Re: Incubator release votes
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 07:43, David P Grove wrote: > > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only > mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC > votes to be able to proceed. > > Please help > As of sometime over the past day or so, I've volunteered to mentor here. I'm still catching up through tons of email, though I'll be catching up on these reviews and votes as well. -- Matt Sicker - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator release votes
Craig, replies inline, > Apologies if these comments cross other discussions. It's hard to keep > track of all the threads that have forked from the original discussion. I'm struggling to keep up too :-/ > This is really sad, because in most of these cases the mentors have not > voted. And so it fell to the rest of the IPMC members to pay attention > enough to take time to vote. > > And recently, three cheers for Justin who has become very active in > looking at podling releases and voting. More below. >From experience, the role that Justin (and others that "interfere") take is >invaluable to the survival of the Incubator. And ultimately, in the longer >term, the foundation. I can also imagine that there are numerous problems and complaints made about the Incubator, just like there are bug tickets on each TLP. What I raised was but one, but one that was in need of an immediate voice. I don't presume that such problems are without their complications and require 'balancing', and I hope can be read in what I wrote to the board. > > 1) The Incubator's mission should be as a "facilitator". That is being a > > service provider for podlings to enter the Apache community, rather than a > > stern gatekeeper. The Incubator's website especially needs an update to > > better illustrate this spirit and goal. > > Patches welcome. Seriously though, there is very much material and a > very small bit that may seem to be contradictory. I'd suggest that when > you stumble across a confusing part, document it in an email and have a > discussion. There is a lot! And it *is* continuously improving. The organisation of it, and some knowledge about age and relevancy, especially pages under incubator.apache.org, could be improved. Even with mentoring two podlings I struggle to have (or link to) the tribal knowledge that others demonstrate. Reading some of Roy's post on the board thread only makes one feel more lost. The input of the Incubator's elders, people like Justin, are crucial here. I also think additional tooling, like those below, makes a really big difference to the motivation and enjoyment of a podlings journey: - https://incubator.apache.org/clutch/ - https://github.com/openzipkin-contrib/apache-release-verification > > > > 3) We need to relax IPMC's input on release voting… > > -- Letting the first release be dealt with only by the PPMC and mentors. > > Putting a release on Apache infrastructure has legal implications. In > order to protect individuals from legal issues, Apache requires a > release vote by the PMC (in this case, the IPMC) that passes with a > minimum of three +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval > > So when someone votes -1, that vote does not block the release. So if > all three mentors vote +1, it takes three -1 votes before any > additional voting is needed. This has been raised before. While this is technically true, and using it is itself a demonstration of the ASF rules, I don't think a cold demonstration of such is so wise against a podling's first release attempt. Many podlings will be fine, but some (particularly of different cultures/languages) will take offence before understanding. This is an example of something that can wait til a latter release. It should be easy enough to provide a softer feedback on a podling's first release. Remember these are established communities and the IPMC should, IMHO, first engage with them as strangers with no trust associated to them. I guess this also comes back to being more service-minded to the podlings. > > -- Understanding a minimal criteria every podling release must meet, and > > the broader criteria that TLP releases need to meet. And podlings only need > > to demonstrate in releases closer to graduation. > > The reason the podling releases come with a DISCLAIMER (emphasis mine) > is that perfection is not expected from podling releases. But it is > expected that before graduating, podlings are able to make releases > that are fully compliant with Apache guidelines for releases. I do hope this becomes a new agreement and a new habit in the incubator. thanks for the reply Craig, regards, Mick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator release votes
> On the one side we have lengthy discussions about non-mentors from > resisting to interfere, but on the other hand podlings are begging for > such "interference". > Guess there are always two sides of the discussion. I politely disagree with you Chris. What I raised was that cold interference can be damaging to some podlings during their first release attempt. For the IPMC to endorse diversity and make the Incubator a safe and inclusive space it needs to accept that every podling community is different. Many communities will be perfectly fine with some armchair quarterbacking, appreciating the knowledge that's ultimately being shared and offered. Other communities will find it quickly overwhelming, unwelcoming and de-motivating. I do not think there's two sides to this discussion, but rather an opportunity for us to assume and accept such differences. Zipkin, like all podlings, will seek the input of the elders of the Incubator. But let them stub their toe a few times first, by themselves. regards, Mick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator release votes
