Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

Hi, > On 10 Nov 2015, at 10:29, Nick Kew wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 01:33 +, Nick Kew wrote: >> I should like to propose that we consider OpenMiracl for incubation. > > This proposal is now at > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenMiraclProposal I’ve read the

Re: [VOTE] Accept Torii into Apache Incubator

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Steve Loughran wrote: > Think I've missed the vote window, but > > +1 binding > > I will repeat what I raised when the proposal first came up, something that > wasn't addresses at all: ZeroMQ is LGPL, which is forbidden as a mandatory >

Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:53:03 + Jan Willem Janssen wrote: > Hi, > > > On 10 Nov 2015, at 10:29, Nick Kew wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 01:33 +, Nick Kew wrote: > >> I should like to propose that we consider OpenMiracl for > >>

Re: Impala commit policy

Nice +1 =) On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Tom White wrote: > The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed > (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about > CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a > binary

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

Geez, dude. Ease up. "all of us" only meant the four of us voting -1. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand > you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation

Re: Impala commit policy

I agree that this is something the Impala community will want to discuss fairly early on in incubation - along with a lot of other project procedural stuff as we adjust or rethink our workflows to be Apache-Way compatible. Until we have that discussion, I'd expect Impala will continue along RTC

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

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >... > > > As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process > > already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks

Re: Impala commit policy

+1 to this as well. Whether the community changes its mind or not is irrelevant in my opinion. What is important is it gets to choose for itself and possibly revisits regularly as it sees fit. This discussion should be encouraged and people who want to promote the merits of one approach or another

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

Top-posting because solidwalloftext. Sounds quite interesting, and it's (mostly) within language scopes I'm comfortable with (python, JS etc). I'd like to volunteer as a mentor for this, should it be approved. With regards, Daniel On 12/02/2015 09:34 PM, Tony Faustini wrote: > To:

Re: Impala commit policy

I am not sure what "start with no explicit commit policy" even means. Will there be no commits, until the discussion on the subject happens? How code changes will be going into the source base? Cos On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:01AM, Tom White wrote: > The vote to accept Impala into the incubator

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

RSA 128 Bits (??) Ouch! Mike On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > Top-posting because solidwalloftext. > Sounds quite interesting, and it's (mostly) within language scopes I'm > comfortable with (python, JS etc). I'd like to volunteer as a mentor for >

Re: Impala commit policy

What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects for CTR, we might say "what can we do to limit the risk that RTC inhibits community

Re: Impala commit policy

Yeah, this is what I meant earlier. Leaving out a commit policy changes nothing. The same people who put together the proposal will be the same set as those discussing it as a podling, and they will reach the same conclusion. If the PPMC doubles in size, with fresh faces, then a real discussion

[PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

To: general@incubator.apache.org Hi All, Litbit is an enterprise IoT company comprised of individuals that have worked for Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Intel, Cisco Systems and 365 Main. We are working with some of the world's leading companies providing them with an enterprise IoT

Re: [DISCUSS] Spark-Kernel Incubator Proposal

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Julien Le Dem wrote: > Sorry for the late reply. > FYI there is an opensource project called torii already: > https://vestorly.github.io/torii/ > Whether there is a trademark or not, I'd recommend a name that does not > collide with another

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

Hi, I can be one of the mentors if you need one. I’m involved in the IoT space so it's of interest . Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

I'd like to also offer to mentor, if you need one. I'm involved with apache mynewt: http://mynewt.incubator.apache.org/ and generally interested in seeing the ASF take on more IoT projects! Sterling On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > I can

Re: Impala commit policy

Yeup! On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > What might happen, however, is that the discussion is revisited with a > particular focus on the concerns that you've raised. So although it might > be unlikely that the community performs a volte-face and elects

Shepherd Shortage for December Report

It looks like there’s a pretty big shortage of shepherds for this month’s report. Is that a concern? If it is, and I can find time (no guarantees), I may be able to take on some additional podlings for this month. If I were to do that what would be the process? Manually assign myself in the

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Tony Faustini wrote: >... > This is the exact codebase that we would migrate to the Apache foundation. > > Upon entering Apache, Tempo will migrate to an Apache License 2.0 with > all contributions licensed to the Apache Foundation. In certain

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:24 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > It looks like there’s a pretty big shortage of shepherds for this month’s > report. Is that a concern? It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die. There's been a shepherd shortage for

Re: Impala commit policy

“No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t build, whether they run the test suite before committing. This policy is the bare

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >>> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >>> >>> It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The

Re: [VOTE] Retire Ripple

+1 (binding) > On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > > Greetings, > > The Ripple community has been discussing retirement on their dev list. > > http://s.apache.org/LjX > > It would be more clear cut if there had been a VOTE thread, but since the >

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

Hi, > P.S.: If the the non-member route was how Justin came to the IPMC, then we > need to retain or replace such a route. Yep it was, but I am now a member because of that. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Impala commit policy

