Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Julian Hyde]

It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that
matter most. Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and lots of
questions, especially about infrastructure. Without at least two
responsive mentors to field those questions you feel like banging your
head on the wall. And you start wondering why you left the comfort and
convenience of github and whether Apache itself is fascinated by its
own brand.

Before you ask, you won't get podlings to send their questions to
another list, because we're all too proud to ask questions which in
retrospect always turn out to be dumb questions.

It's not possible to measure that kind of mentor activity, so I think
people are inclined to measure the "public" forms of activity as proxy
indicators.

Julian


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC.
> Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but
> one is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I
> am "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.
>
> My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons
> why we *have* multiple mentors.
>
> "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who
> didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a release
> or etc...
>
> I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in and
> month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the equation,
> the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant.
>
> So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling
> with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling with
> 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"??
>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>
 Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I
 think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>>>
>>> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
>>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
>>> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
>>> remove myself as a mentor for this podling.
>>
>>
>> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't
>> admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.
>
>
> -
> 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: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Ross Gardler]

+1000 (though I would argue a single highly committed mentor is sufficient)

-Original Message-
From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:46 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

It's not activity on the dev list, or even report signoffs, that matter most. 
Podlings, especially new podlings, have lots and lots of questions, especially 
about infrastructure. Without at least two responsive mentors to field those 
questions you feel like banging your head on the wall. And you start wondering 
why you left the comfort and convenience of github and whether Apache itself is 
fascinated by its own brand.

Before you ask, you won't get podlings to send their questions to another list, 
because we're all too proud to ask questions which in retrospect always turn 
out to be dumb questions.

It's not possible to measure that kind of mentor activity, so I think people 
are inclined to measure the "public" forms of activity as proxy indicators.

Julian


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:19 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC.
> Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but one 
> is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I am 
> "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.
>
> My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons why we 
> *have* multiple mentors.
>
> "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who 
> didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a 
> release or etc...
>
> I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in 
> and month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the 
> equation, the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant.
>
> So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling 
> with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling 
> with
> 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"??
>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>
 Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea 
 and I think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>>>
>>> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and 
>>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I 
>>> should either become more active on this, or (and probably more 
>>> likely) remove myself as a mentor for this podling.
>>
>>
>> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who 
>> can't admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.
>
>
> -
> 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: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

[Henry Saputra]

How did you sign the release artifact?

I do not see KEYS file in the dev dist directory.

- Henry

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Ian Maxon  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please verify and vote on the first release of Apache AsterixDB . This is
> our first incubating release for this part of the codebase, so as was the
> case with our Hyracks components, feedback is much appreciated. As was
> noted in the result and discussion on dev@asterixdb.i.a.o, this will be a
> source-only release due to some issues with how our binaries are assembled
> in Maven at the moment.
>
> The vote to release on the development list passed:
> *https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-asterixdb-dev/201510.mbox/%3ccan_yf5wppfcnpfjkt5aejtm46x1z9osujxmqroscvjkvl+s...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> *
>
> with result
>
> Binding +1s:
> Till Westmann
> Murtadha Hubail
> Taewoo Kim
> Yingyi Bu
> Mike Carey
> Ate Douma
>
> Non-binding +1s:
> Heri Ramampiaro
>
> And no 0 or -1 votes
>
>
> The tag to be voted on is
>
> asterix-0.8.7-incubating
> commit : d2e1e89cfdf39e2b772dff2600913bb79644a380
> link:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/asterix-0.8.7-incubating
>
> The artifacts, md5s, and signatures are at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.asc
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.md5
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.sha1
>
> MD5: 7330e6d6c2dd691ae3ab6a641e4d5344
> SHA1: bf0b4a2ceaa26bcf1fcda33fee1ba227e31a88ba
>
>
> The KEYS file containing the PGP keys used to sign the release can be found
> at
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/KEYS
>
>
> RAT was executed as part of Maven via the RAT maven plugin, as well as
> manually, but it
> excludes the following paths:
>
> .*\.adm
> .*\.aql
> .*\.cleaned
> .*\.csv
> .*\.csv.cr
> .*\.csv.crlf
> .*\.csv.lf
> .*\.ddl
> .*\.dot
> .*\.hcli
> .*\.iml
> .*\.json
> .*\.out
> .*\.plan
> .*\.ps
> .*\.scm
> .*\.tbl
> .*\.tbl\.big
> .*\.tsv
> .*\.txt
> .*large_text
> .*part-0
> .*part-1
>
> .*\.goutputstream-YQMB2V
> .*02-fuzzy-select
> .*LockRequestFile
> .*hosts
> .*id_rsa
> .*known_hosts
>
> .*bottle.py
> .*geostats.js
> .*jquery.autosize-min.js
> .*jquery.min.js
> .*rainbowvis.js
> .*smoothie.js
>
>
> These files either are either data for tests, procedurally generated,
> or source files which come without a header mentioning their license,
> but have an explicit reference in the LICENSE file.
>
> The complete RAT report is available at:
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/westmann/b6ed4b25bea44adcd526/raw/be93ff0c1d13c2ce7c88a2b713ace130b5e7ef5f/gistfile1.txt
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of votes
> (3 +1) has been reached.
>
> Please vote
> [ ] +1 release this package as Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating
> [ ] 0 No strong feeling either way
> [ ] -1 do not release this package because ...
>
> Thanks,
> - Ian

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Till Westmann  wrote:
> The KEYS file is in
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/
>
> Do we need one in
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/
> as well?

The one in release/ is required, but there's no need for one in dev/.

Policy here:

  http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums

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 AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

[Till Westmann]

The KEYS file is in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/

Do we need one in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/
as well?

Thanks,
Till

On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:07, Henry Saputra wrote:


How did you sign the release artifact?

I do not see KEYS file in the dev dist directory.

- Henry

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Ian Maxon  wrote:

Hi everyone,

Please verify and vote on the first release of Apache AsterixDB . 
This is
our first incubating release for this part of the codebase, so as was 
the
case with our Hyracks components, feedback is much appreciated. As 
was
noted in the result and discussion on dev@asterixdb.i.a.o, this will 
be a
source-only release due to some issues with how our binaries are 
assembled

in Maven at the moment.

The vote to release on the development list passed:
*https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-asterixdb-dev/201510.mbox/%3ccan_yf5wppfcnpfjkt5aejtm46x1z9osujxmqroscvjkvl+s...@mail.gmail.com%3E
*

with result

Binding +1s:
Till Westmann
Murtadha Hubail
Taewoo Kim
Yingyi Bu
Mike Carey
Ate Douma

Non-binding +1s:
Heri Ramampiaro

And no 0 or -1 votes


The tag to be voted on is

asterix-0.8.7-incubating
commit : d2e1e89cfdf39e2b772dff2600913bb79644a380
link:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/asterix-0.8.7-incubating

The artifacts, md5s, and signatures are at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.asc
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.md5
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.sha1

MD5: 7330e6d6c2dd691ae3ab6a641e4d5344
SHA1: bf0b4a2ceaa26bcf1fcda33fee1ba227e31a88ba


The KEYS file containing the PGP keys used to sign the release can be 
found

at

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/KEYS


RAT was executed as part of Maven via the RAT maven plugin, as well 
as

manually, but it
excludes the following paths:

.*\.adm
.*\.aql
.*\.cleaned
.*\.csv
.*\.csv.cr
.*\.csv.crlf
.*\.csv.lf
.*\.ddl
.*\.dot
.*\.hcli
.*\.iml
.*\.json
.*\.out
.*\.plan
.*\.ps
.*\.scm
.*\.tbl
.*\.tbl\.big
.*\.tsv
.*\.txt
.*large_text
.*part-0
.*part-1

.*\.goutputstream-YQMB2V
.*02-fuzzy-select
.*LockRequestFile
.*hosts
.*id_rsa
.*known_hosts

.*bottle.py
.*geostats.js
.*jquery.autosize-min.js
.*jquery.min.js
.*rainbowvis.js
.*smoothie.js


These files either are either data for tests, procedurally generated,
or source files which come without a header mentioning their license,
but have an explicit reference in the LICENSE file.

