On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
...
I don't believe we should force an announce@ list on anybody. But I do
think it might be a good idea to mention a few of the standard lists that
projects might consider requesting.
No strong opinion. Generally, I don't
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel mmo...@apache.org wrote:
On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel mmo...@apache.org wrote:
gradle/gradlew scripts to not have the ASL header because this
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be 3/4 majority.
I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
Moving to simple majority seems
+1 (binding)
2013/3/26 Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
A few releases were made and the status page has been completed:
+1 (binding)
Tommaso
2013/3/28 Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org
+1 (binding)
2013/3/26 Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
A few releases
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be 3/4 majority.
I agree that
On 28 March 2013 07:40, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel mmo...@apache.org wrote:
On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel mmo...@apache.org wrote:
It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
time. Our goal here is to achieve consensus, not to hold votes. So, I'm
going to
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that we have a consensus here on using a majority system
with a 3/4 supermajority. I'd like to establish the existence of this
consensus with a minimum of fuss, and begin to stop wasting everyone's
Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out the window.
Please stop with all of these exaggerations and try to
self-moderate- half of the volume in these debates is all
you talking to yourself.
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:18 AM, ant elder
No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
a lot of control the outcome.
...ant
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Waah. Look this just DEFINES consensus as 75% instead
of the old 100%. It doesn't throw consensus out
No more so than they already had.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:56 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
No what it means Joe is that who chooses the wording of the vote gets
a lot of control the outcome.
...ant
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joseph Schaefer
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 28 Mar 2013 14:04, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 3/27/13 11:33 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, Greg Reddin gred...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Hey Ross,
I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
legally
responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
it
with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
Incubator
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
No more so than they already had.
It does Joe, let me give you a more clear example.
Lets imagine i've done something that you deem shows i'm a terrible
incubator mentor, and its not the first time.
There's a big
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...With this new supermajority approach you'd need 75% or more of voters
to agree with you to get me gone.
Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:29 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, you could say enough is enough and to end the debate
you're going to call a vote to demonstrate i've the PMCs support - a
vote on letting ant stay on. That sounds like you're being nice, but
in fact you're
Yes your logic is flawed- what you are actually
arguing for is majority voting not consensus voting,
and bringing the criterion down from 100% to
75% only helps mitigate your concerns.
As Doug points out, votes are structured away
from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
continue on with
Thanks for your comments,
Inline, I provide some explanations and ask for guidance on some topics.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:59 , sebb wrote:
On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel mmo...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the feedback,
I replied inline.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
This sounds like a vote to support the status quo, which isn't
something we normally do.
The original proposal was limited to VOTEs on personnel issues (misspelled as
personal). Has that changed? I hope not.
One of the
Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge upon that?
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hey Ross,
I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
legally
responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
it
with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
Please let me
I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
each month which would fall to the board if the IPMC were disbanded. That
is why the IPMC submits a board report.
That being said, I think we ought to let this drop for now. Benson has
stated he wants to address the
Chris,
Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
board. If you want to change minds about this, you might need to come up
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Your position is that the IPMC fails to supervise. The consensus of the
IPMC is that this is not true. Otherwise, someone would be reading the
monthly report and objecting to the failure to report 'failure' to the
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC membership that
reflects this discussion? Perhaps we could then lazily converge
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13616948#comment-13616948
]
Jordan Zimmerman commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28:
---
FYI -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13616948#comment-13616948
]
Jordan Zimmerman edited comment on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-28 at 3/29/13 1:24 AM:
Hi Dave,
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:38 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority
Hey Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Would anyone be willing to write up the text that we would post on the web
site someplace to document a procedure for voting upon IPMC
31 matches
Mail list logo
