Technically this release candidate is almost identical to RC4. I did a
quick test and build on a clean VM. Everything looks fine.
+1
Daniel
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribution.
So I'm going to take the freedom to add
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür r...@apache.org
wrote:
Hello,
While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1
in
the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
whatnot, but are
On 03/02/2012 10:35, Maurizio Cucchiara wrote:
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We
2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür r...@apache.org
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür r...@apache.org
wrote:
Hello,
While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding
+1
in
the
Ok, thanks.
So I withdraw this release candidate, address CLEREZZA-682 and will propose
RC6 asap.
Reto
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür r...@apache.org
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
one month, two months, whatever it takes to move
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
than 2 months.
A
Hello Raymond,
i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
overseen here.
Besides that, you are right, as a Member you can join on request and
yes, you need to join the IPMC to mentor a project. It is
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
Shane [check]
Doug [check]
Roy [no]
Jim [check]
Brett [check]
Larry [no]
Sam [check]
Greg [check]
So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator
One thing I would like to be bantered about:
Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
Justify your decision.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
...Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier
One *active* mentor is good enough for most podlings, but expecting
the mentor to be always available
Hello,
As announced aerlier today I've created a new distribution addressing the
two issues with RC5. The assembly for the binary distribution has been
changed to put a copy of the notice in the distribution directory. The
readme has been adapted as suggested by Ant. As this candidate addresses
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
One thing I would like to be bantered about:
Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
... A problem with multiple mentors is that with no single person
responsible its too easy for no one to do any mentoring because they
all leave the work for the others to do. The recent change to the
Champion role (what
On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Benson,
I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
Hi Daniel,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
Thanks Christian.
I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and
Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
I will note that
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
clear that my intention isn't to remain in the
Thanks, Christian.
Raymond Feng
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Raymond,
i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
overseen
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
clear that my intention isn't to remain in the
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
try it my
Hey Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
I was in sort of concurrence as well.
I think what you guys are
Hi Benson,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing down the
Hi Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
that there
Hi Jim,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[...snip...]
So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and
a good chance they are here now, and reading this.
What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
hats on? Great too. Would be great to get
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Benson,
I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
What I care most about is
addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
which feedback can be directed for each report.
Sure, I get
Hey Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
What I care most about is
addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
Hi,
Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as a
mentor if possible. I'm an ASF member and
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in
On 03/02/2012 18:23, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi,
Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
While I agree that in
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the
On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
One thing I would like to be bantered about:
Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
By the same measure, there is a role of Champion. If we can avoid
fracturing that role
On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
[...snippage...]
I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
and transition the existing clutch. While
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in
the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and
ask everyone who has a new plan for the incubator to draft proposals on the
wiki as
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while
and ask
On 02/03/2012 06:47 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
+1 on that
Ate
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zittingjukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
mcucchi...@apache.orgwrote:
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I
On 02/03/2012 08:35 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
or...). In particular, when problems arise
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or
On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now
rather than have to wait.
I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the
Incubator.
The board is a
At this point I am going to frankly campaign for myself.
I am willing to be the chair of the incubator as we know it, and
strive to incrementally improve it. I have no objection to that
process including a deliberate consideration of Chris' proposal for a
radical restructuring. Given some time,
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
playing a role much like legal or
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
in the discussion, I recommend that we
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of
Howdy-
The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first release.
The vote passed within the project as follows:
PPMC +1s x 4: Avery, Hyunsik, Jake, Claudio
Mentors +1s x 1: Owen
Peanut gallery +1s x 1: Harsh
Release notes:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
this.
Doesn't that strike the candidates as a little odd?
l want to know what ComDev is being asked to do. The proposal in the wiki
is not clear in
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. That
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
see for ComDev?
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility --- Revised responsibility
_ ___
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
the problem to the
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
project that reports to the board whose mentors stop
On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
time.
+1
Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
first.
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I thought I
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
see for ComDev?
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands reads, to me, as nuke the IPMC and pass all
responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
ComDev.
Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on
releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the
authority to make the
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
[...snip...]
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
micro-managers do,
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable
to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote
on releases, add new committers, etc..
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
No. In all reality, it doesn't. Far too many resources were drained in
the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
graduating. An
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
time.
+1
Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
Hi Jakob,
My suggestion: let it run for at least 72 hours.
It doesn't need to close until you've got all the VOTEs you need,
and at least for 72 hours.
And yes I intend to review it and VOTE. :)
Cheers,
Chris
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
Howdy-
The Giraph project is
On 4 February 2012 01:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
if you'll recall Jim's message
to the members in the past 2
On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands reads, to me, as nuke the IPMC and pass all
responsibility for ensuring projects are
On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility --- Revised responsibility
_ ___ __
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands reads, to me, as nuke the IPMC and
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility --- Revised responsibility
_
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling
be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and
responsibility they are
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
community has demonstrated viability.
I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be
On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
communities.
The IPMC never served that purpose. Projects were scuttled even in
its first year.
The IPMC served to
On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
board.
The projects then turn to
On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various issues
that have led to a bumper crop of email. These are complex questions,
and even if we could avoid intemperate
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
time. Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
first.
+1
Too many loose ends - we need to get something done now. I have
96 matches
Mail list logo