The complete RAT report is available at:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/westmann/b6ed4b25bea44adcd526/raw/be93ff0c1d13c2ce7c88a2b713ace130b5e7ef5f/gistfile1.txt

The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of votes
(3 +1) has been reached.

Please vote
[ ] +1 release this package as Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating
[ ] 0 No strong feeling either way
[ ] -1 do not release this package because ...

Thanks,
- Ian


-
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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Nick Kew]

On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 09:59 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

> > ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> 
> Off the top of my head I'd say:

A look back at the OpenOffice thread would find an example
where significant questions and doubts were discussed.
The political circumstances (Oracle vs LibreOffice)
were a concern for some.

-- 
Nick Kew


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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc.


While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t 
see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation 
(and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC 
members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own hardware 
to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost ($20-$50 for a 
development board).

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

[VOTE][RESULT] Accept Concerted into the Apache Incubator

[Atri Sharma]

And again, sorry for the error in subject.

ENOCOFFEE

Hi All,

This vote passed with the following result:

+1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl, Roman
Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera, Bertrand
Delacretaz
+0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
+1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han, Timothy
Chen
-1: None

Thanks everyone for participating and voting.

We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.

Regards,
Atri

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:

> Resending with correct subject.
>
> Hi All,
>
> This vote passed with the following result:
>
> +1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl,
> Roman Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera,
> Bertrand Delacretaz
> +0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
> +1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han,
> Timothy Chen
> -1: None
>
> Thanks everyone for participating and voting.
>
> We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.
>
> Regards,
> Atri
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This vote passed with the following result:
>>
>> +1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl,
>> Roman Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera,
>> Bertrand Delacretaz
>> +0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
>> +1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han,
>> Timothy Chen
>> -1: None
>>
>> Thanks everyone for participating and voting.
>>
>> We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Atri
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:
>>> > ...Following the discussion about Concerted I would like to call a
>>> vote for
>>> > accepting Concerted as a new incubator project...
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>

A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

This is a legitimate question - by my very rough count, we've accepted
25-30 podlings into the Incubator in the last year, and other than the
JavaX trainwreck, I'm having a hard time finding examples of potential
podlings we've declined to incubate. Some of that is certainly because it's
not easy to find the failures - I'm assuming they tend not to make it to a
vote. But I'm really curious about this - what's the last example (if any)
of a potential podling making it to the vote stage but not being accepted?
Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote? Is it
culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?

A.

Re: [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Sterling Hughes  wrote:
> ...I'd like to call a VOTE to accept Mynewt as a
> new ASF incubator project...

+1

-Bertrand

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

Re: [VOTE] Accept Concerted into the Apache Incubator

[Atri Sharma]

Resending with correct subject.

Hi All,

This vote passed with the following result:

+1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl, Roman
Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera, Bertrand
Delacretaz
+0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
+1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han, Timothy
Chen
-1: None

Thanks everyone for participating and voting.

We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.

Regards,
Atri

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> This vote passed with the following result:
>
> +1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl,
> Roman Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera,
> Bertrand Delacretaz
> +0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
> +1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han,
> Timothy Chen
> -1: None
>
> Thanks everyone for participating and voting.
>
> We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.
>
> Regards,
> Atri
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:
>> > ...Following the discussion about Concerted I would like to call a vote
>> for
>> > accepting Concerted as a new incubator project...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

Forgot to add - and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer 
wrote:

> This is a legitimate question - by my very rough count, we've accepted
> 25-30 podlings into the Incubator in the last year, and other than the
> JavaX trainwreck, I'm having a hard time finding examples of potential
> podlings we've declined to incubate. Some of that is certainly because it's
> not easy to find the failures - I'm assuming they tend not to make it to a
> vote. But I'm really curious about this - what's the last example (if any)
> of a potential podling making it to the vote stage but not being accepted?
> Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote? Is it
> culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?
>
> A.
>

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering
> infrastructural requirements/expectations?...

You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the
podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.

-Bertrand

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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Nick Kew]

On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 16:10 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:

> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
> it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
> already stepped down ?

Hmmm.  I can think of at least one occasion when that would've
saved me sinking into limbo from which it gets ever harder to
extricate oneself.  I express interest in a podling, get signed
up as mentor without really meaning to.  Then my personal
circumstances get difficult, and all Apache activities get shelved
while I'm caring for a serious invalid.  She dies, but it's
a year on and I can't re-engage with the podling.  Or indeed,
for quite some time, the Incubator.

A well-defined withdraw-by-default process would've been a
blessing.  And I expect many disengaged mentors could tell
similar stories.

-- 
Nick Kew


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

Re: Incubation capacity

[Ted Dunning]

Thanks Ross.

Good point.  And it has been long enough ago that people might be able to
look at it a bit more dispassionately.



On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Ross Gardler 
wrote:

