On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing
On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
community has demonstrated
I've added http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis
to the wiki, offering a more or less concrete alternative that is more
evolutionary and less revolutionary. Get out your darts, and feel free
to edit.
-
To
Benson,
I read your proposal.
This statement:
This leads to my first major qualm about Chris' proposal: everything good,
useful, or necessary about the existing PMC is dumped upon ComDev. There is, in
my mind, some circularity to the argument here. The incubator is a cesspit, so
we should
I am +1 to what your proposal does. I am not so fond of the wording of it.
I've tried to make changes to eliminate pointing fingers but just couldn't with
the last section. I would suggest you take another stab at editing it to: a)
make this proposal a general document, not just from you, and
Chris,
I read your proposal, and I read as lot of other email, and it appears
that the results in my head were a bit of a salad. After re-reading
your proposal, I will make some mods in a moment and remove that
remark in particular.
--benson
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ralph Goers
I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesses, and I fixed
a few others. Are we good?
I'm really not in this to win a fight ( -- or an election --) but
rather to help the community reach a consensus by stating a
(hopefully) clear alternative.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Benson
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I see that Ralph already removed the worst of my excesses, and I fixed
a few others. Are we good?
I'm really not in this to win a fight ( -- or an election --) but
rather to help the community reach a consensus by stating a
(hopefully)
Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I see that Ralph already removed
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
I see from your latest updates
On 2/4/2012 2:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[offlist]
(sorry, trying to respond individually to keep down the noise, stupid
trackpad+palm of my thumb sometimes lets notes fly prematurely. My bad.)
-
To unsubscribe,
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in
the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and
ask everyone who has a new plan for the incubator to draft proposals on the
wiki as
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while
and ask
On 02/03/2012 06:47 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
+1 on that
Ate
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zittingjukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 02/03/2012 08:35 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
in the discussion, I recommend that we
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Disbanding the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. That
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
the problem to the
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
project that reports to the board whose mentors stop
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I thought I
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on
releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the
authority to make the
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
[...snip...]
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
micro-managers do,
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable
to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfunctional
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote
on releases, add new committers, etc..
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
No. In all reality, it doesn't. Far too many resources were drained in
the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
graduating. An
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling
be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and
responsibility they are
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
community has demonstrated viability.
I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be
38 matches
Mail list logo
