It's a requirement for the ASF to support its projects. Understanding what
impact each project coming into the incubator might have is important to allow
VP Infra to plan for our growth. David did not ask if Manchester will be
donating resources, he asked what do they currently provide and what
questions to projects and I don't see this question of
infrastructure asked very often. So I raised it.
David of course is doing great and I just saw some of this as can be worked out
during incubation
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH
Trying to build on Joes answer below
Given that the ASF is about consensus the vote for.at should be mostly
irrelevant. Nominations should have been thoroughly discussed before the vote
is called. The vote should be a formality required by the bylaws to demonstrate
consensus.
What I mean
It really depends on the project. I don't think there are enough cases of code
coming into an existing project via SGA to be able to say most projects. Fact
is most have never faced this issue. I could give you my personal opinion but
I'm pretty sure someone on this list would have a different
mentors mentioned that he was given
committer rights to different project for bringing in a code base after that
project got started. Most of the Flex PMC seems to agree, but I was looking
for data from other projects to support this.
-Alex
On 9/26/14 9:00 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard
+1, lets not second guess the intention of a third party project. Lets simply
ensure *our* projects do what is required.
If anyone here is concerned about the third party being unaware of the results
of their distribution practices then that part of this discussion should move
to the third
Excellent. More eyes on these issues is great. Thanks for spending your time on
this.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Ted Dunningmailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com
Sent: 10/11/2014 1:34 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject:
Regardless of whether you can/can't do this (others are commentating, I won't
add to that) - wouldn't it be easier to just build a release and call a vote.
My guess is that you spent more than three days from identification of the
problem to distribution and discussion here. Remember, if you
the problem in
time. So I am looking for reasons why we can/can’t update a binary package in
less time than the whole vote + mirrors latency.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 10/20/14, 9:09 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Regardless of whether you can/can't do this (others
Ripple is struggling to build community and recently discussed whether it ought
to retire or not. One member of the community has stepped forwards to ensure
essential management of the project is in place, but even they have
acknowledged that it is entirely possible that the code is no longer
in -- much appreciated!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Ripple is struggling to build community and recently discussed whether it
ought to retire or not.
One member of the community has stepped forwards to ensure essential
due
diligence has been done on entry into the incubator).
Thanks for the input on the current status of the IP review. It is great that
it seems it's pretty much complete. Lets finish the job and get a release out.
Ross
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 10
Potential trademark clash: http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/ubuntu-kylin
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Luke Hanmailto:luke...@gmail.com
Sent: 11/14/2014 7:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Kylin for
noticed this from the beginning, below is the comments from our
Legal team:
We’ve done a preliminary trademark search for Kylin in the US, and there
weren’t any directly conflicting brands.
I think it should be ok to use:)
Thanks.
Luke
2014-11-14 23:47 GMT+08:00 Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH
We already evaluated the Bitergia offering - it is expensive and does not
provide sufficient benefit for the money (don't get me started on how metrics
are not a good evaluator of open source code...)
I fully agree with the comments below.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: jan i
Note - I should say my comment below is in the context of a not-for-profit
software foundation using their services. People in different use cases should
look at their specific circumstances - obviously :-D
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:ross.gard
When a podling joins the incubator it reports monthly for the first three
months. When this period ends they go to quarterly. Hence the month of entry
determines the report group.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Greg Steinmailto:gst...@gmail.com
Sent:
I'd like it to remain pink please.
(look up bikeshedding on Wikipedia if this makes no sense)
Trying to be more constrictive...
Proposal docs are useful. The wiki is a convenient place to find them after the
fact (something I find necessary at least once a month for at least one
podling).
of the proof of concept will be negative?
Cheers,
On 21/11/14 21:27, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
We already evaluated the Bitergia offering - it is expensive and does
not provide sufficient benefit for the money (don't get me started on
how metrics are not a good evaluator of open
Once a podling graduates it reports to the board as a TLP not the IPMC -
effective as soon as the resolution is approved by the board.
