Oh Pedro... lol funny stuff.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:20 AM Sebastian wrote:
> On 16.06.2018 10:57, Pedro Larroy wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian.
> >
> > Thank you for your comment. That's why I said "I would propose", because
> I
> > don't know if it's possible as my experience with Apache is
On 16.06.2018 10:57, Pedro Larroy wrote:
Hi Sebastian.
Thank you for your comment. That's why I said "I would propose", because I
don't know if it's possible as my experience with Apache is limited to the
MXNet project.
How do you interpret this part?: "Since the appointed Project Management
Whoa, who said that? I can’t find it on this thread.
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:37 AM Sebastian wrote:
> > I would propose the two following action points:
> >
> > * Resetting the list of committers to people that have contributed in
> the
> > previous terms in the latest 6 months
> > *
Hi Sebastian.
Thank you for your comment. That's why I said "I would propose", because I
don't know if it's possible as my experience with Apache is limited to the
MXNet project.
How do you interpret this part?: "Since the appointed Project Management
Committees have the power to create their
I would propose the two following action points:
* Resetting the list of committers to people that have contributed in the
previous terms in the latest 6 months
* Suspend veto rights temporarily and use simple majority for decisions
that need a vote so we realign the project with the
Great points and feedback.
I think everyone here wants the best for the project. We should definitely
not shoot down pioneering contributions and be more inclusive with people
that are actively contributing to the community with not just code. This
should include code, documentation, website
First of all, Apache allows each community to define its standard of
comittership -- which I think is super valuable as different projects have
different backgrounds and challenges. Having such flexibility instead of
enforcing a global standard is one of the reasons why many Apache projects
Totally agree, thanks for elaborating!
Hen schrieb am Fr., 15. Juni 2018, 00:44:
> That wasn't what I was trying to say (I'll try again - tis late and I'm
> sure I'm speaking poorly :) ).
>
> It says:
>
> "When it comes to code contributions, quality is more important than
> quantity. While all
That wasn't what I was trying to say (I'll try again - tis late and I'm
sure I'm speaking poorly :) ).
It says:
"When it comes to code contributions, quality is more important than
quantity. While all contributions are welcome and highly appreciated,
certain guidelines will be applied when it
Hen,
As you stated, it's of significance of how much a PR has to be changed as a
result of a review. I think this is what this project defines as quality.
If people submit a bunch of PRs and we reviewers spend a lot of time on
every single one of them to give the contributors advice about how to
On the 'Becoming+a+Committer' guidelines, I dislike this phrase:
"When it comes to code contributions, quality is more important than
quantity"
There is only one 'quality' measurement, and that is "was the code merged".
If someone makes 10 different contributions and they were all horrible and
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Pedro Larroy wrote:
> * I personally don't like the idea that comittership status is decided in a
> closed mail list. This is not the transparency level that I would expect in
> an open source project. I'm happy to receive feedback from others that
> might be
As an aside: if you want to learn more on the background of Apache, or free and
open source in general join us at Http://fossbackstage.de in Berlin in walking
distance from U2 stop Eberswalder Str.
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Hi,
I would like to share some inspiration:
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-jfdi-the
I do believe in pulling people in quickly, in giving them responsibility early,
on rewarding contributions in a timely manner.
Apache was born out of a collaboration of people
* I personally don't like the idea that comittership status is decided in a
closed mail list. This is not the transparency level that I would expect in
an open source project. I'm happy to receive feedback from others that
might be opposed to my application for committer to know what things could
On 6/9/2018 12:45 AM, Sheng Zha wrote:
> There have been a couple of offline inquiries from contributors about
> becoming a committer. From those inquiries, it seems that there’s confusion
> in our community about how to become a committer, so I’d like to take this
> opportunity to clarify.
>
>
I guess you should add instructions about speaking on various event like
conf., meetups - to present the whole project team.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Sheng Zha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There have been a couple of offline inquiries from contributors about
> becoming a committer. From those
17 matches
Mail list logo
