Board report feedback

Hi, The feedback from the new board report format (i.e. using markdown) was positive, so unless there are any objections, we’ll continue with it. Over the next couple of days I’ll update the tooling to generate the report in the new format. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0

Hi, > We did not receive any VOTEs from general@ within the 72 hour voting period. > Therefore, we are initiating another VOTE on general@, which will last for 72 > hours. Voting should late for a minimum of 72 hours or until you get a result, in general they no need to call a revote, but

[VOTE] (Re)Release Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0

Hello, On Jun 17th we posted an IPMC VOTE on the (Re)Release of Apache Flagon UserALE.js (Incubating) 1.0.0, in accordance with a request by IPMC to correctly annotate the release file names. We did not receive any VOTEs from general@ within the 72 hour voting period. Therefore, we are

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 [RC2]

Thank you for your detailed review! We will address your comments on signing keys in the future votes. Regarding the commit id, "44c9323" is the correct commit id for the tag. Maybe the link is not valid. Is https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/commits/44c9323 or

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

I second every single sentence said here. Every. Single. Sentence. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM David Nalley wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy, > whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've > spent a good deal of time

Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy, whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've spent a good deal of time reading resolutions and older discussions and organizing those thoughts from a legal and community perspective. I've also read a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 [RC2]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:39, Jihoon Son wrote: > > Hi IPMC, > > The Apache Druid community has voted on and approved a proposal to release > Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 (rc2). > > We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this > incubator release. > > Apache Druid

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 [RC2]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:39, Jihoon Son wrote: > > Hi IPMC, > > The Apache Druid community has voted on and approved a proposal to release > Apache Druid (incubating) 0.15.0 (rc2). > > We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this > incubator release. > > Apache Druid

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi Greg, > On Jun 19, 2019, at 12:17 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:48 AM Justin Mclean > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> The VOTE was ridiculous. It can only come out "Yes", so why? >> >> Which is the outcome of most votes, they confirm

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Honestly, I don't know. I agree that Github++ might not have been the best term but as I said: I didn't think this through to the end. I guess (all of this is a bunch of unfinished ideas) what it boils down to is that we can do the incubation outside of the ASF. I didn't even think about what

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:33 AM Ted Dunning wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised > > for > > > > example is whether

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > > wrote: > > > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised > for > > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > > > The mission states: "We

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Myrle Krantz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke > wrote: > > > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for > > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > > The mission states: "We do this by

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

Hi, On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke wrote: > ...Projects wishing to join the ASF as a TLP would then at some point need to > abide by the rules (some of which probably also don't make sense but that's > a different discussion) but until then Mentors could just provide hints... Note

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:38 AM Lars Francke wrote: > This is very much not thought through to the end. One question raised for > example is whether projects would even want to become a TLP. > The mission states: "We do this by providing services and support for many > like-minded software

[DISCUSS] Podlings are part the Incubator Community

The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves. – John Connor I wish to posit an opinion that is antithetical to the criticisms floating around the Incubator. I know that I have not been involved with the incubator for the last few years and read from the sidelines the

Re: overzealous bureaucracy (was: [VOTE] Zipkin leave incubator, return back to OpenZipkin)

This was also discussed on the ASF slack during which I suggested (this is not fully thought through) to change the Incubator model to focus on its core tenets of providing services to projects wanting to join the ASF. For this cause, the projects itself don't need to be ASF projects (not even