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Kasper Sørensen
Wow - thanks for your diligence Bertrand. I support this -1 unless Bertrand
made a mistake.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:02 AM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Recommend retirement for
Mentors should raise the issue with the podling. If the mentors are absent then
maybe the problem doesn't lie with the podling but with our handling of it.
A VOTE should be a formality used on the few occasions where our bye-laws
require them. It certainly should not, IMHO, be a stick to wave
...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:01 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Recommend retirement for NPanday poddling
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote
See my overlapping mail. I don’t think anyone is questioning your
recommendation. Just that an explicit statement to the community is necessary.
In my experience this sometimes makes things happen - when it does it usually
starts with really? I didn't realize it was that bad. How can I help
To
Marko,
I note that you currently do not have a champion and that you have listed IBM
as the sponsor, with two individuals names who (to the best of my knowledge)
are not ASF committers. I suggest these are the first things you need to
address in your proposal. Find a champion who can help you
Strawman:
What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project. That
is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with the
community, they would be a better mentor since they have a vested interest in
the project itself. Sure, we might reduce the number
seem to go away too IMO.
My 2c.
Cheers,
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) ross.gard...@microsoft.com
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Date: Friday, December 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general
I always thought this was the case, so +1. That being said, there does not
(should not?) need to be a special process - this is open source anyone can get
involved by just by showing up and helping. If the individual wants to be
involved in the project then the title mentor isn't (shouldn't
. Please let me know what do you think.
And now to comment on Ross's proposal. The only one that addressed
my original issue of lack of clear RR understanding (which I think
everybody else, with an exception of folks bringing up #1 is avoiding):
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
/19/2014 02:00 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
Strawman:
What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project.
That is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with the
community, they would be a better mentor since they have a vested interest
In Apache there is no such thing as a Project Leader
The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else.
The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only
the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the
request of the
+1 well said.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Benson Marguliesmailto:bimargul...@gmail.com
Sent: 12/29/2014 6:25 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
I'd like to look at this through a
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 to be
John,
Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is actually a
case where things have gone as they would expect.
The mail you link to is from me. I had previously made the IPMC aware of the
issue prior to that email on the mailing list. I was asked if I was undertaking
) but more that a simple checkbox doesn't mean
everything's great.
John
On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 10:59:33 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
John,
Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is
actually a case where things have gone as they would
Inviting those people to become members is a good idea (and in fact was agreed
a long time ago when we brought the first non-members into the IPMC). I think
we have a number of members now who started out as IPMC members. It is clear
(at least to me) that anyone who proves themselves to be a
The problem I am concerned with is the lack of mentoring support in a small
number of projects and the fact the IPMC doesn't handle those situations well.
Other than that I agree with Marvin - the IPMC usually does a fantastic job
Sent from my Windows Phone
It's an *option* not the only route. Working for some but not others is just
fine.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:23 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Chris Mattmann; Jim Jagielski
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
I
A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are not.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Alex Haruimailto:aha...@adobe.com
Sent: 1/23/2015 12:06 PM
To:
, 2015 2:34 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: my pTLP view
On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com'); wrote:
A good mentor is a guide, not a manager.
The proposals might seem top down
, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
All that being said, while I will (and already did two years ago)
support some experimentation with the pTLP model I still feel that an
Incubator with teeth scales better.
But we wouldn't know until we try
What does it mean to didn't sign-off does it mean they refused to sign-off or
that they simply didn't tick a box? Does it mean they didn't even read the
report or that they didn't tick a box?
I've said it before, I see no value in having a naughty list like this. What
I care about (with my
. Cabreramailto:l...@toolazydogs.com
Sent: 1/14/2015 11:38 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015
On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
What does it mean
My strawman, which included a board like IPMC, certainly wasn't about shutting
out inconvenient IPMC members, that is simply a ridiculous a d insulting
suggestion (if it wasn't intended in that way then fine, but it sure sounds
like it).
My strawman was partly about consensus, but mostly about
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their
ICLA. In other words if someone feels it does not contain significant IP then
they can commit.
