Re: [website] Incubator Cookbook - a live experiment

Hi, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 6:15 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > ...Would you create a JIRA to track the Cookbook? I would like to resolve and > defer INCUBATOR-203 to your plan... Done, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-234 - thanks for the additional ticket IDs, I have marked them as

Re: [website] Incubator Cookbook - a live experiment

Hi Myrle, On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:32 PM Myrle Krantz wrote: >...I'd love to help out with writing, > proofing, and correcting anything you'd like written, proofed or corrected > for this... Thank you! I'll focus on getting the skeleton in, i.e. the list of topics, so that we can collaborate

Re: [website] Incubator Cookbook - a live experiment

Hey Bertrand, I think this is a wonderful idea, and I'd love to help out with writing, proofing, and correcting anything you'd like written, proofed or corrected for this. Best, Myrle On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:57 PM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > Recent discussions make me think that

Re: [website] Incubator Cookbook - a live experiment

Hi - This is a really cool idea and there are a few JIRAs that hint at this. Your idea is a lot like: INCUBATOR-203 - Rename Proposals to something else, add more how to get in information INCUBATOR-204 - Create a Creating Releases section I started an improvement plan page to help classify

[website] Incubator Cookbook - a live experiment

Hi, Recent discussions make me think that the Incubator should be presented more as a service to incubating projects, rather than as the Stern Gatekeeper to Apache Heaven, as we sometimes (unvoluntarily I think) make it appear - mostly due to outdated and policy-heavy content at

Re: [EXPERIMENT] Moving Incubator Website from CMS to gitpubsub

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:56 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > ...I'd also seek out > some usability style testing from other users to make sure they're > comfortable before doing anything permanent... I should be able to help with that, at least. -Bertrand

Re: [EXPERIMENT] Moving Incubator Website from CMS to gitpubsub

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:03 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > ...is there any interest in moving, or is there a preference to stay on > CMS and > > SVN?... > > I'm for moving, but won't have

Re: [EXPERIMENT] Moving Incubator Website from CMS to gitpubsub

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:37 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > ...is there any interest in moving, or is there a preference to stay on CMS > and > SVN?... I'm for moving, but won't have time to help much at this time. -Bertrand

[EXPERIMENT] Moving Incubator Website from CMS to gitpubsub

All, I started a little experiment to move the incubator website from CMS to git. There's a few reasons I've looked at it. First, I've seen a lot of cases where people commit changes to the various control files (podlings.xml, {podling}.xml) without running the necessary CMS steps to publish

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

: ‎2/‎24/‎2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: Hi Niclas, I'm in favor of the overall pTLP process. I don't agree with others that it hasn't been well specified yet. I There is (yet) a singular page that defines the process. Roman has been

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

/2015 12:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment if we accept ... take a position, Ross. The two problems *are* orthogonal. The IPMC can do whatever it likes. A pTLP is a proposal to the Board. Bertrand

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: ... Sam -- Think there is no need for a new concept, and have no problem with incoming projects backed by ASF veterans to bypass the Incubator. I believe Sam gave this based on a singular, concrete proposal. He would

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment Stop talking about Incubator changes. You begin with pTLP, but devolve into other proposals about changes to the Incubator. Niclas restarted this thread about pTLP

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed to the following Board members; Greg, Chris -- Would like to have Provisional badge, which entails disclaimers to alert users. Sam -- Think

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: I would like to pick this thread up again... Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: ‎2/‎23/‎2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

23, 2015 at 12:12 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

a chance to have their input, as chair. I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. As for what's needed - that's simple a recommendation to the board which Iis clear an unambiguous. We are not there yet

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Board@ discussions Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org Sent: ‎2/‎23/‎2015 3:53 PM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what *exactly* do you need? The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations.

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. That's fair, but what

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote: The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere? Thanks, Roman.

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

AM To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment I would like to pick this thread up again... IIUIC (sorry in advance if I grossly misrepresent opinion), the various views that exists can be attributed to the following

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an experiment to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

... To clarify my position, I'm very much in favor of the pTLP experiment, but given that some parts of it are similar to the way podlings happen today I would very much like the Incubator PMC and this list to be involved in those things, to avoid making more work for the board and to make sure

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: I would like to pick this thread up again... Thanks! I apologize for being completely unavailable for the past 10 days or so -- the amount of stuff happening @$WORK was way too overwhelming. As a matter of fact, my

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Roman, Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier; https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST should be https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI Niclas On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: Roman, Under the JIRA section, I made a mistake earlier; https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/ZEST should be https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/QI Fixed! As a side note: I really need to figure out how to make sure

