to
contribute to the very project.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013, 13:34
Subject: Re: The podling initial committers issue
I think
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two:
- interested developers
- initial committers
This way a
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid
was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea
how meritocratic it was...
I have no idea how that is important for *entering* the incubator. One
of the core tenets
On Sep 27, 2013, at 3:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com
wrote:
Incoming
*existing* communities need to be mentored into becoming Apache
communities, not being hammered into them when they are doing their
babysteps.
Who said or implied anything differently?
I think that all of this might boil down to the observation, way back
in this thread, that there are different patterns of incoming
projects.
Some incoming podlings are very small groups of people. If they are
paying attention, they know that attracting new people will be their
biggest problem.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the initial committers list should be split into two:
- interested developers
- initial committers
This way a podling can engage with the interested developers and
quickly form an (expanded)
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
When a proposal is just a candidate, there are two possible approaches (for
those interested in committership)
IMO once the possible approaches are documented, we should require
incoming podlings to
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I think we should add:
After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is called
the proposing community may choose to add additional committers who ask to
be committers or may chose to defer adding
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I think we should add:
After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is
called
the proposing community may choose to add
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@apache.org wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Dave snoopd...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I think we should add:
After a proposal is submitted to the incubator but before a vote is
called
the proposing community may choose to add
Alex, you are constantly mixing up expectations of PMCs
and podlings. Plus, since the ASF did not watch how Usergrid
was handled when it was external, we (the ASF) has no idea
how meritocratic it was... in fact, and I'm sorry to say
this, the viciousness of all this leads me to wonder just
what
I was under the impression that what you describe was the policy - if it is
not then is should certainly be clarified.
In the event that podlings continue to or are to be given such a choice, I
believe that there needs to be a clear understanding between the incoming
community and those
Hi Dave,
This topic actually did make it into the incubator guides but it's a bit hard
to find it. From
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/participation.html#committer:
When a proposal is just a candidate, there are two possible approaches (for
those interested in committership).
The
I propose that this then be seen as a learning experience and determine
what questions a champion needs to ask of the mentors and incoming
community on the outset in order to execute.
This has been an unfortunate bit of thrashing that was avoidable through
communication. That is not to say that
14 matches
Mail list logo