Paperwork is a barrier to entry which is simply not necessary for trivial
contributions.
Sent from my Windows Phone
It's not for the IPMC to decide commons policy. If they feel another mailing
list is not appropriate that is their call.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent: 1/20/2015 8:07 AM
To:
I hear what Stian is saying about the noise in Commons. If the team feel its
not going to work for them then the incubator might be the right route.
IMHO there is no reason why you couldn't be sponsored by the commons PMC.
You would still need the IPMC to clear releases but that means three
20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote:
On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so
under
their ICLA.
Really? That can't be right: one can't become the author of a change
(and therefore
The Ripple community asked for a stay of execution before being moved to the
attic, as was recommended by some. This was granted in November 2014 with a
review in six months.
No board report was submitted this month and no action has been taken with
respect to the concerns I raised about
We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's a
red herring and therefore a distraction.
We should be focusing on identifying and assisting podlings that are not in
receipt of adequate and appropriate mentoring.
There is nothing else of importance.
Microsoft
(mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's
a red herring and therefore a distraction.
We should be focusing on identifying and assisting
The archive is the mailing list archives and issue trackers.
If an authoritative answer is required then we have VPs who are empowered to
make operational decisions relating to policy and a Board empowered to make
community decisions (and oversee the operational side). As you say, we try not
16, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Or we could just do it
We debated plenty. Three proposals came out of it (two if you look at mine as
the strawman it was intended to be).
Those proposals are not mutually exclusive.
I say record them
That's already in progress as part of this year's budget planning :-)
Of course this is distinct from policy. For example: Should the policy say
projects are limited to items on the infra core services list?
Ross
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Shane
Thank you for volunteering to wikify my proposal - I appreciate it.
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Please go ahead - apologies for not doing it myself I have access problems on
the incubator wiki.
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:22 AM
To:
proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
The board do take on such an active task.
As someone who has been subscribed to board@apache for a long time and has
attended many monthly Board meetings
The board do take on such an active task.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent: 1/21/2015 11:08 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor
As an IPMC member I have objected to this part of the report.
As a Director I have already commented on the report that this practice is
inappropriate. I will ask for that section to be struck from the minutes, we'll
see if other directors agree.
My comment on the report is:
rg: I've already
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?
This seems to get me the IPMC members, not the PPMC members of podlings. Am I
misinterpreting the page?
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote
proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
In the thread Incubator report sign-off I posted a mail at Mon 1/5/2015
4:34 PM, it has the following content (edited for brevity here)
Acknowledged. I apologize
+1 (and on a personal note, thank you for making possible to, once again, avoid
throwing my own hat into the ring).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]
It doesn't need to be in the public report.
I agree the shepherd model doesn't work here but I still maintain that doesn't
mean it can't work.
Accountability, responsibility and reward are what I believe are needed. I've
made my suggestions as to how to provide all three
Sent from my Windows
pTLP view
On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
As ASF member *should* know that empowering the ones doing the work is
the Apache Way. A good member who is a mentor will ensure that they
unblock anything that prevents those doing the work
What makes you think the PPMC today had more influence than the contributors to
a pushing?
Votes have been mentioned, but votes remain the same. Despite what people on
this thread are saying PPMC members do not have a binding vote. That does not
change.
Besides, the whole thing is moot
Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 1:52 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those
of feedback from the board, I'll do this one
and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete.
Couldn't agree more. But! The whole point is to try our
, I'll do this one
and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?).
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete.
Couldn't agree more. But! The whole point is to try our best to get
, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those
reviews, the IPMC is.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) [mailto:chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent
So I link to a document and say it contains the list of immutable items,
acknowledge it is merely a signpost, and request contributions.
Your response that's not good enough, h
Marvin you undertook to do the release requirements doc. You did huge amounts
of work on it. All that is
+1, I'll repeat one a little my previous mail and say patches welcome (as
long as they keep the document simple - remember, it's a signpost document not
a discussion or detail document - the discussion/detail documents should be
linked from this one).