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Who ever said the Incubator has the exclusive Right to be the only way to become part of the Apache Software Foundation? New approaches can be discussed anywhere. At the end of the day, it will be the Board who votes on a

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Hi, On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: ...2: 'let's go over to comdev and volunteer to build some documentation for an alternative launch mechanism'. This experiments with expanding comdev in the direction The momentary impulse is (2). You might

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Hi, I missed a few important points in this thread last week, with which I disagree: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ...1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to involve board@ when you have your first draft done

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

experiment On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ... Totally agreed! Who can help me learning the ropes on how ComDev documentation is maintained, etc? Maybe ask on dev@community rather than general@ ?? :-P

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment. To that end, here's what's going to happen shortly: #1 a couple of new projects that feel equally enthusiastic about trying

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

in the air, I'd say 6 and 12 months, rather than your 3/6. Cheers, -g On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Hi! as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment. To that end, here's what's going

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: There are a few things that I would suggest for next steps: 1) Draft a template resolution. Starting in the wiki is fine, but you'll want to

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment So that I can decide to agree or flame (*), do you have a definition of the pTLP experiment with a permanent URL

Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...as I mentioned in a different thread, I feel really passionate about championing the pTLP experiment So that I can decide to agree

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

to identify (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. Anyhoo this experiment (the 2 that have volunteered so far) would have my board VOTE - prepare a resolution and send it to the board agenda and let's see what happens.. Cheers, Chris

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: ...Given that I'll be mentoring Zeppelin, I'd love to use that as a guinea pig. Provided, that I'd have some level of collaboration from the board I don't have a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

a clear idea of what the suggested experiment means, it looks like that info is scattered around several threads that I have lost track of. A brief definition on a wiki page would help make sure everybody has the same view of what you are suggesting. Yep, I was going to ask for that also. While I

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

via Github, or whether PMC chairs are special. Nevertheless, +1 to move forward with the pTLP experiment (whatever that means). Odds are that any given pTLP will work out OK, especially if they land one of our better Mentors. But when one messes up, maybe we'll get a clarifying post-mortem

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the mentors + the board will both

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

++ -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 8:03 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

. org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Running an experiment with pTLP I plan to: 1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't expect IRB approval without it. 2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details to worry over. Any suggestions

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

an experiment with pTLP I plan to: 1. Ask the nifi community if they want to be experimental subjects. Can't expect IRB approval without it. 2. Write a proposal for the board to read. There are a number of details to worry over. Any suggestions about where to put it? There in no board wiki. Is there? 3

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

++ -Original Message- From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Running an experiment

RE: Running an experiment with pTLP

I don't want to fan flames or point fingers, but at the same time I need to say this. Please read it as being intended to be constructive... This whole pTLP thing is not new. We conducted an experiment like the one proposed below some time ago. The outcome of that experiment was supposed

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

+1 to everything Ross said below and I monitored that experiment as well but was unaware of the 3 incidents, etc. As for pTLPs and shifting mentorship, etc., I trust Ross’s judgement but think we need more data on this across a number of projects before we know definitively what’s the cause

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote: +1 to everything Ross said below and I monitored that experiment as well but was unaware of the 3 incidents, etc. As for pTLPs and shifting mentorship, etc., I trust Ross’s judgement but think we

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If NiFi wants to try this, I'm still happy to write the 'simple' proposal to the board, and wait upon the board's desires. If the board members in this thread feel that writing the simple proposal is a waste of time

Running an experiment with pTLP

Please note the change of subject. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Please note the change of subject. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com wrote: On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: What it would do however if we simply did away with the

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

Benson, Speaking from within the nifi ppmc I'd be happy to try this. Most of us in the nifi ppmc (excluding the mentors) are quite new to Apache so we're either perfect because we lack any of the biases or terrible because we're too ignorant to the good and bad. But I for one would be happy to

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

As part of the Zeppelin community I would be interested in giving this experiment a try. As Benson mention in prev. thread - having 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting to the board or not) sounds as a great way to learn how to run Apache project to me. -- Kind regards

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote: Might be seen as grossly unfair by the project that remain in the old regime There's no structure like no structure! Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe,

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. Anyhoo this experiment (the 2 that have volunteered so far) would have my board VOTE - prepare

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: ...We've done all that with comparatively few emails: at 466 messages... I'm having a hard time deciding if doing this in 466

[VOTE][RESULT] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment. The VOTE passes with the following binding votes: +1 Dave Brondsema +1 Chip Childers +1

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment. The VOTE passes

Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

I guess Marvin can't count to the fourth Dave. I also voted +1. Between Ant's and Chip's votes. On Dec 20, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

+1, good job. On 13 Dec 2013, at 21:59, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

[X ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing a release checklist. For participating podlings, the Incubator's release management guide... http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html ... would

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

[X] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. I kinda feel it doesn't need the Policy change and at this point it should be the 2014 ... but hey - still a positive vote. Regards, Dave On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

On Friday, December 13, 2013, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Please vote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment. +1

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

Marvin Humphrey wrote: Please vote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment. Here is my +1 -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

+1 On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

+1 On 12/13/13 3:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing a release

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

On 13/12/13 21:59, Marvin Humphrey wrote: Please vote: [ ] +1 Yes, apply the patch enabling the experiment. [ ] -1 No, do not apply the patch enabling the experiment. +1 -- Sergio Fernández Senior Researcher Knowledge and Media Technologies Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Jakob

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing a release checklist. For participating podlings, the Incubator's release management guide... http

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing a release

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing

[VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC members of select podlings to earn binding votes under limited circumstances by completing a release checklist. For participating podlings

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

+1 From: Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 12:59 PM Subject: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts

Re: [VOTE] Enable Release Checklist Experiment

So it begins =) +1 Thanks for leading the effort, Marvin - Henry On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: Greetings, As the next step in our ongoing efforts to reform the release voting process, I propose that we run an experiment allowing the PPMC

Re: [PROPOSAL] Experiment: VXQuery PPMC Release Voting

Hi, Apologies for returning to this after one week, but I have been on vacation. I am not against this experiment in general, especially after Bertrand's later clarification. I am against the experiment in VXQuery's case because Till has already been made an IPMC member under the prior

Re: [PROPOSAL] Experiment: VXQuery PPMC Release Voting

I'm in favour of trying this. And its just experiment remember so not a change for ever for all podlings so please people try to support it or at least not try to block it. ...ant On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: The possibility of an experiment

[PROPOSAL] Experiment: VXQuery PPMC Release Voting

The possibility of an experiment with making PPMC votes binding on incubating releases under some conditions has been discussed at length in recent threads on general@incubator. I propose that we vote on the following language to run the experiment with VXQuery as a test podling

Re: [PROPOSAL] Experiment: VXQuery PPMC Release Voting

So we vote to make Till an IPMC member and then we have a proposal to allow VXQuery to have a non-Apache Member cast the only IPMC binding VOTE on a release. Sorry, but that is one step too many. Here is my proposal - see if invoking the old experiment (making a pdling PPMC member into an IPMC

Re: [PROPOSAL] Experiment: VXQuery PPMC Release Voting

]? Here is my proposal - see if invoking the old experiment (making a pdling PPMC member into an IPMC member) has the expected and proven effect. Good plan. That's what we tried first. It was a dud[2]. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://s.apache.org/0HG [2] http://s.apache.org/D38

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment) Hi Joe, Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Craig On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Cmon Craig. Subversion is a 10-year old community. Making major changes in basic

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote: identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix ActiveMQ were the first I

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote: I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Niclas Hedhman wrote: Greg Stein wrote: Craig L Russell wrote: I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community. The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and provided

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: ... No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across projects even if it is parentheticals (whatever that means). As far as I'm concerned, the participants are Committers.  There is no need to

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:03, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: ... This seems really simple to me. If I move from Korea to the United States I'd better start learning to speak English if I want to interact with the population at large. If I just want to stay within my little

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: ... The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community. ... No way would the

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote: As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the report, the svn community also learns what the formal names are here at the ASF. They can see the translation. So yeah. I'm doing exactly what you're asking: educating the

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

- Original Message From: Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 2:38:48 PM Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment) On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote: As I said in my

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Greg Stein wrote: Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them only commit in your designated area. We haven't ever had a problem with that approach. Even better. :-) Relies on human respect. Even better: if the committer gets a +1 on a patch from somebody with full access,

RE: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

Joe Schaefer wrote: I'm perfectly comfortable letting the board provide feedback to Greg about its expectations for future Subversion reports, and see no need for anyone else to insert their opinions on the subject in any more than a limited and advisory basis. I'm still trying to figure out

Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:56, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote: Greg Stein wrote: Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them only commit in your designated area. We haven't ever had a problem with that approach. Even better.  :-)  Relies on human respect. Even better:

  1   2   3   >