Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

's style so I doubt you have > anything to worry about. > > -Original Message- > From: Brock Noland [mailto:br...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:54 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) &g

Re: [VOTE] Accept Kudu into the Apache Incubator

-1 (binding) Starting with RTC is a poor way to attract new community members. I'd like to see this community use CTR instead of mandating gerrit reviews. (ref: other-threads about lack of trust, and control issues; poor basis for a community) On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator

-1 (binding). I'd like to see the community start with CTR, rather than mandatory reviews via gerrit. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > Hi - > > The [DISCUSS] thread has been quiet for a few days, so I think there's been > sufficient opportunity for discussion around our

Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" > wrote: > > >Alex, > > > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of > >the authors on the incoming Kud

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > Nobody is forcing anything. > > > > Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give every > > podling that message. > > If it

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Harbs wrote: >... > FWIW, I personally could swallow using RTC with Git, but I would seriously > have problems with RTC with SVN. > I read this as "RTC sucks, but at least Git makes it suck less." :-) (and yes, Git's features naturally provide better support fo

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > I don't have incubator stats... nor do I have a good way to measure "most > active" or "most successful" projects in the ASF (seems that itself could > be a 'centithread'-worthy discussion). But a potential proxy could be the > number of

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Most non-trivial software projects I worked on (paid or un-paid) have RTC > culture. I cannot represent every single project, but in the ones that I'm > closely involved with that use RTC, it is simply part of the culture and > recognition th

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Harbs wrote: >... > If there is a disagreement, it seems to be part semantics, part version > control technologies (i.e. SVN optimized workflow vs Git optimized > workflow) and part an actual difference in how to handle certain > situations. It seems to me that th

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > I have now, days later, Reviewed this Thread and Commit to a veto of the > RTC > whole debate, Can't agree That it is Rewarding for anyone... ;-) > CTR ... I saw what you did there :-)

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >... > of people wanting to join. I am sure this is going to be a controversial > statement, but I have noticed that the projects that I’ve seen do this > often have a fair number of committers who are paid to work on the project > by their empl

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

our three arguments for CTR > are not present in RTC. > > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

ere is that the author is never allowed to commit their > own code. > > Ralph > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > The Apache Subversion project does something similar: > > > > > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conve

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

The Apache Subversion project does something similar: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat. On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" wrote: > Some projects use the git Signed-off-by fie

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > None of your statements below are any different between RTC or CTR. The > > only time it makes aa difference is if no one does reviews. My feeling > is > > that a community that in

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe the issue here is that with CTR it is very easy to miss the 72h > lazy consensus voting (with an assumed +1 absence any votes cast) that most > CTR projects operate under... and thus it can also

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute code in > the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new people > contributing to the project. > "level playing field"?? seriously?? I find no logical or vali

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

In RTC, a contributor sending in a patch, a pull request, or a JIRA/patch is handled exactly the same as any other committer. None are trusted to apply their change, until they receive review and permission from others. So you would think that "everybody" would get committer status on Day One. Why

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > Except that there seems to be great disagreement among the Members as to > whether RTC is somehow anti-Apache-Way. > That seems rather melodramatic. Speaking for myself, I've said that I find RTC a terrible basis for forming a healthy co

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

t is better done there. > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > Hunh? How do you get that? I trust my fellow committers. That&#

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

ommit. -g On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > That is what I say: you're projecting. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Greg Stein wr

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >... > And by the way, this has little to do with trust. More with hope. As in: we > hope they won't abuse our trust. It seems you're projecting trust issues! > It is ALL about trust. I've worked in the httpd, apr, and svn projects here. I tru

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right here and would > like systematic reviews of my commi

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > >... > > > 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a > comp

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: >... > 1) You're right, I don't trust anybody to make code changes to a complex > project with zero oversight. I currently work on a project that I > I have always found the "complex project" to merely be an excuse for control/no-trust. All s

Re: [VOTE] Retire Corinthia

+1 (binding) On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Greetings, > > The Corinthia community has voted to retire: > > http://s.apache.org/odN > > This is a vote of the IPMC to confirm the decision to retire the podling. > > [ ] +1 to retire Corinthia from the Incubator > [ ] -

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > On 11 Nov 2015, at 09:38, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Steve Loughran > wrote: > >> ...is JIRA-first development conducive to developing a community?... > > > > I don't think

Re: Releases during incubation?

