Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Note on gradle-wrapper.jar, > For source releases, we expect the project to be buildable by the user. The > Gradle wrapper is the easiest way to make that happen. It (together with > the gradlew and gradlew.bat scripts)

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > Note on gradle-wrapper.jar, > Agreed, and this is mostly my argument as well. However, in *nix the JAR > will get downloaded

Weex release needs votes, vetting, ++

The third RC is placed before the Incubator and hoping to get through the door. Any takers? Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

Sorry but -1 due to misnamed package and binary content. - No "incubating" / "incubator" in package name - JAR files are present in the source release (gradle-wrapper.jar) - Ideally the expanded package would include "apache" in the folder, not a big deal. - DISCLAIMER present Your NOTICE seems

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

Note on gradle-wrapper.jar, For source releases, we expect the project to be buildable by the user. The Gradle wrapper is the easiest way to make that happen. It (together with the gradlew and gradlew.bat scripts) ensures that that the build will be the same, and not suffer from different Gradle

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

Saturday, April 22, 2017, 12:41:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Note on gradle-wrapper.jar, > For source releases, we expect the project to be buildable by the user. The > Gradle wrapper is the easiest way to make that happen. It (together with > the gradlew and gradlew.bat scripts) ensures that

Incubator Governance Change

Probably the wrong place for this but… What do people think about a governance change for approving releases through the IPMC to wit: A week of no vote activity over the release proposal of a podling should be considered a passing vote. In other words the IPMC is to become a vetoing group. I

Re: Incubator Governance Change

That works if human nature is not involved and would still produce the same affect so I’d second your request in any case. However human nature is involved and my proposal would at least guarantee that human nature could not hold innocent projects hostage. BTW notice the include vote request,

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Incorrect. These people I'm talking about are already voting on (their own) releases, we just fail to count their votes as binding because we are anally retentitive about our own status. On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:41 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > Growing the IPMC is of no use if the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

There have been no binding votes, thanks. On Apr 22, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: How many binding votes do you need at this point? On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM Pat Ferrel wrote: > +1 non-binding > > Next release we could exclude the

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Growing the IPMC is of no use if the members don’t show up and vote. The IPMC performs an important gatekeeper role, ensuring that podling releases are of sufficient quality to bear the “Apache (Incubating)” stamp. In my view, all IPMC members have a duty to help with that gatekeeping role. If

Re: Incubator Governance Change

While I agree, asking is not enforcing. This would add enforcement that would allow the IPMC to function but have an enforceable clause that also does not allow it to roadblock by neglect. Plus about 1/2 the reason I bring this up is trying to get more votes on PredictionIO :-) On Apr 22,

Re: Weex release needs votes, vetting, ++

How many binding votes do you lack? On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:40 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > The third RC is placed before the Incubator and hoping to get through the > door. > > Any takers? > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

How many binding votes do you need at this point? On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:34 PM Pat Ferrel wrote: > +1 non-binding > > Next release we could exclude the doc site. Do build files like .sbt > require licenses? I suppose it can be done in comments. But again can we > push

Re: Incubator Governance Change

I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering the bar to making a release is the solution. I wish that each IPMC member would personally commit to voting on two release candidates per year. There are so many members of the IPMC that this would easily cover all of

Re: Incubator Governance Change

The traditional response to this issue is to grow the ipmc to incorporate more podling committers. On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering > the bar to making a release is the solution. > >

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release policy. That said, talk to your project mentors about nominating competent release managers and others participating constructively in the vetting process at the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

I would feel ok voting positively once these are fixed in master. On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Donald Szeto wrote: > Hi Luciano, > > Thanks for your review. I will file JIRAs regarding these files. They are > project build files and documentation. > > Regards, > Donald >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

But is it worth doing yet another podling RC and release vote? If it is, please vote -1, at least we won’t be left waiting and we thank you for being the one who took a look either way. We are just trying to move, out if possible or iterate if not. These issues have not changed from the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote: > But is it worth doing yet another podling RC and release vote? > > If it is, please vote -1, at least we won’t be left waiting and we thank > you for being the one who took a look either way. > > We are just trying to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

In general, the preference is to report the non-blocking issue, and confirm the podling has it entered into their bug tracker. Then they accept the +1. We don't generally wait for a code change to be made, but would block the next release if these issues are not addressed. I personally want to

Re: Incubator Governance Change

Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who have voted on Mahout releases in the past and be specific about what you would like them do and provide links to artifacts and discussions to make the job

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC > members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with members who > have voted on Mahout releases in the past and be specific about what you

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > I agree that lack of IPMC votes is a problem. I don’t think that lowering the > bar to making a release is the solution. +1 to that. > I wish that each IPMC member would personally commit to voting on two release >

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 5:14 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > >> Another solution is to do back door politicking where you contact IPMC >> members individually and ask them to take a look. Start with

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

I was just trying to get something moving. Glad to see it. +1 (binding) > On Apr 22, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > Sure, I am ok having this become blocker if its still an issue on the next > release. > > Here is my +1 the . > >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

John, thanks for pointing me to the issue. I argue against Marvin on it, based on "this is a tool" that is made conveniently available for those who are not paranoid. NOTICE; Ok, let's rename the file. NOTICES-POSSIBLY-NEEDED-FOR-BINARY-DISTRIBUTION Ok? On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John D.

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: > >> >> I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the >> lines >> of what a board would do to a TLP if its

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > I don't > think releasing something out of ASF that hasn't had at least 3 binding votes > would be advisable. AFAIK, projects "publish" to https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache as part

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

I will too, and then you will have two binding votes in the affirmative. > On Apr 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Pat Ferrel wrote: >> >> But is it worth doing yet another podling RC and

Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC2

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:57 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:25 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:41 AM Niclas Hedhman > wrote: > > > > > Note on gradle-wrapper.jar, > > > Agreed, and

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Your proposal violates foundation policy on releases and is therefore a > nonstarter. The ipmc isn't empowered to restructure release policy. > Specifically, the problem Joe is pointing out is that three actual PMC

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.11.0 (incubating) RC2

Sure, I am ok having this become blocker if its still an issue on the next release. Here is my +1 the . On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM John D. Ament wrote: > In general, the preference is to report the non-blocking issue, and confirm > the podling has it entered into

Re: Incubator Governance Change

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > I'm starting to wonder whether the real solution here should be along the > lines > of what a board would do to a TLP if its active PMC shrinks to less > than 3 people. That will inevitable lead to definition of