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
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
As Doug points out, votes are structured away
from the status quo- we don't ever vote to
continue on with previously agreed to issues
just to circumvent the voting process.
Ok thanks Joe and Doug. So to be
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Matthias Friedrich m...@mafr.de wrote:
As someone who is relatively new to the ASF and who's first behind the
scenes contact with Apache was the incubation process, I can tell that
this is absolutely true. Podlings find themselves in a kafkaesque
world where
On Thursday, 2013-03-28, Chris Douglas wrote:
[...]
Is this a question of standing, where material harm needs to be demonstrated?
The IPMC is needlessly inefficient and abusive of its podlings. Novel
compliance mechanisms are literally invented and argued about on
general@ during podlings'
@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: majority vote vs consensus
I do not agree there is no IPMC oversight. The IPMC performs many actions
each month which would fall
: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:20 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
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
@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
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
general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:09 AM
To: general general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
We clearly differ with our view if how much is delegated from board to
IPMC. The amount of work the board does on x
: Re: Incubator Deconstruction (was Vote on personal matters:
majority vote vs consensus)
Chris,
The fundamental issue is that I don't agree the IPMC needs deconstructing.
I believe it finds it difficult to come to a decision when unusual
circumstance arises, but most of the time it does fine.
I
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
2) more direct leadership that seeks basic consensus on very
specific and clear new changes, but doesn't let discussions get weighed down
with too many options, or stalled by a relative handful of -0s.
The hard work
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
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
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
on with previously agreed to issues
just to circumvent the voting process.
From: ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013
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
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
: majority vote vs consensus
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.
What specific actions would fall to the board in my proposal [1] outside of
what
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
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship - that would solve several of the problems
we've being having including this one, it would open up a much bigger
pool of
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship...
...I'd like to
try this, perhaps as a sort of
Hi,
As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
Incubator PMC members,
As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to become
a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1]).This
may exclude people with practical
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@gmail.com wrote:
...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
become
a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1])...
you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
Incubator PMC members,
As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
become a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see
I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off for
Passover for a bit.
In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as
'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about decision-making,
but with some people seeing using terms like
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this large,
diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings.
Thats more how i see it. Using
The incubator is currently of a scale that means it can no longer operate
as a standard consensus driven PMC. It is not that much smaller than the
TLPs part of the foundation. Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
ASF Members
On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, i propose we have an experiment [1] where we try having a mentor
or two who are not PMC members. Have some other experienced mentors
helping to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, i propose we have an experiment [1] where we try having a mentor
or
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
... [snip] ...
Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to a large extent it does. Here
are the
On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, Greg Reddin gred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.comwrote:
Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
... [snip] ...
Why can't the IPMC
Hi,
this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the above
governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
Why
The first thing I'd like to do, coordination-wise, is to call a vote on the
proposal to decide things by majority. I think that this would help with
some of the problems we hit, and we can meanwhile continue to discuss
larger structural changes.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ross Gardler
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
larger group is much more likely to have noisy vetoes by requiring that
This whole exercise is pointless. Just drop the notion of vetoes for all IPMC
votes and carry on as before.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar
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 too radical. Over time it's more
prone to building a PMC that cannot easily
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
We had the case were one person was nominated and received three +1.
Another voter had concerns
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013, at 07:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
following a thread on private@, I would like to bring the discussion
on how we vote on nominated IPMC members.
We had the case were one person was
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Now, you might argue that mentoring is a lot more than voting, but we
could create another bottleneck in getting release votes through,
requiring votes from incubator PMC members who are not particularly
focused on the
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
...We also have 172 IPMC members to date (according committer index).
Most of the people are not seen often; we have many awol mentors.
Currently becoming an IPMC member is necessary to become a Mentor. It
On 25/03/13 08:41, ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
Now, you might argue that mentoring is a lot more than voting, but we
could create another bottleneck in getting release votes through,
requiring votes from incubator PMC members who are not
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
So I am proposing now to reconsider Joes original proposal and change our
community voting to a majority voting unless we restructure the IPMC.
+1 for majority voting on personnel issues for the IPMC.
I'm also fine
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
We have not found a consens, but one might highlight Roy Fieldings e-mail:
http://s.apache.org/royCommitterVeto
I still think like Joe and feel that consensus should not apply in the
IPMC. We are way to different
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo