El día 26 de mayo de 2012 21:13, Ariel Constenla-Haile
arie...@apache.org escribió:
Hola Ricardo,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:50:31PM +0200, RGB ES wrote:
En los foros algunos voluntarios están reportando errores de
traducción. Ya están casi todos corregidos salvo el siguiente:
On May 26, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
Hi Jukka,
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.comwrote:
IIUC Flume operates under an RTC model where people are not supposed
to commit their own changes, which obviously makes the above data less
The open enrollment period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
not the first project to wrestle with it.
Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
group decided to have an open enrollment or not. The issue was that
the announced policy to not have one
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 27, 2012 5:44 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
podlings to be
There is no diversity requirement for graduating from the incubator. In many
ways, incubation hinders community growth. The requirement is that the project
makes decisions as an Apache project, not in private, which is harder to get
used to doing if a lot of people share the same office.
Roy, What you are saying directly contradicts
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community, especially the
statement Basically this means that when a project mostly consists of
contributors from one company, this is a sign of not being diverse enough.
Now, if that page is
Hi,
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote:
As you noted in your comments above - the Flume project tends to follow RTC
with the reviewer committing the code. I happen to have taken up the role
of the reviewer for the most part and hence you see the skewed
Thanks Jukka for your suggestions.
1. Regarding wiki - I have taken a note of that and will update it soon.
2. Regarding doing away with the difference between PPMC and committers, I
am told that other projects do this during graduation. I.e., they promote
all existing committers to PMC status
Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
On 26 May 2012, at 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
sebb wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:09:48 +0100:
On 26 May 2012 03:54, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net 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
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, May 27, 2012 at 14:12:54 +0300:
Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
On 26 May 2012, at 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
placed into
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
* Incubation proposals should have separate sections for Initial
Committers and Initial PPMC Members.
Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to understand if we
introduce layers to incubation.
On May 27, 2012 1:55 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
* Incubation proposals should have separate sections for Initial
Committers and Initial PPMC Members.
Too much hierarchy, the ASF
Nice work Sam ;)
May I suggest adding some fields to ease data entry even more:
1- A checkbox indicating whether or not the mailing list is for an
incubator project or not
2- Another list of checkboxes which are enabled only when the incubator
checkbox is enabled:
2.1- Dvelopment
2.2-
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
The open enrollment period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
not the first project to wrestle with it.
Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
group decided to have an open
Ross,
I can see why my 'sandbag' approach makes you uncomfortable. I've
suggested it once or twice when a proposed podling had a lot of
interested parties already involved. This is a two-edged situation. On
the one hand, instant size and diversity. On the other hand, that may
represent the pool
On May 27, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
On 26 May 2012, at 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