> With respect to " I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to
> recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only
> then start discussing solutions." I remind everyone of a perfect starting
> point for this - perhaps we can focus on constructively updating
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:26 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Incubation capacity
>
> I think that this is an excellent analysis.
>
> The (gut) feeling I have about scarce resources are:
>
> 1) me.  As Marvin noted, I am a failure mode as much as a contributor
> lately.  This is largely due to my crazy travel schedule combined with lots
> of short term deliverables. Marvin has lightened that load enormously with
> the report group and I see that as a good way forward
>
> 2) mentors. As Zukka mentions, the number of mentors is roughly constant
> if you subtract away those who are MiA
>
>
> I worry that the lull that others have noted in drama level may be
> increasing again. I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to
> recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only
> then start discussing solutions.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jukka Zitting 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:50 PM Marvin Humphrey
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Jukka Zitting 
> > wrote:
> > > > It sounds like ruminations about the Incubator are on the increase
> > again,
> > >
> > > I hope that we can make use of some of this bursting energy and
> > > channel
> > it
> > > into incremental improvements.
> > >
> > > The Incubator is a stable platform, and it has been functioning well
> > > by historical terms, and with blessedly low drama compared to a few
> > > years
> > ago.
> > > My impression is that frustration with the institutional resistance
> > > of Incubator to change is skewing impressions of how well it is
> > > doing its
> > job of
> > > incubating podlings.
> >
> > Yes, we're far from the drama of 2011.
> >
> > > > I believe the way the Incubator is organized sets an upper bound
> > > > on the number of podlings it can effectively manage. Based on
> > > > experience and historical data
> > > > (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fi
> > > > ncubator.apache.org%2fhistory%2f=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40mic
> > > > rosoft.com%7c16c58f0566a547707af408d2d3868e32%7c72f988bf86f141af91
> > > > ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=6DkLFL2cvSI%2bi9cpO%2fbrzR6vmzQE4xKDInxbq
> > > > %2b270bE%3d *) I believe
> > this
> > > > limit is somewhere around 30 podlings.
> > >
> > > I'm curious, Jukka.  Why 30?
> >
> > I don't have a firm theory on why this is happening, only some key
> > observations:
> >
> > * The entry rate of new podlings has been amazingly constant
> > throughout the existence of the Incubator even though the total number
> > of open source projects has been growing exponentially for much of
> > this time.
> >
> > * The "limit" was first reached in 2006 during which the board first
> > pushed back on Incubator reports and the current monthly 1/3 reporting
> > schedule was adopted and the process of retiring dormant podlings was
> > adopted.
> >
> > * The Incubator stayed at or slightly above the 30 podlings limit
> > until around mid-2010 after which many podlings started getting stuck,
> > leading to the crisis of late 2011.
> >
> > * We solved that problem with a concentrated effort in 2012 that
> > brought the Incubator back to around 30 active podlings, a level that
> > stayed mostly stable for the next two years.
> >
> > * The number of current podlings is again growing, and some of the
> > issues that have shown up recently remind me of the problems seen five
> > years ago.
> >
> > It could be that I'm just selectively interpreting history to match my
> > theory, but from a systems perspective it does look as if the
> > Incubator indeed has a structural bandwidth cap that probably feeds
> > into and limits the entry rate.
> >
> > >  What are the scarce resources?
> >
> > Some possible answers:
> >
> > * Mailing list. There is only so much general@ traffic that a single
> > IPMC member can reasonably process without starting to skip
> > significant parts.
> >
> > * Mentors. The growth rate of the IPMC is fairly constant and, with
> > most members becoming inactive over time, I believe the number of
> > active mentors has not grown too much over the years.
> >
> > * Chair/Report Manager. Someone still needs to pay attention to
> > everything that's going around, which I believe you and all other
> > 

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings getting
> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..

I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
no earlier.

> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...

Definitely.

> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...

Off the top of my head I'd say:
1) Not enough experienced mentors
2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
project will never graduate

We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.

-Bertrand

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> ...Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure
> costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc

I don't think we've ever done that, and if you're concerned it's fine
to ask our infrastructure team about it.

-Bertrand

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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Ted Dunning]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:

> > Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I
> > think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>
> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
> remove myself as a mentor for this podling.


And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't
admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.

Re: A suggestion: podling post-mortems

[Pierre Smits]

Thanks Greg,

That clarifies a lot.

Best regards,

Pierre

Op dinsdag 13 oktober 2015 heeft Greg Stein  het volgende
geschreven:

> Pierre: by "time to graduate", Rich meant "ready to graduate". Not the
> amount of time from entry until graduation.
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits  >
> wrote:
>
> > Since when is the incubation process a race that must be completed in the
> > least amount of time? If it is, it would surely validate (for some)
> cutting
> > corners and push-through actions (and associated tactics). Is that what
> the
> > ASF wants or needs?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Pierre Smits
> >
> > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sam Ruby  > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Rich Bowen  >
> > wrote:
> > > >> ...It would be very welcome to have this attached to a
> > > graduation
> > > >> resolution, so that we could have some background beyond just a
> > > boilerplate
> > > >> "time to graduate" message
> > > >
> > > > I agree, and IMO our maturity model [1] would provide a good
> framework
> > > > for such a report.
> > >
> > > +1 to both of the above.
> > >
> > > > -Bertrand
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
> > >
> > > - Sam Ruby
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template covering
infrastructural requirements/expectations?

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> > ...Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the
> infrastructure
> > costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> > enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> > what expectations we're setting, etc
>
> I don't think we've ever done that, and if you're concerned it's fine
> to ask our infrastructure team about it.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubation capacity

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> The (gut) feeling I have about scarce resources are:
> 1) me.  As Marvin noted, I am a failure mode as much as a contributor
> lately.  This is largely due to my crazy travel schedule combined with lots
> of short term deliverables

This can hopefully be solved by delegating many of the IPMC chair's
tasks - as you say, thanks for Marvin and others for making this a
reality.

> ...2) mentors. As Jukka mentions, the number of mentors is roughly constant if
> you subtract away those who are MiA...

Using mentors availability (counting only actually active mentors) to
regulate the flow of podlings is the best way IMO.

-Bertrand

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

Re: [VOTE] Accept Concerted into the Apache Incubator

[Atri Sharma]

Hi All,

This vote passed with the following result:

+1(binding):Henry Saputra, Julian Hyde, Chris Nauroth, Lars Hofhansl, Roman
Shaposhnik, Jake Farrell, Amareshwari Sriramdasu, Alan D. Cabrera, Bertrand
Delacretaz
+0(binding):Sergio Fernandez
+1(non binding):Amol Kekre, Pavel Stehule, Ayrton Gomesz, Luke Han, Timothy
Chen
-1: None

Thanks everyone for participating and voting.

We are excited to be part of ASF Incubator.

Regards,
Atri

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Atri Sharma  wrote:
> > ...Following the discussion about Concerted I would like to call a vote
> for
> > accepting Concerted as a new incubator project...
>
> +1
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: I'm unsubscribing

[Ted Dunning]

Good luck!



On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Stefan Reich <
stefan.reich.maker.of@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Incubator does not incubate. Apache is poor. Will get money anyway.
>
> Try JavaX.
>
> Cheers
> Stefan
>

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

Is there a case where we've rejected a podling due to the infrastructure
costs? I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
what expectations we're setting, etc.

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> > ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> getting
> > to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
>
> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> no earlier.
>
> > ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
>
> Definitely.
>
> > ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>
> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> project will never graduate
>
> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Advice on LICENSE/NOTICE for Shaded Dependencies

[Stephen Mallette]

Mark, that you for your reply.  I've made the change that you recommended.
You can see it here:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/tp30/gremlin-console/src/main/LICENSE#L249-L250



On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Mark Thomas  wrote:

> On 09/10/2015 19:12, Stephen Mallette wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I feel like I'm on the verge of getting LICENSE/NOTICE right in all
> > respects in The TinkerPop.  . Seems like there's one piece that's out of
> > place and could use some advice as I wasn't able to map anything I'd read
> > in the Apache docs on this topic to my issue.  We currently shade several
> > libraries: Kryo, minlog, objenesis, and jackson, essentially re-packaging
> > those binary dependencies in a jar called gremlin-shaded.jar. The
> > gremlin-shaded.jar is then made part of our zip distributions.
> >
> > As we didn't re-package the source code of these libs, I figured that the
> > source LICENSE/NOTICE didn't need to change and that it was just the
> binary
> > LICENSE/NOTICE that needed to change.  I assume this situation is
> somewhat
> > similar to a project that builds an uber jar for distribution.
> >
> > So that's where i'm about stuck. I took a wild stab at it and did this:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/5a8b61c09868e22a415c0469a2737d68acce9a4e/gremlin-console/src/main/LICENSE#L226-L228
> >
> > but I have no idea if that is sufficient (or just plain wrong).  If
> anyone
> > could offer some pointers on what needs to happen here to our binary
> > LICENSE/NOTICE, that would be nice.  I'd really like to see us get a
> clean
> > bill of health on the next LICENSE/NOTICE that goes through a release
> vote.
>
> Looks good to me. The only thing I'd consider adding is what package
> they were renamed to.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Jim Jagielski]

Yeah, that's just it...

