On May 26, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi Jukka,
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>> IIUC Flume operates under an RTC model where people are not supposed
>> to commit their own changes, which obviously makes the above data less
>> relevant for evaluat
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
> podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
> some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
> gives them a ready-made source of com
Hi Jukka,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Arvind Prabhakar
> wrote:
> > * We have established that there is sufficient diversity in the
> committers
> > list.
>
> I tend to look more at actual commit activity than the committers li
The vote passes with twelve +1s from Incubator PMC members:
Arun Murthy
Alan Cabrera
Benson Margulies
Bertrand Delacretaz
Doug Cutting
Luciano Resende
Jukka Zitting
Matthew Franklin
Niall Pemberton
Patrick Hunt
Tom White
Tommaso Teofili
seven non-binding +1s, and one 0- from Incubator PMC member
On May 26, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>> At this point my recommendations are:
>> 1. Since the PPMC voted to separate being a committer and being a PMC
>> member I would wait a couple of months and then add the new non-C
Hi,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> * We have established that there is sufficient diversity in the committers
> list.
I tend to look more at actual commit activity than the committers list
when evaluating the diversity of a project. There are people on the
Flume commi
Inlined.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> This isn't about whether or not they will respond appropriately to new
> contributors once they are incubator project. And it's absolutely not
> whether or not I should be an initial committer (the vote's going on
> already and I'm h
+1.
Josh and his cohorts have gotten a quick, unexpected introduction to
the value of building a diverse community. But the code's solid and
the lessons learned. Looking forward to this one.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 19:45, Josh Wills wrote:
>
>>
This isn't about whether or not they will respond appropriately to new
contributors once they are incubator project. And it's absolutely not
whether or not I should be an initial committer (the vote's going on
already and I'm happy it is).
Since the team has already stumbled in its first steps, I
+1
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Personally I've never fully understood the practice of allowing just
> about anyone to sign up as an initial committer of a podling. Putting
> your name on a list does not make you a part of a community,
> participating an
I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
gives them a ready-made source of community growth, which is typically
the scarcest and most precious c
Hi,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
> I'd go for pulling Jakob in for tactical and strategic reasons
We grant committership based on merit, not tactics or strategy. Sounds
to me like Josh and the rest of the team would be quite willing to add
Jakob as soon as he shows up
Marvin,
I am at your disposal to collaborate on something here; note my reply
at infrastructure@. It seems to me that this thread would largely go
better over there, now that the caveat that 'a podling run entirely on
JIRA may have community problems' has been delivered.
--benson
---
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> So, what message here should the incubator send a podling, or the
> foundation send a TLP? I really don't mean this as a rhetorical
> question at all, I'm honestly puzzled.
There are a couple of technical mitigations which can help, such
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
> It is becoming a bit of a SPOF, isn't it?
What has changed about our JIRA instance is both its size and its increasing
integration into the workflows of some projects. It always was a SPOF, but
now we are feeling it more because it is get
On 25 May 2012 20:00, Josh Wills wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Replies inlined below.
>
> > 1. He's using it at work, so represents the end users.
>
> A super-majority of the initial committers are also end users. I use
> Crunch on my own projects (e.g.,
> http://
On 23 May 2012 19:45, Josh Wills wrote:
> I would like to call a vote for accepting "Apache Crunch" for
> incubation in the Apache Incubator. The full proposal is available
> below. We ask the Incubator PMC to sponsor it, with phunt as
> Champion, and phunt, tomwhite, and acmurthy volunteering t
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> At this point my recommendations are:
> 1. Since the PPMC voted to separate being a committer and being a PMC
> member I would wait a couple of months and then add the new non-Cloudera
> committers to the PPMC if it is warranted.
> 2. Of cours
So, what message here should the incubator send a podling, or the
foundation send a TLP? I really don't mean this as a rhetorical
question at all, I'm honestly puzzled. In the case of Lucene, I've
been hanging out for months, and I feel perfectly confident that it's
a healthy community by any found
On 26 May 2012 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
> https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
>
> Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
> placed into svn as input to another tool down the chain.
>
> The topic I would like to discuss is what additional input validation
> should be don
20 matches
Mail list logo
