfz Result on vote on twill-dev: http://s.apache.org/YQY The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/0.5.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The tag to be voted upon is v0.5.0-incubating: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-twill.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/v0.5.0-incubating The release hash is 01cbe903b37eb981b8fab0bde9d9ff0f7dc4fd5c https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-twill.git;a=commit;h=01cbe903b37eb981b8fab0bde9d9ff0f7dc4fd5c The Nexus Staging URL: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetwill-1016 Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chtyim.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/KEYS For information about the contents of this release see: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/twill/0.5.0-incubating-rc1/CHANGES.txt Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Twill 0.5.0-incubating The vote will be open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Twill 0.5.0-incubating [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... Thanks, Terence - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
How to add a committer that is not incubator.
Hi. Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. If that person is not a committer of Incubator, do we then need to do something additional to get the person added to incubator, like call a vote in IPMC ? I ask because, I know by experience (I was IPMC but not incubator-committer) that you need to be incubator-committer to use the GIT repo. thanks in advance for a short answer. rgds jan i.
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [STATUS] WAS [DISCUSS] Commons RDF to join the Apache Incubator
John, Thank you very much for the offer of mentoring - I've added you to the list. And I've renamed the proposal as CommonRDFProposal as that seems to be naming style on the wiki. Andy On 22/02/15 20:56, John D. Ament wrote: Lewis, It looks like there were a few things called out. - Identify a champion (looks like you did already) - Solicit support from mentors. It looks like those are the only two open issues. Benedikt cannot be listed as a mentor, as mentioned previously (unless I'm missing an email), but feel free to include him as a PPMC member/commons representative (would be more accurate than listing under mentor from my POV.. unless he's interested in helping out the incubator and shows off his skills quick enough [PS - looking for shepherds for next month's report]). If you need a hand, I'd be happy to throw my hat in with you and Rob (I'm jumping at Marvin's note about low maintenance). John On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 2:53:26 PM Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I've read through the commentary on the recent [DISCUSS] thread for Commons RDF [0]. It is not clear to me what the outcome was really... can anyone else provide a fresh insight as to where this proposal is going and what is required to progress it from status draft to status proposal? Thanks in advance Lewis [0] *http://s.apache.org/Vtk http://s.apache.org/Vtk* -- *Lewis* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Niclas, I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has been working on one. Your wiki page is coupled with other process/organizational changes. think it's easy to invent things that haven't been done and to overlook what has been done (more than 1 wiki page, in Incubator-ville; an in ComDev now, thanks to Roman; 100s-1000s of emails over many years on the subject, etc.). While agreed, and several Directors have been party to those discussions ... the internal discussion on board@ has shown a lack of recognition/review of all of that. This is not unexpected: that discussion occurred *here*. I thought it was reasonable to assume our fellow Directors to be caught up on that discussion, but that was presumptuous. ... The past years of discussion must be distilled, rather than oh, look in the archives. Continuing to play the bring me a rock game will lead to no progress. Yeah :-( I don't have a ton of confidence for pTLP in the current board. I also fully invite the membership of the ASF to use this as a measuring stick for future board members. Ask your board member candidates during the next ASF member election to answer this question before you cast you VOTE and use it to help decide. Agreed. Experimentation, rather than status quo. Cheers, -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, See comments below to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP 2.1 -- I suggest to change the word probationary to provisional. I also suggest that a text is added such as; 'It is required that the provisional concept is explained in detail to the users, for instance by linking to page http://' where is another page on ComDev explaining pTLP from the user's perspective. After the two bullet points, the following text At the same time those folks are beholden to the project not an external entity (like IPMC). By creating a PMC that understands what is needed, then a pTLP can groom new PMC members, and use the standard process for adding them to the PMC. The Board doesn't care about committership, so the pTLP can do whatever it wants in that regard. sounds to me a bit harsh, and I would like to suggest the following instead; The initial PMC should therefor, at least in theory, have a stronger base for grooming new committers and PMC members, than the regular podling graduate. I think that 3.7. to 3.9. are really not necessary. I would like to suggest to change that to; 3. 7. The first business for the initial PMC is to complete the pTLP checklist of tasks, primarily in coordinating with infrastructure, end ensure compliance with branding and legal policies. See http://x/; 8. The pTLP day-to-day operation is identical to a regular TLP. It is recommended that the PMC members are extra careful, to avoid confrontation and seek consensus to the greatest extent possible, and to explicitly explain all activities in greater detail to community members, as part of the learning process. Below is the beginning of tasks that should be listed, and I think a separate page for this, order not totally thought through. These tasks could exist as a set of one Jira tasks with a subtask for each, which can be cloned for each new project. Setting up a Provisional Top Level Project * Complete Name Search in accordance with Branding policy at http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names * Check PMC Chair is recorded in LDAP. * Request Jira from INFRA * Request Mailing lists from INFRA * Add project to Reporting Schedule * Request source control (svn or git) from INFRA * Submission of ICLAs from existing committers. * Submission of CCLAs from affected companies * IP Clearance as described on http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ * Filing of Software Grant, if applicable. * Change to Apache License v2.0, if applicable. * Update Apache Navigation to include project * Request User Accounts from INFRA * Request CMS from INFRA * Migrate existing documentation to Apache. * Ensure Provisional markings are adhered to, and link to http:// * Enable Notifications from Jira to Mailing list * Migrate existing codebase to Apache * Ensure dependency licensing compatibility, see http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html * Review legal compliance on all dependencies, in particular NOTICE file. * Ensure compliance with Branding policy * Establish self-assessed Apache Maturity Model declaration. There might more that I can't think of this morning. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
Re: How to add a committer that is not incubator.
On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 3:36:50 AM jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. I'm assuming that the vote was forwarded to the private list of the IPMC at some point and you waited the standard 72 hours? If that person is not a committer of Incubator, do we then need to do something additional to get the person added to incubator, like call a vote in IPMC ? Tamaya added one recently. Other than forwarding the vote, we simply added him to the incubator group. No other vote, as the IPMC had clearance that the change was happening. As you may recall, we had a discussion a couple months back about common auth for the incubator, implying everyone has the same level of access to all podlings. I ask because, I know by experience (I was IPMC but not incubator-committer) that you need to be incubator-committer to use the GIT repo. thanks in advance for a short answer. rgds jan i. John
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache MRQL 0.9.4 incubating (RC2)
Hello, This vote is open for more than a week and we still need one more IPMC vote. Could somebody help us her? Thanks Leonidas Fegaras On 02/22/2015 01:00 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Ping :) Regards, Alan On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Leonidas Fegaras fega...@cse.uta.edu wrote: Hello, This release still needs one more IPMC vote. (We got +1 IPMC votes from Alan Cabrera and Justin Mclean). It would be greatly appreciated If someone could take a look at our release and vote. Thank you Leonidas Fegaras On 02/15/2015 05:19 PM, Leonidas Fegaras wrote: Hello, This is a call for a vote on Apache MRQL 0.9.4 incubating. Apache MRQL is a query processing and optimization system for large-scale, distributed data analysis, built on top of Apache Hadoop, Hama, Spark, and Flink. This is our third release. A vote was held on the MRQL developer mailing list and it passed with four +1 PPMC votes, no -1 votes, and no 0 votes (see the vote thread [1] and result thread [2]), and now requires a vote on this list. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at least three +1 IPMC votes are cast. [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache MRQL 0.9.4-incubating [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... The release tarballs, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mrql/0.9.4-incubating-RC2/ The release candidate consists of the following source distribution archives: - apache-mrql-0.9.4-incubating-src.[tar.gz|zip] SHA1 of TGZ: 9B21 81B9 7CAB D1D4 B58F 49B3 C013 5841 B439 D590 SHA1 of ZIP: B08F C4DE A84F F203 8EEA C124 727A 1A53 76FA 34F3 You can compile the sources using 'mvn clean install'. In addition, the following supplementary binary distributions are provided for user convenience at the same location: - apache-mrql-0.9.4-incubating-bin.[tar.gz|zip] SHA1 of TGZ: F25B A476 D095 8C01 AEA3 4F94 4800 01AB 9FA4 BCBF SHA1 of ZIP: AF61 F9E3 F84A 11CA CE39 B769 B490 D963 C495 C5DD A staged Maven repository is available for review at: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemrql-1003 The release candidate has been signed through the key 798764F1 in: http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mrql/KEYS The release candidate is based on the sources tagged with MRQL-0.9.4-incubating-RC2 in: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-mrql.git;a=commit;h=6bf94302fb5aa8a5bd7f60362fe0fe8505da6ebb The list of fixed issues: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-mrql.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES;hb=6bf94302fb5aa8a5bd7f60362fe0fe8505da6ebb To learn more about Apache MRQL, please visit: http://wiki.apache.org/mrql/ Thanks, Leonidas Fegaras [1] http://markmail.org/message/dm2n2ljgdlztsdsf [2] http://markmail.org/message/4hajddzyqlcwijyj - 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: How to add a committer that is not incubator.