Tom White wrote: The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different communities have

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > “No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. > It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review > the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t > build,

Re: [DISCUSS] Spark-Kernel Incubator Proposal

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Julien Le Dem wrote: > >> Sorry for the late reply. >> FYI there is an opensource project called torii already: >> https://vestorly.github.io/torii/ >> Whether there

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

Greg Stein wrote: RTC versus CTR is clearly a religious debate. There are a large number of > successful and vibrant Apache communities using each paradigm. I don't > "Apache communities" is (IMO) a very important point here. I believe that Apache communities understand the nuances of peer

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or > Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to > stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to >

Re: Impala commit policy

Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to determine their own processes and cultures. Julian > On Dec 2, 2015, at 6:42

Re: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Tim Barham wrote: > Hey all, I've been OOF for a couple of weeks, so I'm catching up on the > threads. I'm just wondering where we're at now, exactly. Specifically: > > 1. Do we need an official vote thread on this, or can we consider that

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tempo - A proposal for an enterprise IoT platform

Hi Tony, It is a very interesting proposal and I would like to help out as well. I do have a bit of experience of the IoT field, both part of my ASF contributions and other work I did. I volunteer to be a mentor or champion. Looks like one of your understated goals is to grow a community and

RE: [VOTE] Retire Ripple

+1 -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:54 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Retire Ripple Greetings, The Ripple community has been discussing retirement on their dev list.

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

What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process based on this? And you don't want this potential have their own way of working? Even though 18 peers voted +1 for having this potential entering the

[ANNOUNCE] New committer: Reinhard Standtner

The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache BatchEE has asked Reinhard Sandtner to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has accepted. Reinhard is already an incubator committer and an active BatchEE actor so this is just an officialisation of the current state. Being a

Re: how can i find PMC Chair for a incubator project

Hi team, I'm looking for the team/person who are entitled to grant administrative access to a committer account so that the account can create new CI jobs on apache jenkins at builds.apache.org. I was directed to this mail list, could you let me know if i can ask for your help, please? Thanks!

Impala commit policy

The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a binary choice, and that it's entirely reasonable that different communities have different commit

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

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > ...If the process is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry > stated... It does pass indeed. >From a community point of view however, -1s need to be taken into account and translated into some statement or

Re: Impala commit policy

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Tom White wrote: > ...I think Julian Hyde's suggestion that the Impala podling start with no > explicit commit policy is a good one. Incubation should be used as a > time to work out what works best for a project Big +1 -Bertrand

Re: Impala commit policy

On 2 Dec 2015, at 10:01, Tom White > wrote: The vote to accept Impala into the incubator has passed (http://s.apache.org/u6r), however there are still some concerns about CTR/RTC. My main takeaways from the CTR/RTC thread are that it's not a

Re: [DISCUSS] Metron incubator proposal

Terrific - thank you! On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:06 PM, P. Taylor Goetz > wrote: > > > I'm interested as well, particularly given the ties to Storm. > > > > I'd be happy to volunteer as mentor and/or

Re: Access to wiki for project report submission

Hi Marvin, Thank you for the quick response. My username on the wiki is NicolasKourtellis. Thank you! Nicolas On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Nicolas Kourtellis wrote: > Hi, > > I would like edit access to the wiki so that I can add the project report > for Apache Samoa

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

FWIW, I see the fact that there were some -1s in the vote as a positive thing in ensuring that the concerns behind the -1s will be addressed. I mean that the community will feel a pressure to be inclusive to “prove” that RTC is not an impediment to community growth. It stands to reason that

Re: Access to wiki for project report submission

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Nicolas Kourtellis wrote: > My username on the wiki is NicolasKourtellis. > Thank you! Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

Hi, > Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for > non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be an > alternative for new IPMC candidates to show interest and demonstrate merit. I have that concern as well, as that’s how I come to be

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >> >> It's not a concern -- it's a blessing. The shepherd institution needs to die. > > Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

to;dr;: I bring up some points below that Marvin already addressed well later in his reply. In short, I still think we need a way to address absentee mentors that doesn't overburden the report manager. I'm relatively new to the ipmc, so forgive me up front if I'm opening up old wounds... I

[RESULT][VOTE] Accept Torii into Apache Incubator

Vote has passed with 7 binding +1 from : Hitesh Shah, Luciano Resende, Sam Ruby, Chris A Mattmann, Jim Jagielski, Reynold Xin, Steve Loughran and 2 non-binding +1 from Sree V, Luke Han. There is an issue with the project name, see discussion at [1]. We will be identifying a new name for the

Re: Shepherd Shortage for December Report

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > >> Then I'd say let it die. My only concern is that that it offers a way for >> non-members an entry path to the ipmc. If we eliminate it, there should be >> an alternative for new IPMC candidates to show