Yup. Subversion 1.6.9 was released while we were incubating. Further: Subversion 1.6.x had patch releases for three years (given our support rules), after we became Apache Subversion. 1.7.0 was our first Apache release, occurring about 18 months after we became a TLP. We distinguished them by name

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >... > Huh? The development of this document, > > > > > was carried out on the dev community list over a significant period of > time. It even provides an accou

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

My belief is that committer != PMC is the ideal choice, based on my long history of watching communities at the ASF. It allows for onboarding committers rapidly and with a lower bar. That helps to draw them further into the community, reduces the workload of others (who would otherwise need to revi

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Nov 4, 2015 10:03 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > ...If you read the graduation requirements it says nothing about adding PPMC > > as a strict requirement to graduation: > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_P

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

On Nov 4, 2015 2:47 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote: > > ...what would the action item the community should take away from > > this? As their mentor I'm not sure what advice i can give them. "add more > > ppmc members"? Sounds like that's i

Re: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Jira issues are (IMO) a bit too passive to be focal points for community interaction. The *active* process of an email arriving in your inbox? Much better for enabling community members to participate. And a uniform and easy way to do so. Especially against the *transient* nature of Jira issues. I

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >... > I'd noted that > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_h2-clearance.html > never had a corresponding clearance/acceptance thread at general@i.a.o, > so it appears that the current instructions no longer match the metho

Re: Not just yet

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >... > I'm a bit bothered by the fact that this would mean that the community > voted on one resolution and then a different resolution is constructed > anew for the board to approve. But at the moment, I'm not sure how to > solve that problem. >

Re: Not just yet

On Oct 23, 2015 1:01 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2015 9:57 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: > >>... > >> I've also opened another issue that I would appreciate feedback on: &g

Re: Not just yet

On Oct 22, 2015 9:57 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote: >... > I've also opened another issue that I would appreciate feedback on: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WHIMSY-28 Cross-check is nice. I'd suggest another possibility: a web tool to *add* a template-based resolution in the first place. Che

Re: Short form IP clearance

ncerns that are being overlooked. > > And I'm not trying to create more work for whatever ASF entity is charged > with policing the process. ;) > > -Taylor > > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Tay

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at > all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. > > What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that > as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on whatever issues > or ques

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > > I would suggest that Owen O'Malley has not had enough time to be a viable > > mentor recently and should not be on the list of mentors. > > > > I have been helping Kylin out and i

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

[ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 because... > > > > > This vote is now closed and passes with 4 binding +1 votes, > 3 non-binding +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes. > > Thanks to all who helped with the proposal and cast the vote! > > Here's a vote tally: > > No

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this… > hehe... I did too :-) > But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and > I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or how

Re: Not just yet (was: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Brooklyn from incubator)

Several things: the description of the project in para 1 and 3 do not match. Second, the wording of the (current) last paragraph doesn't refer to "podling" like other Incubator graduation resolutions. Third, the final paragraph from the template, releasing the Incubator from responsibility. See th

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a > > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in > > matt

Re: Short form IP clearance

t;. > > That <> is TBD. > > John > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > > [trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby > wrote: > > >... >

Re: Short form IP clearance

[trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >... > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month? > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP clearance. And more importantl

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > On the following page: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html > > > > The process steps do not

Short form IP clearance

Hey all, On the following page: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble, and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8. Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there i

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: >... > To be fair, I will circle one more time to existing mentors for Eagle > to confirm their commitment for active participation in the podling. > Would that be acceptable solution? > Acceptable to whom? I bet you there are enough people

