On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> ...There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
> withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
> later disappointed...
Same here, having one willing podling experiment is fine, but I
wou
There are clearly some issues to work out. These boil down to
a) technical. IPMC doesn't need to vote on that. Greg and Dan and Infra can
vote by doing or not.
b) policy details about who gets which permissions and when. I think that
these can be solved by discussion and consensus and don't even
On 11/09/2016 01:00 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
> confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
>
> Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
> already generally available to TLPs, and I mis
Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but I'm still a bit
confused, so if anybody can answer I'd be grateful.
Why is GA for podlings being considered before GA for TLPs? Or, is GitHub
already generally available to TLPs, and I missed that? If I didn't miss
anything, what are the arg
I'm +1 to this for OpenWhisk.
I'm -1 to this as a general availability.
There could be issues down the road which means that this option is
withdrawn. I'd hate to have alot of podlings with an expectation that were
later disappointed.
Niall
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
>> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
>> >
+1 to both in principle (yay), but with admin access not initially given to
podling committers; as that could encourage "business as usual" for adding
friends&family as committers without a vote.
So I agree that the transition of the existing repositories need to be
handled well.
On 7 Nov 2016 10
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>...
> > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see
> > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors.
> > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the
> > "incubator" group are
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> > answered to be able to move forward on this.
> >
> > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
> answered to be able to move forward on this.
>
> - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
> Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator
I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see
answered to be able to move forward on this.
- Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL.
Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the
"OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
> Has that been resolved?
LDAP is tens of hours worth of work - total. And I volunteered to do
the bulk of the initial effort. Frankly, it is more of a timing
conside
Reading the other thread on this it seems it has not yet. Let me know if
any external to infra help is wanted.
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 16:29 Phil Sorber wrote:
> I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP
> hurdle. Has that been resolved?
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 1
I am +1 on both as well. My understanding is that there was an LDAP hurdle.
Has that been resolved?
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016, 15:24 Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein ou
It does, Joe, but the IPMC needs to decide whether to even *ask* ... It is
an entirely reasonable position to say that focusing primary development at
GitHub could hurt some aspect of ASF-style community building, and (thus)
the IPMC does not want to allow that.
Infra will start with OpenWhisk (if
With regard to the second question I hope the ultimate decision still rests
with Greg. This idea is fairly new and some baby steps are in order before
opening the floodgates.
IMO
On Monday, November 7, 2016, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling bei
Hi,
As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now has
requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra Admin
has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it.
I ask now:
1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk?
2. Is the IPMC OK with this
17 matches
Mail list logo