+1 (non-binding)
~ Indika
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling under
I should have said I don't like the idea of the board receiving reports for
podlings that need assistance. It already does. Its not the reporting
that's a problem, its the support that's needed in a small number of cases.
I'll expand on that in Chris' thread.
I'll note that in this thread I
That first sentence still doesn't parse, sorry ...
I should have said I don't like the idea of the board taking
responsibility. I have no problem with it receiving reports directly.
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 07:55, Ross Gardler
+1 (binding)
Paul
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara indika.k...@gmail.comwrote:
+1 (non-binding)
~ Indika
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want
+1 (non-binding)
thanks
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Paul Fremantle pzf...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (binding)
Paul
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara indika.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1 (non-binding)
~ Indika
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler
On Jun 14, 2013 11:50 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
policy. The
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
policy. The
On 14 June 2013 18:11, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
2. It's harder to discharge a pTLP rather than a podling
Jim, Ross: It's going to be harder to pick up the pieces if pTLPs are
unsuccessful, than
it would be for a podling.
I think that is a
I proposed this a year or so ago. It was fairly soundly rejected for a
number of reasons, the two I recall (because I felt they had
significant merit) were:
a) adds additional hierarchy
b) impossible to decide where a project best fits
These two things together give the potential for silos.
I
+1 (non-binding)
-Sebastien
On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya nandana@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this
+1 (non-binding)
thanks,
Thilina
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.comwrote:
+1 (non-binding)
-Sebastien
On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
nandana@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler
On 6/14/2013 8:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
Do we really want jakarta@i.a.o or hadoop@i.a.o?
...
ROTFLOL! But the Jakarta project was so fun!
- Shane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
+1
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
policy. The acceptance or
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
playing the incubators against each other.
Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater
sense of ownership and identification,
I'm with Alan on our penchant to solve people
problems with reorganization. We lack tangible
means of measuring and recognizing that actual
oversight is happening in these podlings. And
by that I mean that somebody is actually following
along as the project develops and providing them
with
+1 binding
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 14, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling under the
On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
playing the incubators against each other.
Can you provide detail on what you mean by
What we really need for podlings is a bill of
rights towards what they can expect of their
mentors, because too few of them actually are
willing to question the participation of the
people who signed up to mentor them and that's
not helping anybody.
From: Alan
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide
community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups
would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring,
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
What we really need for podlings is a bill of
rights towards what they can expect of their
mentors, because too few of them actually are
willing to question the participation of the
people who signed up to mentor them
Brother, you hit the nail on the head. I am so there :)
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll let it stew for a coupla days before
I start charging in, but yeah something
along these lines will surely address the
palpable feeling
Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the areas of
improvement are for the Incubator.
Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings'
experiences were during incubation.
Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as
+1 (non-binding)
Regards
Lahiru
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
the incubator as a standard podling
Hey Ross,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Mine are inline below:
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:50 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
The Board is always the responsible party, but in the sense that you mean
responsibility in finding a fix, then I fully agree.
IMO, if a pTLP gets into the weeds, then the Board will just say fix
yourself within six months, or we dismantle you.
Cheers,
-g
On Jun 15, 2013 2:58 AM, Ross Gardler
Ok Alan I'm done hacking on the page for now.
Have at it folks, if you so choose.
From: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org
To: Apache Wiki wikidi...@apache.org
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: [Incubator Wiki] Update of PodlingBillOfRights by
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
and sometimes mentors are
I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like mandatory
activities for volunteers.
However, a pro-active invitation to feedback on experiences at any time
during incubation or shortly after would be good. Even better would be
recruiting more valuable people from podlings as
+1
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 16:04, Alan Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
long as it is set up in a
Agreed on the undesirability of making survey participation mandatory. On the
wiki page in question I framed it as a right that surveys are available fwiw.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
I'm not keen on this one. I don't like
This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
themselves.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse
+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least.
No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion).
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
+1 binding.
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and
sometimes mentors are the problem.
Solution: we create an elected
FWIW I support the proposal, just pointing out why this idea hasn't gained
traction over the years.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least.
No need for
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera a...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and
sometimes mentors are the problem.
Solution: we create an elected
Marvin,
That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it
had been made before I called the vote. My bad.
Ross
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 19:56, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
-0, because the proposal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
What we really need for podlings is a bill of
rights towards what they can expect of their
mentors, because too few of them actually are
willing to question the participation of the
people who signed up to mentor
Le 6/13/13 11:03 PM, Benson Margulies a écrit :
Incubator community,
I have tendered my resignation as VP, Incubator. The PMC has recommend
Marvin Humphrey as my successor in a motion submitted to the
Foundation board for consideration at the meeting next week.
We have had 3 very good
Marvin my apologies - I didn't get a chance to do it immediately and then
because I don't have edit rights currently I asked Azeez to edit that
sentence in but that was a few days later ..
As Ross said that's what I sent via email before and in any case its a
positive thing for the proposal.
Not your bad. An obvious change based on discussion.
IMO, I say Marvin is being overly pedantic.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Marvin,
That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it
had been made before I called
Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact,
when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear
benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's
generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build.
There should not be a need to
42 matches
Mail list logo