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 20:01, Ted Dunning wrote: > > Kevin, > > Can you explain what checking you did to justify your vote? > > This is important so that others can know what has already been done. IMO the +1 ought to be added to the vote thread, not here. > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:02 AM Kevin A. McGrail > wrote: > > > On 2/26/2019 8:20 AM, David P Grove wrote: > > > > > > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our > > only > > > mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC > > > votes to be able to proceed. > > > > > > Please help > > > > > > > Sorry, I was not aware of that issue. I'm monitoring for the podlings I > > help with but not as much with general@ > > > > I vote +1. > > > > -- > > Kevin A. McGrail > > Member, Apache Software Foundation > > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator release votes
Kevin, Can you explain what checking you did to justify your vote? This is important so that others can know what has already been done. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 8:02 AM Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > On 2/26/2019 8:20 AM, David P Grove wrote: > > > > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our > only > > mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC > > votes to be able to proceed. > > > > Please help > > > > Sorry, I was not aware of that issue. I'm monitoring for the podlings I > help with but not as much with general@ > > I vote +1. > > -- > Kevin A. McGrail > Member, Apache Software Foundation > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: Incubator release votes
On 2/26/2019 8:20 AM, David P Grove wrote: > > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only > mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC > votes to be able to proceed. > > Please help > Sorry, I was not aware of that issue. I'm monitoring for the podlings I help with but not as much with general@ I vote +1. -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Incubator release votes
Hmmm ... this is really odd ... On the one side we have lengthy discussions about non-mentors from resisting to interfere, but on the other hand podlings are begging for such "interference". Guess there are always two sides of the discussion. And I have to admit that for a short time I was hesitating, if I should check the Daffodil release as doing it would have been exactly what others were complaining about. I decided to do it nevertheless ... I could imagine that the heat and discussions recently could definitely make others hesitate to do so in the future and the problem of not being able to release could increase as a result of this. Chris Am 26.02.19, 14:43 schrieb "David P Grove" : Craig Russell wrote on 02/25/2019 09:15:56 PM: > > To me, the biggest issue with incubating releases has been lack of > engagement by mentors for release voting. Many examples from history > have podlings begging for someone, anyone, to review a release that > has already received review in the podling dev list but has failed > to attract three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members. > > This is really sad, because in most of these cases the mentors have > not voted. And so it fell to the rest of the IPMC members to pay > attention enough to take time to vote. > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC votes to be able to proceed. Please help --dave [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be62f7d373bef9a6729f62faf672ae39951159a0ed2ecc9e196cfb96@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Re: Incubator release votes
Hi Dave I offered my helps at your thread. Sorry you wait such long time. -- Sheng Wu Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin Twitter, wusheng1108 -- Original -- From: "David P Grove"; Date: Tue, Feb 26, 2019 09:20 PM To: "general"; Subject: Re: Incubator release votes Craig Russell wrote on 02/25/2019 09:15:56 PM: > > To me, the biggest issue with incubating releases has been lack of > engagement by mentors for release voting. Many examples from history > have podlings begging for someone, anyone, to review a release that > has already received review in the podling dev list but has failed > to attract three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members. > > This is really sad, because in most of these cases the mentors have > not voted. And so it fell to the rest of the IPMC members to pay > attention enough to take time to vote. > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC votes to be able to proceed. Please help --dave [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be62f7d373bef9a6729f62faf672ae39951159a0ed2ecc9e196cfb96@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
Re: Incubator release votes
Craig Russell wrote on 02/25/2019 09:15:56 PM: > > To me, the biggest issue with incubating releases has been lack of > engagement by mentors for release voting. Many examples from history > have podlings begging for someone, anyone, to review a release that > has already received review in the podling dev list but has failed > to attract three +1 votes from Incubator PMC members. > > This is really sad, because in most of these cases the mentors have > not voted. And so it fell to the rest of the IPMC members to pay > attention enough to take time to vote. > Or in the case of the current OpenWhisk podling voting thread [1], our only mentor has already voted +1, but after a week we still need two more IPMC votes to be able to proceed. Please help --dave [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/be62f7d373bef9a6729f62faf672ae39951159a0ed2ecc9e196cfb96@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