On 24 February 2015 at 12:19, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 3:36:50 AM jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. Maybe a stupid question, but I cannot find the answer. If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. I'm assuming that the vote was forwarded to the private list of the IPMC at some point and you waited the standard 72 hours? If will be, as soon as our local vote is completed. This is the normal rules, so no problem. If that person is not a committer of Incubator, do we then need to do something additional to get the person added to incubator, like call a vote in IPMC ? Tamaya added one recently. Other than forwarding the vote, we simply added him to the incubator group. No other vote, as the IPMC had clearance that the change was happening. As you may recall, we had a discussion a couple months back about common auth for the incubator, implying everyone has the same level of access to all podlings. I remember that discussion, was part of it. (we) is the IPMC chair (or any with chair karma). Thanks I assumed that, but better ask than to cause a bigger discussion afterwards. rgds jan i. I ask because, I know by experience (I was IPMC but not incubator-committer) that you need to be incubator-committer to use the GIT repo. thanks in advance for a short answer. rgds jan i. John
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: How to add a committer that is not incubator.
On 24 Feb 2015 08:36, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: If we want to add a existing committer (one with an apache ID) to our project as PPMC and committer, we of course have the normal vote. If that committer happens to also be an Apache Member, then it probably would be great for that person to also join IPMC directly so that you would have one more +1 for you release votes here. Technically (s)he needs to be added to the incubator LDAP group by IPMC through the lazy consensus forwarding of the podling vote.
Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ... Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would likely respond differently over time, and over different proposals. Bertrand -- Doesn't want a new concept for the Board to deal with. Suggests to run pTLP under the Incubator supervision. He has responded else-thread. , but warn possible burden on Board if something goes wrong. This is a concern for the pTLP community, not the Board. As we all know, the Board has a very large hammer. If you are doing something wrong, then you get shut down. There are a couple solutions just short of that, but they all hurt. Badly. ... Yet the real point is: the Board doesn't have any extra work that it doesn't already provided to TLPs here. And the Board even reviews podlings, via the Incubator report. ... so we're not really talking about any real, additional burden upon the Board. ... Cheers, -g
Re: [STATUS] WAS [DISCUSS] Commons RDF to join the Apache Incubator
On 23/02/15 10:32, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hello, 2015-02-22 21:56 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org: Lewis, It looks like there were a few things called out. - Identify a champion (looks like you did already) - Solicit support from mentors. It looks like those are the only two open issues. Benedikt cannot be listed as a mentor, as mentioned previously (unless I'm missing an email), but feel free to include him as a PPMC member/commons representative (would be more accurate than listing under mentor from my POV.. unless he's interested in helping out the incubator and shows off his skills quick enough [PS - looking for shepherds for next month's report]). I think at the moment commons representative would be the best to describe my role. I'm interested in helping out here at the incubator, but I'll need time to learn how this project works. Benedikt - I've updated the proposal with a Apache Commons Representative section. Andy Regards, Benedikt If you need a hand, I'd be happy to throw my hat in with you and Rob (I'm jumping at Marvin's note about low maintenance). John On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 2:53:26 PM Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I've read through the commentary on the recent [DISCUSS] thread for Commons RDF [0]. It is not clear to me what the outcome was really... can anyone else provide a fresh insight as to where this proposal is going and what is required to progress it from status draft to status proposal? Thanks in advance Lewis [0] *http://s.apache.org/Vtk http://s.apache.org/Vtk* -- *Lewis* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment
Ok, take ur of the incubator list. Where my only comment is as power my mail below: PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 3:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Ok let me try again. I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given project. Sam makes a good point that if we are sure it will work why bother. Just make it a TLP and be done with it. This version of orthogonal to the IPMC. I agree and I think its a great idea. My own concern is not projects that can become a pTLP or even a TLP. Such projects are not a problem for the Incubator.. They graduate and don't have growing pains once graduated (or at least no more than if they were to go straight to TLP). This is because they have, by definition, active people in their community that will ensure the project will graduate My concern, which is an IPMC concern, is the few projects that don't have that starting point. The pTLP doesn't solve that problem. It moves it. I've been consistent with that feedback throughout. I'm not sure how Roman interpreted my repeat of that, and a desire to try something else, as me saying pTLP had to happen in the incubator. I didn't say that, at least not intentionally. And in the summary of my position at the start of this thread, a summary I didn't write (that is other people seen to understand my point). So there you have it, I am taking a position. PTLP is fine. Go do it (actually I'm with Sam, drop the p and thus drop the confusion) PTLP doesn't solve the problems identified in the wiki. So whilst it can reduce unnecessary work in the IPMC it wont since the problem. Am I being clear? One more point of clarity. If anyone wants to claim pTLP is all we need, and the IPMC can be dissolved then I have a problem with that. And if someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross: if you believe that a pTLP is somehow tied to the Incubator, then state that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it. That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman.
Re: [VOTE] Accept Myriad into the Apache Incubator
So we will see more to report when it does make it in. Some good, some bad. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:01 AM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: Oh ok, because of that you can't make it to this month's report ;-) On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 6:16:25 PM Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote: 7 days was chosen to be conservative. I advised Adam not to hurry the vote. On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:04 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: Just curious - why 7 days instead of the standard 72 hour window. Either way, +1, good luck with incubation. John On Sun Feb 22 2015 at 12:35:57 AM Adam Bordelon a...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hello friends, After receiving a positive response on the discussion thread, and even a new Mentor (Luciano), I would like to call a VOTE to accept Myriad into the Apache Incubator. I will end the vote after 7 days. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/MyriadProposal?action=recallrev=7 [ ] +1 Accept Myriad into the Incubator [ ] +0 Don’t care. [ ] -1 Don’t accept Myriad into the Incubator because.. I am clearly a +1. Thanks, -Adam- me@apache
Re: Podling Name Searches
Yes, you still need to do a podling name search. Hopefully that will show that the existing name is already good to start with and doesn't conflict with other, pre-existing similar software products. If the community intends to keep the name, we need a clear donation of the trademark itself from the current holder. Ask on trademarks@ once you are ready to start. Registered trademarks can be transferred with a pretty basic legal document that Apache counsel can provide if needed; the existing owner merely needs to sign, we do the rest of the legal transfer for a registration. - Shane On 1/26/15 1:38 PM, Rob Vesse wrote: One option would be to get the company involved to donate the trademark, if you check with trademarks@a.o then I am pretty sure that has happened in the past and they can likely guide you on procedures for this Your wording implies that perhaps this isn't an option in this particular podlings case? Rob On 25/01/2015 06:45, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 25.01.2015 14:08, John D. Ament wrote: All, If a podling had its name and codebase donated from a company, which had already secured rights to the name, The term secured rights is a bit misleading. Even if they have a registered trademark, that's no guarantee that it doesn't infringe on anything, especially in a different jurisdiction. what is required in the podling name search? IMO, same as always. There's no reason for the ASF to implicitly trust corporate lawyers. We should always look for names that are globally unambiguous. -- Brane - 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