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

This vote is now closed and passes with 4 binding +1 votes, > > 3 non-binding +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes. > > > > Thanks to all who helped with the proposal and cast the vote! > > > > Here's a vote tally: > > > > Non-binding +1s: > > Jim Jagielsk

Re: [DISCUSS] Eagle incubator proposal

Hey there, Arun! ... I have no commentary on the proposal itself, as it looks like a great proposal. I would suggest being a bit wary of the name, as "Eagle" is a *very* popular PCB design program. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Manoharan, Arun wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > My name is Arun Man

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >... > The Maturity Model defines evaluation criteria. It is probably the most > useful for the task we're focused on now, which is how to decide when a > proposed TLP is ready, regardless of the path it took towards readiness. > As I've

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > Perhaps defining exact criteria that the board uses to evaluate such > resolutions would be useful. > The Board evaluates them differently based on the path. I explained Direct else-thread. Historically, the Board has trusted the I

Re: Starting from the other end

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start > thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when > there are gaps in straight to TLP. Lets identify what those gaps > There is one thing the Incuba

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

I concur, and similarly pushed back just a few days ago on another suggestion of such "policy". Not really sure that an ASF-wide metric is appropriate (ie. all communities are different, and freedom to set their own path is important), but there is definitely value in some in the model. It can wit

Re: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Filip Hanik wrote: > On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Emmanuel Lécharny > wrote: > > Le 15/10/15 13:17, Rich Bowen a écrit : > >... > > > Who > > > evaluates the results? > > > > Either the board, or a group gathered for that purpose. > > the board? doesn't that b

Re: A suggestion: podling post-mortems

Pierre: by "time to graduate", Rich meant "ready to graduate". Not the amount of time from entry until graduation. On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Since when is the incubation process a race that must be completed in the > least amount of time? If it is, it would surely v

Re: [VOTE] Accept Mynewt into the Apache Incubator

This code has been ensured to be under either an > Apache or BSD license. > > == Cryptography == > > None > > == Required Resources == > > === Mailing lists === > > * d...@mynewt.incubator.apache.org > * comm...@mynewt.incubator.apache.org > * notif

Re: Require projects to have solid API docs

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote: > > Should != Must > > Yes, I know. But I didn't want to have everyone leap into yet another > long-winded debate with no one even having mentioned that there is > existing policy on

Re: Concerted Proposal

Always! On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Atri Sharma wrote: > If Incubator PMC sees fit, can I move this thread to a discuss thread to > discuss accepting of Concerted into ASF Incubator? > On 5 Oct 2015 14:24, wrote: > > > As a member of Concerted community, I believe that acceptance into ASF

Re: Concerted Proposal

The Board created the Incubator as a mechanism to bring projects into the ASF. Whether that could be construed as "provide a space for a project to bootstrap itself, into a new ASF project" is arguable. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: > Well, I think what we should ask

Re: Permissive UI Libraries

ware)>. >> >> - [;<). >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 08:12 >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Permissive UI Libraries (was RE: [NOTI

Re: [NOTICE] corinthia PPMC+committer -= dortef, franz, gbg, ianc, jani, louis, pmkelly

On Sep 7, 2015 4:12 PM, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote: >... > I am not sure that approach is realistic. I mean, if you say it must be optional and not required, then there must be an existing alternative. And that alternative must be not LGPL. If there is such a toolkit, then why not go with that right

Re: ODF Toolkit may need help

e podling came in with the domain > name offtoolkit.org. What happens to that? > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > The Attic is for Apache projects. Podlings are simply retired/removed. >

Re: ODF Toolkit may need help

The Attic is for Apache projects. Podlings are simply retired/removed. On Sep 4, 2015 9:23 AM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:12 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:56 AM Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015

Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >... > So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for > their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to > differentiate it from an official release of the foundation. In the real > world the questi

Re: third party tooling.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > > ...you can call yourself open source software all you want, > > but unless you get an exception from Fedora Packaging Committee > > you are not open enough for the distribut

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote: > > > > > > On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > &

Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator

On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote: > > On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > >> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but > >> hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day whe

