RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto: johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org mailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto: bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto: r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgmailto: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto:r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Thanks Roman - I asked for karma before (not your fault) but no one granted it for me. I’ll take a look. Great job. ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++ -Original Message- From: Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Board bo...@apache.org Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:rubys@ intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members. What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent representatives that act in collusion. 3 independents was a useful yardstick in the original IPMC policies. Over the years it became a concrete requirement. We should go back to the original intent both in the IPMC and the pTLP proposal. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:r...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman.
Re: Incubator Wiki Access
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: May i get edit access to incubator wiki to fill out the March report for the Zeppelin project. id: MoonsooLee Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating
We used default apache-release profile for source distribution which is producing zip. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote: +1 (binding). Checked disclaimer, license, notice. Verified signatures. Checked for headers. Ran unit tests. Out of curiosity, why is the src release a zip file rather than tgz? -Jakob On 1 March 2015 at 22:32, Jean-Baptiste Onofré j...@nanthrax.net wrote: +1 (binding) Regards JB On 02/27/2015 06:20 PM, Amareshwari Sriramdasu wrote: Hello everyone, This is the call for vote for the following RC to be released as official Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating release. This is our first release. Apache Lens provides an Unified Analytics interface. Lens aims to cut the Data Analytics silos by providing a single view of data across multiple tiered data stores and optimal execution environment for the analytical query. It seamlessly integrates Hadoop with traditional data warehouses to appear like one. Vote on dev list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lens-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCABJEuZfss9i52WrRQORMZTrfRmM-LNARFoccLow4k9oA2h3w_w%40mail.gmail.com%3E Results of vote on dev list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lens-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCABJEuZd55sU08f-vhh8i1DjH9FAWaxWwY6CZTOACQ0Kgasqatw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The commit id is de64e1dbfca2c4be0f8829cec2012052c09fb1e5 : https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-lens.git;a=commit;h=de64e1dbfca2c4be0f8829cec2012052c09fb1e5 This corresponds to the tag: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating : https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-lens.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating The release archives (tar.gz/.zip), signature, and checksums are here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/lens/apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-rc1 You can find the KEYS file here: * https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/lens/KEYS The release candidate consists of the following source distribution archive: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-source-release.zip In addition, the following supplementary binary distributions are provided for user convenience at the same location: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-bin.tar.gz The licensing of bundled bits in the archives are documented at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LENS/Licensing+in+Apache+Lens Release notes available at https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315923version=12328990 Vote will be open for at least 72 hours . Please vote on releasing this RC [ ] +1 approve [ ] 0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, Amareshwari -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com - 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: Incubator Wiki Access
May i get edit access to incubator wiki to fill out the March report for the Zeppelin project. id: MoonsooLee Thanks, moon On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alex abezzu...@nflabs.com wrote: May I get edit access to incubator wiki please to fill out the February report for the Zeppelin project. Id: AlexanderBezzubov Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
Thanks Roman, I think that it is unnecessary to mention sub-projects in this document. If an external codebase and community are going into an existing TLP, it is often possible to do so via an IP Clearance process, depending on size of external community. // Niclas On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this email thread or edit the document directly (do send me your Confluence IDs so I can give you karma, though). I would like to see if we can build consensus around this policy in time for the March board meeting so that Zest can try one more time to join ASF as a pTLP project. Thanks, Roman. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document
If that were true then the project would not be operating as an Apache project which requires that all community members have a voice. Graduation requires the project be operating as an Apache project. In such a project there is a difference between a binding vote and a non-binding vote only in the legal aspects of the foundation. From a community perspective any valid opinion should be supported by those with binding vote. Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:50 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.net; bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying you will never get a binding vote. Earn merit in the community and get yourself invited into the PMC and you have a binding vote. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 7:33 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.commailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.orgmailto: johndam...@apache.org Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org mailto:general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretazmailto:bdelacre...@apache.orgmailto: bdelacre...@apache.org; Sam Rubymailto:ru...@intertwingly.netmailto: ru...@intertwingly.net Cc: Apache Boardmailto:bo...@apache.orgmailto:bo...@apache.org Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. From a document's standpoint, I'm concerned with heavy reliance on three existing Apache members. Specifically, if the pTLP gets into a situation where only 2 of its 3 members are active, they can't even add an additional member. While having three active participants is crucial (from the tone of the document), as soon as one of those three starts failing, they cannot ever recover without that 3rd person rejoining. This approach seems to favor cases where the pTLP is proposed and managed by an existing member. I can see this approach not helping foster external groups from joining the ASF, especially trying to find three members openly willing to help foster that community. I can think of a few members who have no interest in helping to mentor projects. So if the hope is to get these folks involved, I look forward to seeing the results. John On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.orgmailto: r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of details of the Incubator policy is considered good enough for poddlings, holding pTLP project to higher level of standard would be unfair. At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of a document to be available. Please feel free to either comment on this
