On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
...Chris proposes that this
committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
Whenever I
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
...Chris proposes that this
committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137
As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
volunteers, and things happen. Upayavira wonders if Mentor 'harvest
glory' and then wander away.
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...How about the following more incremental experiment: we do what
Upayavira says: we set a higher bar for mentors at podling start time.
We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
period
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Just a thought.
Chris' solution says 'make mentors the initial PMC'. They vote in other
project team members as appropriate to be peers. This creates a positive
egalitarian setup which mirrors that of a PMC, which is a good
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
Having said that, here's an idea that builds on your proposal. There is
already the opportunity to name the board as the sponsoring organisation.
Why not say where the board is willing to sponsor the project it can
On 4 April 2013 08:46, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...Chris proposes
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, the incubator as we have it is a mechanism for coping
with the lack of mentor commitment. As Ross often writes, it's easy to
say that Mentors *should* make this commitment, but mentors are
volunteers,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
Benson writes:
We ask them to make a public statement of commitment that for some
period of time (six months) they commit to thinking of themselves _as
a PMC_, not just as some sort of diffuse advisors or coaches...
+1 to the change of mentality.
Bertrand replies:
I like that - I'd say 3
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...If Mentors fall away after phase 1 ends, it's less of a problem.
Replacing
Mentors is less consequential once the code base has reached the known good
state of having made it through the release process
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 4 Apr 2013 15:17, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
wrote:
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM,
: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On 4 April 2013 09:06, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
...Chris proposes that this
committee recommend its own demise to the board, to be replaced, in
large part, by the board itself. Every board member who has been heard
from so far has been less than enthusiastic...
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
understand, in relation to releases.)
Hi Noah, i suggested that one of
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
rhetoric. I hardly mean to imply the documentation is responsible for the
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored? Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing. It's hardly a wonder people disagree. ;) (This is just a bit of
On 3 April 2013 14:41, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, Ant. Is the documentation ignored?
Whenever I
look through it, it seems like the problem is that it is incomplete and
confusing.
: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
Reply-To: general
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Chris,
What I was trying to do with this particular thread is to identify the
problems the incubator has before deciding on solutions. If we can get a
common agreement on that, specific solutions will be much easier for us
As far as I understand your comment, Ant, you mean to say that he problem
is that there is too much variation in opinion and approach. (Primarily, I
understand, in relation to releases.)
This doesn't seem related to the size of the PMC, to me. We're always going
to need a large pool of people
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the decision-making body for policy that controls those releases. The
dilemma is that consensus
(was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
Ant is reflecting a real dilemma here. At Apache, we try to be
egalitarian, and we try to work by consensus. The natural conclusion
is that the many people needed to vote on releases are also part of
the decision-making body for policy
On 2 April 2013 22:18, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ross' proposal sacrifices some egalitarianism
to achieve better scaling of both decision-making and supervision.
It is not my intention to sacrifice some egalitarianism. My intention is to
allow those who have signed up to
general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 7:00 AM
To: general-incubator general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator structure (was Re: Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Ross,
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013, at 01:56 AM, Chris Douglas wrote:
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
To summarise. The incubator *is* broken (but not necessarily beyond
repair). We need as many mentors as we can get, and a smaller group of
people who are delegated responsibility for the incubator. The board
wants a group of folks to take responsibility for overseeing the early
life of
on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
[..snip..]
Chris M observes, if I may parody, that it's 'just like' the
discredited umbrella projects, and proposes to fix this by making
podlings even more like the standard model -- each one a TLP
supervised by The Board.
That's one part
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
...Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?...
It's not.
Well, maybe it is, but up to a point. The good thing
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
aristocrats is both unworkable and hypocritical.
* It is unworkable because
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 07:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
We need one set who are 'incubator people' and another who are 'mentors'.
Disenfranchising mentors and hoarding power within a small circle of IPMC
aristocrats is
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
The Incubator has two acute, serious problems.
1. First releases are too hard.
No surprise. This is incredible hard to read:
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
Because they are not watching with the same manner. They are delegating a
on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
On 31 March 2013 17:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
Why is it so hard to see that the board is already watching those 22
nascent projects in the same manner they watch the 137 TLPs?
Because
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
I have heard a few people say they just want to mentor, without the rules
discussion crap (see ml). Thats perfectly OK. But what do we need them on
the IPMC?
One of the chief responsibilities for a Mentor is
42 matches
Mail list logo
