On 12/19/2014 02:00 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
Strawman:
What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project. That
is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with the
community, they would be a better mentor since they have a vested
This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two
weeks off of work. Catching up ...
On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that
a
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
1. Incubation yes, Incubator no
a. (all Incubator documentation, active folks, etc., become part of the
pool of [incoming project VP])
b. IPMC is dissolved
c. We create a new “Incubation PMC” that includes most active members of
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the
IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were
proposed earlier which I would most wholeheartedly support.
Having read more, and understood more,
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
by the following options
On 12/23/2014 03:34 PM, sebb wrote:
Flex had three great mentors, but to expect them to be the PMC Chair on
graduation would have been problematic. They were great mentors because
they had lots of experience from their work on other Apache projects, and
thus didn’t have time to stay active on
On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to see
50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm
probably going to look at things, but not add my signature. Not out of
laziness, but in seeing that
On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that
+1
On 12/29/2014 09:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two
weeks off of work. Catching up ...
On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy
Hello,
Here is how TinkerPop current runs it TinkerPop-Contributors.
1. If you are a vendor, you get one engineer from your organization to
be on TinkerPop-Contributors who speaks on behalf of your organization/product.
(~15 people)
- e.g. That API addition will be
On Dec 29, 2014 12:11 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we
On Dec 29, 2014 12:35 PM, Marko Rodriguez okramma...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Here is how TinkerPop current runs it TinkerPop-Contributors.
1. If you are a vendor, you get one engineer from your
organization to be on TinkerPop-Contributors who speaks on behalf of your
Part of the apache way is to recognize all contributions. That's why I wrote
active participant of the project ... and generally engaging with the
community
The key part is requiring active participation as a community member. That is
vested interest in the project itself rather than simply
There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
and the project leader as one in the same.
Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role
out of respect.
Practical: The PMC Chair has the power to dissolve the PMC, and is an
Thank you for the clarification.
-Original Message-
From: Marko Rodriguez [mailto:okramma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 09:34
To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework
Hello,
Here is how
In Apache there is no such thing as a Project Leader
The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else.
The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only
the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the
request of the
On 12/29/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
and the project leader as one in the same.
Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role
out of respect.
Practical: The PMC Chair
On 29 Dec 2014, at 14:46, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
In Apache there is no such thing as a Project Leader
The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else.
The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC.
On 12/29/2014 02:46 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
The PMC Chair absolutely does*not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only
the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the
request of the PMC as a whole (or when there is no active PMC to make such a
On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
Hello,
My name is Marko A. Rodriguez and am a co-founder of TinkerPop
(http://tinkerpop.com). There has been positive pressure on us (both
internally and externally) to move TinkerPop to The Apache Foundation.
This email contains our proposal and
Agreed, it's not worth debating project lead as a formal or informal construct.
I don't think we are on the same page. Certainly some projects have a de facto
lead that coincide with Chair and I'm pretty sure in some cases that is an
honorary arrangement agreed to by the community.
On Dec
Ross, et al.,
Note the change in subject.
I think that one crucial fact about Apache that I love and respect is its
regard for process over ego. It can be dull and unless one rather likes, or at
least understands the value of, bureaucratic processes, can be frustrating,
especially to those in
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Marko Rodriguez okramma...@gmail.com
wrote:
Lets start small and grow is the philosophy behind the 3 initial
committers.
Cool?
Only barely. And the only real way to make it work is if in the very first
few days to weeks of incubation you bring in a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two weeks
off of work. Catching up ...
Oh, man! I was about to take a strong and decisive action today ;-)
Seriously -- welcome back into this conversation.
Please note the change of subject.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the
IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which
Yes, the Apache bureaucracy takes time to learn to love :) - I guess
that is part of incubating..
What is great is that there is an open discussion about those
processes - here in a forum that includes all the incubators - so that
we see why processes are the way they are, and that they are
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
Roman, please forgive me absence from this conversation. I started the
thread, and then went on Christmas vacation. I am still on vacation for
another week, but will attempt to keep up with the conversation here, and
not
I'd like to look at this through a lens of failure analysis. How do
podlings fail? I see two main patterns.
1. Failure to build a community. These are the podlings that we find
adrift in space with the lights on but no one home on the mailing
list.
2. Failure to build an _Apache_ community.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Please note the change of subject.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote:
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
What it would do however if we simply did away with the
+1 well said.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Benson Marguliesmailto:bimargul...@gmail.com
Sent: 12/29/2014 6:25 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
I'd like to look at this through a
On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote:
But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of
that, does it?
Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is meant by authority,
too, I suppose.
But, to answer the question, I would say,
Benson,
Speaking from within the nifi ppmc I'd be happy to try this. Most of us in
the nifi ppmc (excluding the mentors) are quite new to Apache so we're
either perfect because we lack any of the biases or terrible because we're
too ignorant to the good and bad. But I for one would be happy to
As part of the Zeppelin community I would be interested in giving this
experiment a try.
As Benson mention in prev. thread - having 'Mentors in the Project' (whether
directly reporting to the board or not) sounds as a great way to learn how to
run Apache project to me.
--
Kind regards,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Might be seen as
grossly unfair by the project that remain in the old regime
There's no structure like no structure!
Marvin Humphrey
-
To unsubscribe,
The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the
mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify
(more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc.
Anyhoo this experiment (the 2 that have volunteered so far) would
have my board VOTE - prepare a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote:
But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of
that, does it?
Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is
36 matches
Mail list logo
