Update to licenses page for CCLA

In case anyone asks, I updated the licenses page http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas to start using the new cla-corporate.pdf http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.pdf instead of the old cla-corporate.txt. The pdf version should be much easier to use and does not require users to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis incubating Release 0.1.0-alpha rc0

Hi Josh, Thanks a lot for reviewing the RC and providing many useful comments. I just have uploaded our KEY file to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ratis/KEYS For the other issues, definitely will fix them in a later release. Tsz-Wo On 5/9/17, 8:26 AM, "Josh Elser"

Re: Podling release vote terminology

Craig, If you have a case to site, it may make it easier to follow how it would be different. One area where I do see consistent confusion on are the votes that count. I personally want to see a more fluid vote policy, but it should be clearer which votes were cast and which votes are binding.

Re: Podling release vote terminology

Craig, You seem to imply that things used to be done differently. If so, can you point to process documents or example threads of how things were done differently in the past. Are you proposing merely a change in terminology, or a change in process? The two "votes" are very real, since they have

Re: Podling release vote terminology

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Craig Russell wrote: > I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two > separate, distinct votes: > one in the podling and one in the incubator general. And lots of questions > about binding votes > and carried-over

Re: Podling release vote terminology

In that case, I oppose this change. I believe the status quo is just as clear as this new proposal. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Craig Russell wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Good questions. > > > On May 9, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote: > > > > If

Re: Podling release vote terminology

Hi Jim, Good questions. > On May 9, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote: > > If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a > release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes, > but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the

Re: Podling release vote terminology

I think that would be a good way to clear up some of the confusion. +1 > On May 9, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > > I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two > separate, distinct votes: one in the podling and one in the incubator >

Re: Podling release vote terminology

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jim Apple wrote: > If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a > release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes, > but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the release pass? > >

Re: Podling release vote terminology

If PPMC members A, B, and C, who are not IPMC members, vote +1 on a release, and then the second phase starts, acquires three +1 IPMC votes, but A, B, and C change their votes to -1, does the release pass? Hoe long must the first phase last? How long may it last? If in the first phase, the vote

Podling release vote terminology

I've seen a few (recent) incubator votes that imply that there are two separate, distinct votes: one in the podling and one in the incubator general. And lots of questions about binding votes and carried-over votes and whose votes are counted. I'd like to suggest: There is one vote for a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache SystemML podling graduation

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 6:26 PM Henri Yandell wrote: > +1. Sounds like it's passed time to discuss graduation. > > There's no such thing as a perfect release, and the measure of a community > is not its ability to make a perfect release, but its ability to deal with, > and

Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache SystemML podling graduation

+1 to that The community has proven the ability to run the project in the Apache way and has been very open and responsive to resolve issues raised from IPMC. - Henry On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 3:26 PM Henri Yandell wrote: > +1. Sounds like it's passed time to discuss

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

NOTE: Jakob Homan is an IPMC member, and +1'd the release during the Airflow community vote. Thanks! On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Chris Riccomini wrote: > Hey all, > > The vote has passed after 72+ hours. > > There were two +1 votes: > > Josh Elser, John D. Ament > >

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Just to close the loop, we had a +1 during the Airflow community vote from Jakob Homan, who is an IPMC member: https://home.apache.org/phonebook.html?uid=jghoman I'm going to proceed with the release. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Chris Riccomini wrote: > > Were

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Disregard. I just saw your question about carrying over IPMC votes. Yes, they can be carried over. Just make sure you include them/state that in the result email. -Taylor > On May 9, 2017, at 1:18 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Unless I’m missing something,

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

> Were there mentor +1 votes on the dev@ vote thread that can be carried over? Yes, Jakob Homan's vote can be carried over, I believe. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:18 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Unless I’m missing something, you’re one vote shy of the requirement

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Hi Chris, Unless I’m missing something, you’re one vote shy of the requirement of having 3 IPMC +1 votes [1]. Were there mentor +1 votes on the dev@ vote thread that can be carried over? -Taylor [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases > On May 9, 2017, at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Jakob Homan already +1'd the release as part of the Airflow community vote. Does that count towards the IPMC vote, or does he have to +1 it again? On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Chris Riccomini wrote: > Argh, forgot that we need three votes for incubator release. Can

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Argh, forgot that we need three votes for incubator release. Can someone else please +1 this? On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > +1, however there's a few issues with the LICENSE file: > > - Would be good to list out the locations of each file (or path

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Airflow 1.8.1 (incubating)

Hey all, The vote has passed after 72+ hours. There were two +1 votes: Josh Elser, John D. Ament No 0/-1 votes. I'm going to wrap up the release. @John, thanks for the feedback. We'll take this into account on the next release. Some items have actually already been fixed, just not

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis incubating Release 0.1.0-alpha rc0

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jitendra Pandey wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 5/9/17, 8:50 AM, "Jakob Homan" wrote: > > +1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote. > > -Jakob > > On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis incubating Release 0.1.0-alpha rc0

+1 (binding) On 5/9/17, 8:50 AM, "Jakob Homan" wrote: +1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote. -Jakob On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser wrote: > +1 (binding) > > * sig/xsums OK > * NOTICE ok, LICENSE is

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis incubating Release 0.1.0-alpha rc0

+1 (binding) brought forward from the podling vote. -Jakob On 9 May 2017 at 08:26, Josh Elser wrote: > +1 (binding) > > * sig/xsums OK > * NOTICE ok, LICENSE is good enough (see below) > * DISCLAIMER present > * Incubating is in artifact name > * Can build from source and

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis incubating Release 0.1.0-alpha rc0

+1 (binding) * sig/xsums OK * NOTICE ok, LICENSE is good enough (see below) * DISCLAIMER present * Incubating is in artifact name * Can build from source and could run tests * All of your additions to LICENSE (over "stock") are unnecessary. The trap you fell into is differentiating between