Good suggestion.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Jim Jagielskimailto:j...@jagunet.com
Sent: 1/13/2015 9:33 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
Perhaps it is time we hired a contractor
Even better suggestion. Do you want to take it up with Sally directly? (and big
thanks in advance)
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Jim Jagielskimailto:j...@jagunet.com
Sent: 1/13/2015 9:33 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
up and offering to try to heard the sheep on this
one.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:37 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Can you please expand on I think the answer starts with the very
skepticism of top-down governance which has in large part kept us from
having clear rules up till now.
I'm not clear on what the skepticism
Well, David, I'm afraid you are the authoritative source on the policy you use
as an example. If it's not documented and that's a problem then it's *your*
problem. You could (given even more time to volunteer to the ASF, solve it
however you like (e.g. Write the doc, ask the community to write
But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those reviews,
the IPMC is.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) [mailto:chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 9:31 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report
+1
All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to
ask for support and gets that support when they need it.
Ross
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
-Original Message-
From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@apache.org]
Sent:
pTLP adds a great deal of overhead to the board unless there is a review
process somewhere else. I've posted on this before so will not repeat here
beyond summarizing as moving responsibility for the problem does not fix the
problem.
I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either.
Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for us to see
how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If there are not enough
we will sometimes put the project on an informal watch list (as well as
ensuring appropriate people from the PMC go on the members watch
8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
+1
All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to
ask for support and gets that support when they need it.
Following that statement to a logical conclusion, all podlings
WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every ApacheCon for
about 15 years (twice in most years). I personally give 5-10 such presentations
a year (sometimes public sometimes not). I'm sure many others here do the same.
The Apache Way is really simple. There are very few
, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for
us to see how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If
there are not enough we will sometimes put the project on an informal
watch list (as well
, January 8, 2015 9:25 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every
ApacheCon for about 15 years (twice
, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
top down rules you describe below - as you seem to be implying that
should not exist in the Apache Way apart from a few immutable areas and
I agree.
But what are the few immutable areas? Why isn’t there a link to a page that
lists them
It's process vs. culture. We shouldn't get hung up on process.
Our bylaws (as a foundation) dictate that the board set the formal policies.
This is pretty much a requirement of the way we have to be structured to get
501c(3) status. Someone needs to be accountable. So, yes, the board votes on
[mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 11:19 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is The Apache Way?
On 1/8/15, 10:49 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
top down rules you describe below - as you seem to be implying that
should
My only concern is confusion over pTLP and incubator. That's a manageable
concern but this lost is so large I fear it might keep recurring.
Just a word of caution, not an objection.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: jan imailto:j...@apache.org
Sent: 3/22/2015
1. CCLA is never used instead of an SGA, they serve different purposes. The SGA
is for a body of work that pre-exists entry into the foundation. The CCLA is an
optional document that says future work by named individuals can be contributed.
2. Yes (although secretary tries his best to CC the
Don't worry Christian. Same thing for me last month, and someone else the month
before.
Signing the report is not a replacement for actually being involved. Sounds
like you are doing a great job.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Christian
+1
See C030 on our project maturity model
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
And some commentary on committer = someone who is committed rather than someone
who commits code https://community.apache.org/contributors/
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A
Member I would never be
able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP.
We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current
IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard
How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide?
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: John D. Amentmailto:johndam...@apache.org
Sent: 3/2/2015 6:56 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand
Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members.
What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even
in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent
representatives that act in collusion.
3 independents was a useful
see that three
votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't
matter.
On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for
appropriate projects. The problem you
+1
either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose
these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent
different things.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Niclas Hedhmanmailto:nic...@hedhman.org
Sent:
The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Roman Shaposhnikmailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org
Sent: 2/23/2015 3:46 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.orgmailto:general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Practical next steps
Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from
the handover process.
I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100%
orthogonal to
the process that Incubator is in business of managing
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: 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
, 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.
-
To unsubscribe
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