If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's
a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable
proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before
it even gets that far.

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> 
> It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during
> initial champion counseling or during discussion.
> 
> If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
> this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.
> 
> As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the outcome
> is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer 
>> wrote:
 ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
>> getting
 to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
>>> 
>>> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
>>> no earlier.
>>> 
 ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
>>> 
>>> Definitely.
>>> 
 ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
>>> 
>>> Off the top of my head I'd say:
>>> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
>>> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
>>> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
>> community
>>> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
>>> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
>>> project will never graduate
>>> 
>>> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
>>> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>> 
>> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
>>   for example.
>> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Jim Jagielski]

For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC.
Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but
one is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I
am "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.

My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons
why we *have* multiple mentors.

"Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who
didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a release
or etc...

I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in and
month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the equation,
the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant.

So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling
with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling with
4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"??

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> 
>>> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I
>>> think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>> 
>> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
>> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
>> remove myself as a mentor for this podling.
> 
> 
> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't
> admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.


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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Tim Williams]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
>>> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
>>> it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
>>> already stepped down ?
>>
>> No, it's not simple. Actively removing people from volunteer roles is much
>> more complicated than you might suppose. I'd rather focus on making myself a
>> better mentor than any measures against other mentors which might be seen as
>> punitive.
>
> Getting some things out of the way:
>
> I agree that it is not simple.  I agree that it is complicated.  I
> disagree that it needs to be viewed as punitive.  I suggest it would
> be worthwhile to do.  I respect that this may not be something you
> personally would want to volunteer for.  I believe that you can't fix
> what you don't measure.  I acknowledge that measuring may lead to
> gaming, though in this case I think the rewards are so vanishingly
> small that that is unlikely to be a major issue.
>
> Whew!
>
> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>
> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff

Hi Sam,
A small request - any chance you can adjust the colors for that page?
David added some notes to Clutch[1] for details but I reckon
#009e73 and #d55e00 would be better.

Thanks,
--tim

[1] - http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#notes-cud

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
>> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings 
>> getting
>> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
> 
> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> no earlier.
> 
>> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
> 
> Definitely.
> 
>> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> 
> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a community
> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> project will never graduate
> 
> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.

6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
   for example.
7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.



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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Ted Dunning]

It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected during
initial champion counseling or during discussion.

If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.

As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the outcome
is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.



On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> >> ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> getting
> >> to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a vote?..
> >
> > I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> > no earlier.
> >
> >> ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> >> ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> >
> > Off the top of my head I'd say:
> > 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> > 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> > 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
> community
> > 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> > 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> > project will never graduate
> >
> > We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> > absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
>
> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
>for example.
> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Mark Struberg]

Hi folks!

I’m currently working on a few BatchEE fixes but got no time to write the 
report this time.
Is it ok to report next months?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 05.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Marvin :
> 
> 
> 
> Dear podling,
> 
> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator 
> PMC.
> It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly
> board report.
> 
> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 October 2015, 10:30 am PST. The 
> report 
> for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator 
> PMC 
> requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to 
> allow 
> sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Oct 7th).
> 
> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, 
> and 
> subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you 
> should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> The Apache Incubator PMC
> 
> Submitting your Report
> --
> 
> Your report should contain the following:
> 
> * Your project name
> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the 
> project
>   or necessarily of its field
> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards 
>   graduation.
> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware 
> of
> * How has the community developed since the last report
> * How has the project developed since the last report.
> 
> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
> 
>  http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2015
> 
> Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this 
> page
>  is created from a template.
> 
> Mentors
> ---
> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the 
> Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the 
> project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC.
> 
> Incubator PMC
> 


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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> For me, I consider being a mentor as I do being a member of a PMC.
> Occasionally one simply lacks cycles to be actively involved, but
> one is involve enough to see that others *ARE* involved, and so I
> am "unconcerned" about my inactivity during those times.
>
> My understanding is that this is OK and its one of the reasons
> why we *have* multiple mentors.

Agreed.

> "Shaming" inactive mentors would be akin to "shaming" PMC members who
> didn't post on the dev@ list this month, or who didn't vote on a release
> or etc...

I do not advocate shaming.  I do advocate (1) making changes to policy
based on actual data, and (2) using that data to have personal
discussions.

What spawned this period of introspection was a proposal made
elsewhere that to me seemed like the essence of truthiness[1].  I
would like to replace that, wherever possible, with actual data;
however uncomfortable that might be.  I encourage those that gather
such data to be sensitive when using that data.  In particular, Ted's
noting that I haven't been a visibly active mentor for odftoolkit is
probably something that should have been done privately.  It worked
out fine with me, but it might not with others.

> I am not, of course, referring to mentors who are truly MIA month in and
> month out. But, as someone said, if you remove those from the equation,
> the list of "active" mentors is pretty constant.

I think it would be helpful if we had an accurate picture of
mentorship.  This will help with things like evaluating graduation
resolutions.

> So the question is "Is there a difference or problem between a podling
> with 10 mentors, of which 4 are 'active', as compared to a podling with
> 4 mentors, all of which are 'active'"??

I know many mentors personally.  Knowing which podlings you (Jim) are
on top of makes me comfortable that I can focus elsewhere.  Having me
as a mentor of record on a podling that I am not focusing on may be
misleading.

- Sam Ruby

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:29 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>
 Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I
 think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.
>>>
>>> Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
>>> advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
>>> either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
>>> remove myself as a mentor for this podling.
>>
>>
>> And possibly by so doing become a great example to others of us who can't
>> admit to ourselves that we are over-extended.
>
>
> -
> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...

I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.

As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
justification is provided people should pay attention to it.

-Bertrand

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Daniel Gruno]

On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...
> 
> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.
> 
> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
> justification is provided people should pay attention to it.

Minor nit:
If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it.
We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote
on hold, it must happen:
"If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting
period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. "

On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?

With regards,
Daniel.

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


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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Tim Williams]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Tim Williams  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:

 On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>
> Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
> report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
> it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
> already stepped down ?

 No, it's not simple. Actively removing people from volunteer roles is much
 more complicated than you might suppose. I'd rather focus on making myself 
 a
 better mentor than any measures against other mentors which might be seen 
 as
 punitive.
>>>
>>> Getting some things out of the way:
>>>
>>> I agree that it is not simple.  I agree that it is complicated.  I
>>> disagree that it needs to be viewed as punitive.  I suggest it would
>>> be worthwhile to do.  I respect that this may not be something you
>>> personally would want to volunteer for.  I believe that you can't fix
>>> what you don't measure.  I acknowledge that measuring may lead to
>>> gaming, though in this case I think the rewards are so vanishingly
>>> small that that is unlikely to be a major issue.
>>>
>>> Whew!
>>>
>>> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>>>
>>> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>> A small request - any chance you can adjust the colors for that page?
>> David added some notes to Clutch[1] for details but I reckon
>> #009e73 and #d55e00 would be better.
>
> I did a small amount of research, and made a different color
> choice[2].  For extra measure, I varied both the font-weight and
> font-style.  Let me know if this doesn't work for you.

That's fantastic!  Thanks for taking the extra time Sam, it's just
great to see a distinction.

Thanks again,
--tim

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> ...On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?...

Even if the docs mentioned consensus, in Apache projects that means
"widespread agreement among people who have decision power". It does
not necessarily mean "unanimity".

-Bertrand

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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Tim Williams  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:

 Regarding inactive mentors, this is quite simple : we have a monthly
 report that has to be signed off by mentors, if one mentor does not sign
 it three time in a raw, shouldn't we consider that this mentor has
 already stepped down ?
>>>
>>> No, it's not simple. Actively removing people from volunteer roles is much
>>> more complicated than you might suppose. I'd rather focus on making myself a
>>> better mentor than any measures against other mentors which might be seen as
>>> punitive.
>>
>> Getting some things out of the way:
>>
>> I agree that it is not simple.  I agree that it is complicated.  I
>> disagree that it needs to be viewed as punitive.  I suggest it would
>> be worthwhile to do.  I respect that this may not be something you
>> personally would want to volunteer for.  I believe that you can't fix
>> what you don't measure.  I acknowledge that measuring may lead to
>> gaming, though in this case I think the rewards are so vanishingly
>> small that that is unlikely to be a major issue.
>>
>> Whew!
>>
>> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>
> Hi Sam,
> A small request - any chance you can adjust the colors for that page?
> David added some notes to Clutch[1] for details but I reckon
> #009e73 and #d55e00 would be better.

I did a small amount of research, and made a different color
choice[2].  For extra measure, I varied both the font-weight and
font-style.  Let me know if this doesn't work for you.

> Thanks,
> --tim
>
> [1] - http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#notes-cud
[2] http://bconnelly.net/2013/10/creating-colorblind-friendly-figures/

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
turned into a pariah in the process. =)

(and again - this is purely hypothetical)

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Yeah, that's just it...
>
> If a project gets to the 'vote for Incubation' phase, there's
> a real good chance that all the non-viable and non-acceptable
> proposals have either been modified or simply rejected before
> it even gets that far.
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> >
> > It is very common for a project as initially proposed to be rejected
> during
> > initial champion counseling or during discussion.
> >
> > If problematic aspects are mitigated or mentors sign up for extra care,
> > this rarely results in a complete stop of the incubation, however.
> >
> > As with all Apache processes, things rarely go to a vote until the
> outcome
> > is already assured so looking for failed votes isn't very productive.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> >> wrote:
>  ...Can we think of some examples in recent years of potential podlings
> >> getting
>  to the point of a serious DISCUSS thread but not making it to a
> vote?..
> >>>
> >>> I don't have such an example, but it might also just be because we say
> >>> no earlier.
> >>>
>  ...Is it culturally acceptable for IPMC members to vote no?...
> >>>
> >>> Definitely.
> >>>
>  ...and what criteria would make it acceptable to vote no?...
> >>>
> >>> Off the top of my head I'd say:
> >>> 1) Not enough experienced mentors
> >>> 2) Projected Infrastructure costs too high
> >>> 3) Project needs more time outside of the ASF to start building a
> >> community
> >>> 4) Project doesn't have a concrete enough codebase to get started
> >>> 5) Incomplete proposal, or something in it that makes us think the
> >>> project will never graduate
> >>>
> >>> We usually detect 3) and 4) in the discussion stages, and 4) is not
> >>> absolute, there can be interesting exceptions.
> >>
> >> 6) License incompatibility... ie, they want to use LGPL instead of ALv2
> >>   for example.
> >> 7) Governance incompatibility... want to remain a BDFL, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Ross Gardler]

If a project has infra requirements that are not “standard” for the ASF then 
these should, IMHO, be uncovered by the champion/mentors prior to proposal. If 
missed there then the discuss phase should uncover them.



These should then be discussed with the infra team prior to vote.



Ross



Sent from Outlook Mail for 
Windows 10 phone





From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:57 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?





Hi,

>  I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
> what expectations we're setting, etc.


While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t 
see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation 
(and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC 
members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own hardware 
to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost ($20-$50 for a 
development board).

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Tim Williams]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
> still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
> DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
> permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
> the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
> enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)

Yes, as an example, take a look at the OpenOffice vote[1] that Nick referred to.

Thanks,
--tim

[1] - 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktinv5a3zpk_9fwhgg8wc3qmafkr...@mail.gmail.com%3E

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
> 
> But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were to
> still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in the
> DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be socially
> permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so bucking
> the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate to
> enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> turned into a pariah in the process. =)
> 
> (and again - this is purely hypothetical)
> 

Yes, you can vote a -1.

NO ONE should feel pressured to vote on something in a
way opposite to how they feel.


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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Daniel Gruno]

On 10/13/2015 04:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer  wrote:
>>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
>>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)...
>>
>> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling.
>>
>> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable
>> justification is provided people should pay attention to it.
> 
> Minor nit:
> If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it.
> We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote
> on hold, it must happen:
> "If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting
> period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. "

Scratch that, the docs are a bit vaguely written here and confused me. I
think this refers to lazy consensus, which is something that rarely happens.

Sorry.

With regards,
Daniel.
> 
> On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel.
> 
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

Thanks - just wanted to make sure. =)

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> >
> > But - and I wanna be very clear that this is a hypothetical - if I were
> to
> > still have significant concerns (either ones that weren't addressed in
> the
> > DISCUSS thread or I missed the DISCUSS thread, etc), it'd still be
> socially
> > permissible (not just procedurally permissible) to -1 a VOTE? I ask 'cos,
> > well, I'm easily cowed by social pressure on this sort of thing, so
> bucking
> > the herd isn't easy. If I feel that a potential podling has reached VOTE
> > stage while still having issues that in my mind make it a bad candidate
> to
> > enter the Incubator, I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being
> > turned into a pariah in the process. =)
> >
> > (and again - this is purely hypothetical)
> >
>
> Yes, you can vote a -1.
>
> NO ONE should feel pressured to vote on something in a
> way opposite to how they feel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Andrew Bayer]

Where is that template kept?

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> wrote:
> > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template
> covering
> > infrastructural requirements/expectations?...
>
> You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the
> podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Ross Gardler]

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#proposal-template

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.ba...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 8:04 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

Where is that template kept?

A.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@apache.org> 
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Bayer 
> 
> wrote:
> > ...Would it be reasonable to add a section to the proposal template
> covering
> > infrastructural requirements/expectations?...
>
> You could add a question to the "Required Resources" section of the 
> podling proposals, where podlings have to express any unusual needs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

[Jochen Wiedmann]

+1 (Binding)


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Ian Maxon  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please verify and vote on the first full Apache AsterixDB release!
> This candidate addresses some of the differences that were noticed
> between the tagged commit in git and the source packaging.
>
> The tag to be voted on is
>
> asterix-0.8.7-incubating
> commit : d2e1e89cfdf39e2b772dff2600913bb79644a380
> link: 
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/asterix-0.8.7-incubating
>
> The artifacts, md5s, and signatures are at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.asc
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.md5
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.sha1
>
> MD5: 7330e6d6c2dd691ae3ab6a641e4d5344
> SHA1: bf0b4a2ceaa26bcf1fcda33fee1ba227e31a88ba
>
> Additionally, a staged maven repository is available at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheasterix-1014/
>
> The KEYS file containing the PGP keys used to sign the release can be found at
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/KEYS
>
> RAT was executed as part of Maven via the RAT maven plugin, as well as
> manually, but it
> excludes the following paths:
>
> .*\.adm
> .*\.aql
> .*\.cleaned
> .*\.csv
> .*\.csv.cr
> .*\.csv.crlf
> .*\.csv.lf
> .*\.ddl
> .*\.dot
> .*\.hcli
> .*\.iml
> .*\.json
> .*\.out
> .*\.plan
> .*\.ps
> .*\.scm
> .*\.tbl
> .*\.tbl\.big
> .*\.tsv
> .*\.txt
> .*large_text
> .*part-0
> .*part-1
>
> .*\.goutputstream-YQMB2V
> .*02-fuzzy-select
> .*LockRequestFile
> .*hosts
> .*id_rsa
> .*known_hosts
>
> .*bottle.py
> .*geostats.js
> .*jquery.autosize-min.js
> .*jquery.min.js
> .*rainbowvis.js
> .*smoothie.js
>
>
> These files either are either data for tests, procedurally generated,
> or source files which come without a header mentioning their license,
> but have an explicit reference in the LICENSE file.
>
> The complete RAT report is available at:
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/westmann/b6ed4b25bea44adcd526/raw/be93ff0c1d13c2ce7c88a2b713ace130b5e7ef5f/gistfile1.txt
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of votes
> (3 +1) has been reached.
>
> Please vote
> [ ] +1 release this package as Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating
> [ ] 0 No strong feeling either way
> [ ] -1 do not release this package because ...
>
> Thanks!
> -Ian



-- 
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

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

Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Ted Dunning]

The social pressure is likely to be there, but I would definitely stand up
for the expectation that you *should* vote -1 if you really do have a
concern.

That said, there is also a strong push back against ending the discussion
too early precisely because of the possibility somebody with an important
point of view is out of pocket. There is normally a week or possibly more
between beginning of discussion and beginning of vote. This typically
includes several days of silence as we wait for last minute thoughts to
come up.


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> > ...On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that
> > graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto?...
>
> Even if the docs mentioned consensus, in Apache projects that means
> "widespread agreement among people who have decision power". It does
> not necessarily mean "unanimity".
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

written


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Tomitriber


2015-10-13 19:10 GMT+02:00 Ted Dunning :

> It isn't OK. It may have to happen, but it isn't really OK.
>
> Why are you the only one who can write this report?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > I’m currently working on a few BatchEE fixes but got no time to write the
> > report this time.
> > Is it ok to report next months?
> >
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 05.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Marvin :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear podling,
> > >
> > > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> > Incubator PMC.
> > > It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your
> > quarterly
> > > board report.
> > >
> > > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 October 2015, 10:30 am PST.
> > The report
> > > for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The
> > Incubator PMC
> > > requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting,
> > to allow
> > > sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Oct 7th).
> > >
> > > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator
> > PMC, and
> > > subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest
> > you
> > > should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > The Apache Incubator PMC
> > >
> > > Submitting your Report
> > > --
> > >
> > > Your report should contain the following:
> > >
> > > * Your project name
> > > * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
> the
> > project
> > >   or necessarily of its field
> > > * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
> > towards
> > >   graduation.
> > > * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
> > aware of
> > > * How has the community developed since the last report
> > > * How has the project developed since the last report.
> > >
> > > This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
> > >
> > >  http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2015
> > >
> > > Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
> > this page
> > >  is created from a template.
> > >
> > > Mentors
> > > ---
> > > Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
> > the
> > > Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following
> the
> > > project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the
> > Incubator PMC.
> > >
> > > Incubator PMC
> > >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

[Mariia Mykhailova]

Daniel, thank you for your checks. 
C# files which are missing license headers are autogenerated from corresponding 
Avro/Protobuf files. 
BSD license comes with NSubstitute library.

We could really use two more IPMC votes :-)

-Mariia

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:humbed...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:32 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

Did the usual checks;
- Sigs, hash etc checks
- unpacks fine
- license, notice present
- Things are apache licensed :)

There are a few C# files missing license headers, see 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcompliance.rocks%2fresult.html%3f23410ea9=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=80r6c4FQ93EmQCmDMbTM65vOHdnGQgPEZuB0yDyHKLE%3d
 - but that's nothing that can't be fixed. I also saw a BSD license but no BSD 
license headers - I'm assuming that's just a third party lib that's not as 
aggressively marking its files as we do.

On the whole, it looks good. I have not tested whether the programs actually 
_work_ - I'll leave that to people who know what REEF is and does :)

+1

With regards,
Daniel.

On 10/10/2015 04:02 AM, Mariia Mykhailova wrote:
> The Apache REEF PPMC has voted to release Apache REEF 
> 0.13.0-incubating based on the release candidate described below. Now 
> it is the IPMC's turn to vote.
> 
> The PPMC vote passed with 5 +1 votes:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-a
> rchives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-reef-dev%2f201510.mbox%2f%25
> 3CBL2PR03MB2900A370B6F6894F8E08EA8D2370%2540BL2PR03MB290.namprd03.prod
> .outlook.com%253E=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232
> f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=i3
> 8mLfYTJE5AgP8Aq3%2bdEh7SxS5F6dJi5fXqOspCwQQ%3d
> 
> 
> The source tar ball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.
> apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2fdev%2fincubator%2freef%2f0.13.0-incubating
> -rc1%2f=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e896
> 08d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=2770HKtZBXPX
> lwVJIOKozS1HGRvebcK3tUtqrcu1IJU%3d
> 
> The Git tag is release-0.13.0-incubating-rc1
> 
> The Git commit ID is e1d42e8008d97714a0f7bc303dae37239a10a029
> 
> 
> Checksums of apache-reef-0.13.0-incubating-rc1.tar.gz:
> 
> MD5: 8e0a1cd6c7e17a86abbd32366c8cccac
> SHA512: 
> 8f542aeaf2dc3b241bdcd0d343c607355e1f09e1ca89bbc3431b0cc1f0908479511f60
> 900a91a6731051ffef8af30488eb85df567c32bc2db9d3d91014c4fed7
> 
> Release artifacts are signed with a key found in the KEYS file available here:
> 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.
> apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2frelease%2fincubator%2freef%2fKEYS=01%
> 7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c7
> 2f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=%2bLoMFCrTbg1L7KHxTct86LiY1P
> KnCfiY8y4qFlqb1ZU%3d
> 
> 
> 
> Issues Resolved in the release
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fissue
> s.apache.org%2fjira%2fsecure%2fReleaseNote.jspa%3fprojectId%3d12315820
> %26version%3d12332972=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359
> a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1
> a=poEWHfvnQa6XspM0pGnMl87gnsqXdX%2bge5mcDriIKJs%3d
> 
> 
> The vote will be open for 72 hours. Please download the release 
> candidate, check the hashes/signature, build it and test it, and then 
> please vote:
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating [ ] +0 no 
> opinion [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> 
> Thanks!
> 


-
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 PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Ted Dunning]

It isn't OK. It may have to happen, but it isn't really OK.

Why are you the only one who can write this report?



On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:

> Hi folks!
>
> I’m currently working on a few BatchEE fixes but got no time to write the
> report this time.
> Is it ok to report next months?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 05.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Marvin :
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear podling,
> >
> > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> Incubator PMC.
> > It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your
> quarterly
> > board report.
> >
> > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 October 2015, 10:30 am PST.
> The report
> > for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The
> Incubator PMC
> > requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting,
> to allow
> > sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Oct 7th).
> >
> > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator
> PMC, and
> > subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest
> you
> > should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > The Apache Incubator PMC
> >
> > Submitting your Report
> > --
> >
> > Your report should contain the following:
> >
> > * Your project name
> > * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the
> project
> >   or necessarily of its field
> > * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
> towards
> >   graduation.
> > * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
> aware of
> > * How has the community developed since the last report
> > * How has the project developed since the last report.
> >
> > This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
> >
> >  http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2015
> >
> > Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
> this page
> >  is created from a template.
> >
> > Mentors
> > ---
> > Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
> the
> > Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the
> > project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the
> Incubator PMC.
> >
> > Incubator PMC
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

[Ross Gardler]

+1 (based only on an IP validation)

The community need to address the items below, but they are not blockers.

Ross

-Original Message-
From: Mariia Mykhailova [mailto:mamyk...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:52 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

Daniel, thank you for your checks. 
C# files which are missing license headers are autogenerated from corresponding 
Avro/Protobuf files. 
BSD license comes with NSubstitute library.

We could really use two more IPMC votes :-)

-Mariia

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:humbed...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 1:32 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

Did the usual checks;
- Sigs, hash etc checks
- unpacks fine
- license, notice present
- Things are apache licensed :)

There are a few C# files missing license headers, see 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcompliance.rocks%2fresult.html%3f23410ea9=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=80r6c4FQ93EmQCmDMbTM65vOHdnGQgPEZuB0yDyHKLE%3d
 - but that's nothing that can't be fixed. I also saw a BSD license but no BSD 
license headers - I'm assuming that's just a third party lib that's not as 
aggressively marking its files as we do.

On the whole, it looks good. I have not tested whether the programs actually 
_work_ - I'll leave that to people who know what REEF is and does :)

+1

With regards,
Daniel.

On 10/10/2015 04:02 AM, Mariia Mykhailova wrote:
> The Apache REEF PPMC has voted to release Apache REEF 
> 0.13.0-incubating based on the release candidate described below. Now 
> it is the IPMC's turn to vote.
> 
> The PPMC vote passed with 5 +1 votes:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmail-a
> rchives.apache.org%2fmod_mbox%2fincubator-reef-dev%2f201510.mbox%2f%25
> 3CBL2PR03MB2900A370B6F6894F8E08EA8D2370%2540BL2PR03MB290.namprd03.prod
> .outlook.com%253E=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232
> f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=i3
> 8mLfYTJE5AgP8Aq3%2bdEh7SxS5F6dJi5fXqOspCwQQ%3d
> 
> 
> The source tar ball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.
> apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2fdev%2fincubator%2freef%2f0.13.0-incubating
> -rc1%2f=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e896
> 08d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=2770HKtZBXPX
> lwVJIOKozS1HGRvebcK3tUtqrcu1IJU%3d
> 
> The Git tag is release-0.13.0-incubating-rc1
> 
> The Git commit ID is e1d42e8008d97714a0f7bc303dae37239a10a029
> 
> 
> Checksums of apache-reef-0.13.0-incubating-rc1.tar.gz:
> 
> MD5: 8e0a1cd6c7e17a86abbd32366c8cccac
> SHA512: 
> 8f542aeaf2dc3b241bdcd0d343c607355e1f09e1ca89bbc3431b0cc1f0908479511f60
> 900a91a6731051ffef8af30488eb85df567c32bc2db9d3d91014c4fed7
> 
> Release artifacts are signed with a key found in the KEYS file available here:
> 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fdist.
> apache.org%2frepos%2fdist%2frelease%2fincubator%2freef%2fKEYS=01%
> 7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c7
> 2f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=%2bLoMFCrTbg1L7KHxTct86LiY1P
> KnCfiY8y4qFlqb1ZU%3d
> 
> 
> 
> Issues Resolved in the release
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fissue
> s.apache.org%2fjira%2fsecure%2fReleaseNote.jspa%3fprojectId%3d12315820
> %26version%3d12332972=01%7c01%7cmamykhai%40microsoft.com%7cff9359
> a232f34528e89608d2d2df8f56%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1
> a=poEWHfvnQa6XspM0pGnMl87gnsqXdX%2bge5mcDriIKJs%3d
> 
> 
> The vote will be open for 72 hours. Please download the release 
> candidate, check the hashes/signature, build it and test it, and then 
> please vote:
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating [ ] +0 no 
> opinion [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> 
> Thanks!
> 


-
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: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Tim Williams]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> It isn't OK. It may have to happen, but it isn't really OK.

Looks like this got written, but I'm not sure why such an unforgiving
stance - this happens fairly often on TLPs and the board is always
gracious and understanding.

Thanks,
--tim

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

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Ted Dunning]

It isn't an unforgiving stance. It is just that it isn't very OK to let
this slide.

A podling has 3 months to write this report. It shouldn't be a surprise
that it is coming back around.  Much of the data can be pulled
semi-automatically.

So it isn't a big deal to do this.

And it provides a very important check that the project is still ticking
over.  Projects that repeatedly fail to produce timely reports are commonly
projects in trouble. It is better to push a bit and find out which projects
those are. One key symptom of trouble is if one person is doing everything
and that was exactly what I probed for.





On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Tim Williams  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> > It isn't OK. It may have to happen, but it isn't really OK.
>
> Looks like this got written, but I'm not sure why such an unforgiving
> stance - this happens fairly often on TLPs and the board is always
> gracious and understanding.
>
> Thanks,
> --tim
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Ted Dunning]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:

> It’s not only me who can write the report.
>

That is great to hear.


> But it happened that I took care of it a few times in the past. And not
> only for BatchEE but also a few TLP who fell short on reporting. So don’t
> blame me for being the one who cares…
>

I don't blame anybody who takes action. But if you turn out to be the only
one who cares then I worry in other ways.

I should also say right up front that I am not the best at timely report
generating. That leads me to try very hard to diversify the team involved.
In the case of incubator, the reporting group took that on based on their
own observations, but diversity in tasks is a grand thing in general.

Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Oct 2015 ([ppmc])

[Mark Struberg]

It’s not only me who can write the report. But it happened that I took care of 
it a few times in the past. And not only for BatchEE but also a few TLP who 
fell short on reporting. So don’t blame me for being the one who cares…

As we already explained in an earlier report: BatchEE is pretty much mature 
code. It implements a spec and runs in production at many companies since over 
a year. Not only my customers but I know of a dozen otherrs whom I, Romain, JL, 
etc have nothing to do with. It’s basically in a maintenance mode right now.

This will change significantly when the next JBatch specification will see the 
daylight (currently work in progress and Romain and I are a bit involved in the 
spec even). 
Then there will be much more activity again.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.10.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Ted Dunning :
> 
> It isn't OK. It may have to happen, but it isn't really OK.
> 
> Why are you the only one who can write this report?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
> 
>> Hi folks!
>> 
>> I’m currently working on a few BatchEE fixes but got no time to write the
>> report this time.
>> Is it ok to report next months?
>> 
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 05.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Marvin :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear podling,
>>> 
>>> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
>> Incubator PMC.
>>> It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your
>> quarterly
>>> board report.
>>> 
>>> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 October 2015, 10:30 am PST.
>> The report
>>> for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The
>> Incubator PMC
>>> requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting,
>> to allow
>>> sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Oct 7th).
>>> 
>>> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator
>> PMC, and
>>> subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest
>> you
>>> should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> The Apache Incubator PMC
>>> 
>>> Submitting your Report
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Your report should contain the following:
>>> 
>>> * Your project name
>>> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the
>> project
>>>  or necessarily of its field
>>> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
>> towards
>>>  graduation.
>>> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
>> aware of
>>> * How has the community developed since the last report
>>> * How has the project developed since the last report.
>>> 
>>> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2015
>>> 
>>> Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
>> this page
>>> is created from a template.
>>> 
>>> Mentors
>>> ---
>>> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
>> the
>>> Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the
>>> project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the
>> Incubator PMC.
>>> 
>>> Incubator PMC
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

[Sterling Hughes]

Just a note to chime in specifically on Mynewt.

The simulated tests are very low overhead, its a single process that
requires a virtual timer (i.e. elapsed runtime from OS scheduler vs
real time) at a 1ms tick.

There is no requirement to have physical hardware testing within the
ASF project itself.  For the platforms we're concerned about at
runtime, we're hosting all the physical hardware and automated
regression tests locally. I think that some company (or set of
companies) will always do this, because of the physical space
constraints.  Additionally committers / users will have their own
hardware platforms to vett releases and catch-errors.

Sterling

PS: This thread has a bit more info:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201510.mbox/%3CCAFm0b3r_z3RfEs3DGOAaHst4Lpw%2BCXHwMhxd6H9Gar2_HpMZdg%40mail.gmail.com%3E



On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>  I know I've been a bit worried about Mynewt in that context - not
>> enough to think it should be rejected, but enough to be concerned about
>> what expectations we're setting, etc.
>
>
> While I don’t know the exact answer and can;t speak for the project. I don’t 
> see too much of an issue here as I assume testing can be done via simulation 
> (and not on the target platforms) on currently available infrastructure. PPMC 
> members or interested committers / users are likely to have their own 
> hardware to validate releases and that hardware is of reasonably low cost 
> ($20-$50 for a development board).
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> 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

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating (RC3)

[Ian Maxon]

The vote for releasing Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating passed with:
3 binding +1s,
0 non-binding +1s, and
0 -1 or +/-0 votes.

Binding +1s:
Till Westmann
Ate Douma
Jochen Wiedmann


Many thanks to our mentors and those that audited this release (and
again, stay tuned for the next release with binaries, coming
presently...)

-Ian
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Ian Maxon  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please verify and vote on the first release of Apache AsterixDB . This is our 
> first incubating release for this part of the codebase, so as was the case 
> with our Hyracks components, feedback is much appreciated. As was noted in 
> the result and discussion on dev@asterixdb.i.a.o, this will be a source-only 
> release due to some issues with how our binaries are assembled in Maven at 
> the moment.
>
> The vote to release on the development list passed:
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-asterixdb-dev/201510.mbox/%3ccan_yf5wppfcnpfjkt5aejtm46x1z9osujxmqroscvjkvl+s...@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> with result
>
> Binding +1s:
> Till Westmann
> Murtadha Hubail
> Taewoo Kim
> Yingyi Bu
> Mike Carey
> Ate Douma
>
> Non-binding +1s:
> Heri Ramampiaro
>
> And no 0 or -1 votes
>
>
> The tag to be voted on is
>
> asterix-0.8.7-incubating
> commit : d2e1e89cfdf39e2b772dff2600913bb79644a380
> link: 
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-asterixdb.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/asterix-0.8.7-incubating
>
> The artifacts, md5s, and signatures are at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.asc
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.md5
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/asterixdb/asterix-0.8.7-incubating-source-release.zip.sha1
>
> MD5: 7330e6d6c2dd691ae3ab6a641e4d5344
> SHA1: bf0b4a2ceaa26bcf1fcda33fee1ba227e31a88ba
>
>
> The KEYS file containing the PGP keys used to sign the release can be found at
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/asterixdb/KEYS
>
>
> RAT was executed as part of Maven via the RAT maven plugin, as well as
> manually, but it
> excludes the following paths:
>
> .*\.adm
> .*\.aql
> .*\.cleaned
> .*\.csv
> .*\.csv.cr
> .*\.csv.crlf
> .*\.csv.lf
> .*\.ddl
> .*\.dot
> .*\.hcli
> .*\.iml
> .*\.json
> .*\.out
> .*\.plan
> .*\.ps
> .*\.scm
> .*\.tbl
> .*\.tbl\.big
> .*\.tsv
> .*\.txt
> .*large_text
> .*part-0
> .*part-1
>
> .*\.goutputstream-YQMB2V
> .*02-fuzzy-select
> .*LockRequestFile
> .*hosts
> .*id_rsa
> .*known_hosts
>
> .*bottle.py
> .*geostats.js
> .*jquery.autosize-min.js
> .*jquery.min.js
> .*rainbowvis.js
> .*smoothie.js
>
>
> These files either are either data for tests, procedurally generated,
> or source files which come without a header mentioning their license,
> but have an explicit reference in the LICENSE file.
>
> The complete RAT report is available at:
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/westmann/b6ed4b25bea44adcd526/raw/be93ff0c1d13c2ce7c88a2b713ace130b5e7ef5f/gistfile1.txt
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of votes
> (3 +1) has been reached.
>
> Please vote
> [ ] +1 release this package as Apache AsterixDB 0.8.7-incubating
> [ ] 0 No strong feeling either way
> [ ] -1 do not release this package because ...
>
> Thanks,
> - Ian

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

Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

[Sam Ruby]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
>
>> Now on to the substance of my reply:
>>
>> https://whimsy.apache.org/incubator/signoff
>>
>> If we can get some volunteers to split this list up, perhaps we can
>> reach out to those that haven't been participating in signoffs and see
>> what changes need to be made.
>
> Uh... Sam, I see you haven't been signing off on odftoolkit. Is this
> something we should be concerned about?

Yes, indeed.

> Sounds like reaching out to the inactive mentors is a great idea and I
> think we have a great example here of how complicated it can be.

Nope.  I posted that link knowing that my name would be on it, and
advocated that we should be having exactly this discussion.  I should
either become more active on this, or (and probably more likely)
remove myself as a mentor for this podling.

- Sam Ruby

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

Re: Draft Report October 2015 - please review

[Sam Ruby]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
>
>   - It seems that an incorrect date in the Board meeting calendar caused the
> report reminders to fire a week early, requiring manual cleanup after the
> correct date was established.  There was discussion of migrating the
> reminders and other Incubator bookkeeping to Whimsy.

It actually is more than that[1]: Marvin (the bot) is no more.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://s.apache.org/Kw0 (member only)

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