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating
+1 (binding). Checked disclaimer, license, notice. Verified signatures. Checked for headers. Ran unit tests. Out of curiosity, why is the src release a zip file rather than tgz? -Jakob On 1 March 2015 at 22:32, Jean-Baptiste Onofré j...@nanthrax.net wrote: +1 (binding) Regards JB On 02/27/2015 06:20 PM, Amareshwari Sriramdasu wrote: Hello everyone, This is the call for vote for the following RC to be released as official Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating release. This is our first release. Apache Lens provides an Unified Analytics interface. Lens aims to cut the Data Analytics silos by providing a single view of data across multiple tiered data stores and optimal execution environment for the analytical query. It seamlessly integrates Hadoop with traditional data warehouses to appear like one. Vote on dev list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lens-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCABJEuZfss9i52WrRQORMZTrfRmM-LNARFoccLow4k9oA2h3w_w%40mail.gmail.com%3E Results of vote on dev list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-lens-dev/201502.mbox/%3CCABJEuZd55sU08f-vhh8i1DjH9FAWaxWwY6CZTOACQ0Kgasqatw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The commit id is de64e1dbfca2c4be0f8829cec2012052c09fb1e5 : https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-lens.git;a=commit;h=de64e1dbfca2c4be0f8829cec2012052c09fb1e5 This corresponds to the tag: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating : https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-lens.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating The release archives (tar.gz/.zip), signature, and checksums are here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/lens/apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-rc1 You can find the KEYS file here: * https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/lens/KEYS The release candidate consists of the following source distribution archive: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-source-release.zip In addition, the following supplementary binary distributions are provided for user convenience at the same location: apache-lens-2.0.1-beta-incubating-bin.tar.gz The licensing of bundled bits in the archives are documented at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LENS/Licensing+in+Apache+Lens Release notes available at https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315923version=12328990 Vote will be open for at least 72 hours . Please vote on releasing this RC [ ] +1 approve [ ] 0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, Amareshwari -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com - 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: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling... Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in the same way as podling proposals are. The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review. Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks, recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. - this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Accept CommonsRDF into the Apache Incubator
+1 Rob On 27/02/2015 19:19, Lewis John Mcgibbney lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi general@, Over the last while a number of individuals have been putting together a proposal and gathering interest in proposing Commons RDF for acceptance into the Apache Incubator. Having worked our way through the Incubator documentation checklists - http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#formulating, we are now brining this proposal back to the general@ list. Commons RDF is a set of interfaces for the RDF 1.1 concepts that can be used to expose common RDF-1.1 concepts using common Java interfaces. The current CommondRDFProposal document can be found at - https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CommonsRDFProposal This thread is therefore aimed at obtaining general consensus from the incubator community on whether the proposal document is suitable and whether the project as described should begin an incubation period at Apache. The VOTE is therefore as follows [ ] +1 I am happy with Commons RDF entering incubation [ ] +0/-0 I am neither yay or nay [ ] -1 I am not happy with this proposal because The VOTE will be open for at least 72 hours. p.s. Here is my +1 PPMC binding -- *Lewis* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling. Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. If a community says, we'd like to be a pTLP, then why/how does the Incubator PMC need to be involved in that? -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they are fairly similar to the creation of a podling... Please explain why that resolution cannot come from the community itself. It can, but I'd like it to be at least exposed for public review, in the same way as podling proposals are. The goals are to make people aware that a new project is about to be created, and to provide a space (this list) for public review. Other steps that are similar to podling creation are the name checks, recruiting mentors, fine tuning the initial project charter, etc. - this list is an excellent place to do all this, even though for some pTLPs the work might be minimal. The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list. -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. Fine. My primary point was: IPMC has *nothing* to do with the discussion. That happens on a mailing list, and sure: general@i.a.o is just fine. Maybe one day, it will be new-proje...@apache.org. But I want to reinforce what Ross noted: pTLP should not be conflated with Incubator bits. It has no place, and that's why I'm being vocal right now. You said, the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, and I believe that is totally wrong. Cheers, -g
Re: pTLP process amendments
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org ...The Incubator PMC might not have a formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens before that, collaboratively and in public. That isn't the IPMC. You're simply talking about discussion on a mailing list Not a mailing list, this mailing list. There's no reason for the preparation of a pTLP to happen in a different place than where podlings are prepared, which is on this list. I'm putting all of this bits of feedback in a very formal policy document modeled after the formal Incubator policy definition. I am frustrated as hell, because a huge update I've just made seems to have been wiped out by the Confluence outage. I'll try again once it is back. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
