RE: Possible process improvement?

2015-10-14 Thread Ross Gardler 
Great suggestion, can you modify the templates? All ASF committers have write 
access to the comdev site via the ASF CMS. Only ComDev contributors have commit 
there, so you might want to ping d...@community.apache.org if your change gets 
missed for some reason.

Ross

-Original Message-
From: Dave Birdsall [mailto:dave.birds...@esgyn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:07 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: priv...@trafodion.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Possible process improvement?

Hi,



I’m a committer/PMC member on the Trafodion podling.



One thing I’m noticing about the new committer process // 
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=community.apache.org%2fnewcommitter.html%23new-committer-process=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c66849f04a0bc4ba8b82908d2d4d31f77%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=FEDCimuYkAjQ3SRrQzHJGiaf0WGZtqDTXds0n7LNGh0%3d
 is that we sometimes get hung up on the step, “Request creation of the 
committer account”.



The reason for the hang up often seems to be, the new committer has expressed a 
desire for a particular apache ID, but has not specified where e-mail for that 
ID should be forwarded to.



Now, the iCLA form itself asks for the preferred apache ID. But that form does 
not ask about forwarding e-mail ID. Too, the receipt of the iCLA is forwarded 
to the podling’s private list, but not the iCLA itself.



Also, the committer accept template makes no mention of providing a forwarding 
e-mail address.



So, the mentor has to ask. And the mentor often doesn’t have an e-mail address 
for the new person. So that request has to be relayed through the podling PMC 
private list, and someone there who knows the individual can ask.



I can think of a couple of ways to make this more efficient.



1.   Change the iCLA to include forwarding e-mail address. And when the
iCLA is received, it is shared with the podling private list.

2.   Alternatively, change the committer accept template in //
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=community.apache.org%2fnewcommitter.html%23new-committer-process=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c66849f04a0bc4ba8b82908d2d4d31f77%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=FEDCimuYkAjQ3SRrQzHJGiaf0WGZtqDTXds0n7LNGh0%3d
 to ask for a forwarding e-mail ID along with asking for the preferred apache 
ID.



Thoughts?



Thanks,



Dave

Re: Possible process improvement?

2015-10-14 Thread Ted Dunning 
Dave,

It is considered very bad form to mix public and private lists in an
email.  I have thus deleted the private@ list from my response.

I think your suggestion is a good one, but I might suggest that you ask for
"non-Apache email contact address".  Having the new committer set up the
forwarding address themselves has the secondary purpose that they verify
that they can log in to the id.apache.org site. A tertiary purpose is to
emphasize that the new committer should take care of some things themselves
and doing this on id.a.o helps them learn how this should happen.

The real virtue of what you suggest is, in any case, that it eliminates a
round-trip that is often impossible because of lack of information. In the
worst case, the round-trip happens where it might not have done so before,
in the best case the extra round trip is not needed at all.

I think that your second suggestion has fewer moving parts and is thus a
bit better. The first suggestion does have the benefit that we have a
durable record of what was at least for a moment a valid address for the
new committer. I still think that the second option is better, even so.


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dave Birdsall 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’m a committer/PMC member on the Trafodion podling.
>
>
>
> One thing I’m noticing about the new committer process //
> community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process is that we
> sometimes get hung up on the step, “Request creation of the committer
> account”.
>
>
>
> The reason for the hang up often seems to be, the new committer has
> expressed a desire for a particular apache ID, but has not specified where
> e-mail for that ID should be forwarded to.
>
>
>
> Now, the iCLA form itself asks for the preferred apache ID. But that form
> does not ask about forwarding e-mail ID. Too, the receipt of the iCLA is
> forwarded to the podling’s private list, but not the iCLA itself.
>
>
>
> Also, the committer accept template makes no mention of providing a
> forwarding e-mail address.
>
>
>
> So, the mentor has to ask. And the mentor often doesn’t have an e-mail
> address for the new person. So that request has to be relayed through the
> podling PMC private list, and someone there who knows the individual can
> ask.
>
>
>
> I can think of a couple of ways to make this more efficient.
>
>
>
> 1.   Change the iCLA to include forwarding e-mail address. And when the
> iCLA is received, it is shared with the podling private list.
>
> 2.   Alternatively, change the committer accept template in //
> community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process to ask for a
> forwarding e-mail ID along with asking for the preferred apache ID.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dave
>

Re: Possible process improvement?

2015-10-14 Thread Mark Thomas 
On 14/10/2015 21:07, Dave Birdsall wrote:



> Now, the iCLA form itself asks for the preferred apache ID. But that form
> does not ask about forwarding e-mail ID. Too, the receipt of the iCLA is
> forwarded to the podling’s private list, but not the iCLA itself.

The CLA form [1] includes e-mail address and it is not marked as
optional. What am I missing?

> Also, the committer accept template makes no mention of providing a
> forwarding e-mail address.

It should be easy to change that to make it clear that any field not
marked as optional is mandatory.

> So, the mentor has to ask. And the mentor often doesn’t have an e-mail
> address for the new person. So that request has to be relayed through the
> podling PMC private list, and someone there who knows the individual can
> ask.

Mentor's should have access to the part of svn where the CLAs are filed
so they should be able to get the e-mail address from the CLA.

Also, the invited committer will have replied to the private list from a
valid e-mail address and the mentors will be subscribed to the private
list. So they already know the e-mail address for the new committer.
Again, I feel I am missing something. I don't see where / how the
disconnect you describe is happening.

Mark

[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf


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

RE: Possible process improvement?

2015-10-14 Thread Dave Birdsall 
Hi,

Re: My assertion that iCLA lacks e-mail address: I was incorrect. Thanks for
pointing it out. It might make sense though if the purpose of the e-mail
address was pointed out there, e.g, "This is the e-mail address that your
apache e-mail will be forwarded to.". Good to know also that mentors can get
at the iCLAs. I did not know that.

Re: My mixing private and public dlists: Thanks for the correction.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:30 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible process improvement?

On 14/10/2015 21:07, Dave Birdsall wrote:



> Now, the iCLA form itself asks for the preferred apache ID. But that
> form does not ask about forwarding e-mail ID. Too, the receipt of the
> iCLA is forwarded to the podling’s private list, but not the iCLA itself.

The CLA form [1] includes e-mail address and it is not marked as optional.
What am I missing?

> Also, the committer accept template makes no mention of providing a
> forwarding e-mail address.

It should be easy to change that to make it clear that any field not marked
as optional is mandatory.

> So, the mentor has to ask. And the mentor often doesn’t have an e-mail
> address for the new person. So that request has to be relayed through
> the podling PMC private list, and someone there who knows the
> individual can ask.

Mentor's should have access to the part of svn where the CLAs are filed so
they should be able to get the e-mail address from the CLA.

Also, the invited committer will have replied to the private list from a
valid e-mail address and the mentors will be subscribed to the private list.
So they already know the e-mail address for the new committer.
Again, I feel I am missing something. I don't see where / how the disconnect
you describe is happening.

Mark

[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf


-
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: Possible process improvement?

2015-10-14 Thread Sam Ruby 
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Dave Birdsall  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Re: My assertion that iCLA lacks e-mail address: I was incorrect. Thanks for
> pointing it out. It might make sense though if the purpose of the e-mail
> address was pointed out there, e.g, "This is the e-mail address that your
> apache e-mail will be forwarded to.". Good to know also that mentors can get
> at the iCLAs. I did not know that.

Lookup can be done here:

https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committer/

You can change your forwarding email address here:

https://id.apache.org/

- Sam Ruby

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