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Aapche Lens 2.2.0-beta-incubating released

Hello, Lens people! In the future, please ensure that *all* release announcements include the Incubating "Disclaimer" in them. Your download page should be updated (asap) to include the same. Thanks, -g On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Amareshwari Sriramdasu < amareshw...@apache.org> wrote: >

Re: Licensing Issue

hahaha funny that the template at that site says the software is in the public domain, but then goes on to state what can be done with it, and to provide a disclaimer. If it is truly in the public domain, then no futher discussion is needed. And note that some jurisdictions (eg France) don't a

Re: Blog policy for poddlings

To clarify one step further: podlings are not official projects, so any outreach via apache.org (and its name/recognition) needs appropriate messaging. That is why we have press@ :-) On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > It's not ComD

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > In case you're curious -- I'd ask the same question, for example, > about a community > that decided to produce software that is be only applicable as an add-on > for a small market share commercial offering. > The Foundation does

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely > do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention > simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > I'd suggest striking the user@ mailing list. Keep the community (such > as it > > is) on dev@ until traffic gets too heavy. I've seen early splitting of &

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: >... > > our own project operations, which we'll do in any case. The presumed > pTLP would be to develop the code; I could easily imagine some of the > code being useful as examples outside of the ASF. Being a pTLP would > also make developme

Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

I'd suggest striking the user@ mailing list. Keep the community (such as it is) on dev@ until traffic gets too heavy. I've seen early splitting of the user/dev keep a new project from reaching a good critical mass. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Initial sketch placed on the w

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Roman, > > I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these > proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in > how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, > I would

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a > >> formal say in pT

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not > > I think it is actually in between ;-) > > While the pTLP itself, once created by the boa

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i wrote: > >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be > worth > >> while to consider a way for projects that e

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >... > Sam --> Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with > incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. > I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would likely respond d

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

with that. And if > someone does claim this then the two things are not orthogonal. > > Ross > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > From: Greg Stein<mailto:gst...@gmail.com> > Sent: 2/24/2015 12:32 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Niclas, > > I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't > agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I > There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has b

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

"if we accept" ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand would like to see discussion on general@incubator, but that is merely a handy location. It actually has zero to do with the Incubator. Ross:

Re: pTLP process amendments

This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Roman, > > See comments below to > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP > > > 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional". I > also suggest that

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > > Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to > > become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be > > discus

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I > disagree: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

doesn't forget it > like I did. > > > Greg Stein wrote: > >> Heh. Just saw how old this release was... :-P >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >> This release announcement does not contain the required DI

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

Heh. Just saw how old this release was... :-P On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER > necessary for all incubating projects. > > Please see: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Slider 0.60.0-incubating

This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > The Apache Slider team is proud to announce Apache Slider incubation > re

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Streams 0.1-incubating release

This release announcement does not contain the required DISCLAIMER necessary for all incubating projects. Please see: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Steve Blackmon wrote: > I'm pleased to announce immediate availability of streams 0.1-incubat

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >... > Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev > documentation is maintained, etc? > Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

There are a few things that I would suggest for "next steps": 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done. This will also start the discussion among the Directors (recall: the Board hasn't even agreed to try th

Re: my pTLP view

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >>> ...The

Re: my pTLP view

Go to the FIRST POST of this thread (titled: "my pTLP view"!!). THAT is what we're talking about. Not the Strawman. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > Oh, my mistake! (smile) I confused pTLP with the "Strawman" proposal there > for a minute. In the pTLP proposal, there are

Re: my pTLP view

vote on releases, new > committers, and elevating committers to PMC. > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell > > wrote: > > > > > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > &

Re: my pTLP view

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > This is *exactly* the way things work in a TLP. > > Yes, everyone new to the Foundation on the PPMC has a sense of equal > ownership in the process. The PPMC makes a decision together as equals, > then the decision is reviewed as a whole.

Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > There is nothing stopping the IPMC from designating certain Mentors as > > shepherds for their podlings. > > Having volunteers step forw

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >