On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
> committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
> conjunction with PPMC membership):
>
> Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to
+1
On Oct 3, 2011 9:26 PM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote:
> I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
> committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
> conjunction with PPMC membership):
>
> Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the
I had a few comments (I previously sent to another list) about PPMC vs.
committer sets (i.e. either offering commit separately, or only in
conjunction with PPMC membership):
Note that making the distinction (or not) is strictly up to the project.
There are plenty of Apache projects on each si
That makes sense to me to.
Dave.
On 02/10/11 18:08, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
+1
Marcus
Am 10/02/2011 01:06 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committe
+1
Marcus
Am 10/02/2011 01:06 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
would still not hav
On 09/29/2011 09:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are
invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some
decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up
at the PPMC, e
+1 (using up my quota on this thread for 2011-10-01)
-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 16:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we
would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the
status quo of
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 7:15 PM, "Rob Weir" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
> >> know
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
>> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
>> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against
ator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
> others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
>
On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a
> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would
> still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo
> of not having such a policy.
You appear to
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
>> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
>
> I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC, but
> has not made a similar recommendation for TDF/LO.
Because there is no such thing as a PCM. The Engine
On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:47, Rob Weir wrote:
> I agree let's not make it adversarial. But I would be interested to
> know why Simon speaks up in favor of us have a congress-sized PMC,
I said nothing of the kind, please stop putting words in my mouth. I simply
asked why you felt the need for chang
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
> others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
> are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
> "them" argument
May I observe that this thread should be about what is right for AOOo. What
others do and whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant here unless we
are using it to inform our decision. Lets not have yet another "us" and
"them" argument.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevi
On 30 Sep 2011, at 18:28, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>>> you recommending to them that they put their entire electe
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
>> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
>> into a "flat" leadership structure?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> BTW, LO/TDF has a steering committee of what? 13 people total? Have
> you recommending to them that they put their entire elected membership
> into a "flat" leadership structure? Or is that wisdom, by your grace,
> reserved for us alone?
Ro
On 30 September 2011 16:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
>> the person chooses not to be on the PPM
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
> the person chooses not to be on th
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:40 PM, "Rob Weir" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher
wrote:
> >
...
> > I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status.
If the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that
On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the
>> incubator once it was clear what
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Sep 30, 2011 4:35 PM, "Dave Fisher" wrote:
>
...
>
> I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If
the person chooses not to be on the PPMC that is fine.
>
> It is not that I don't think this topic is
On 30 September 2011 15:15, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers
are invit
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> What is the actu
On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
a
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> What is the actual
On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:06, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
assu
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
>>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation
On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
>> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the
>> incubator once it was clear what worked and what
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had
> assumed this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator
> once it was clear what worked and what didn't.
>
Simon, I'm a PPMC member. I try to a
What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed
this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it
was clear what worked and what didn't.
S.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>
>
>> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
>> PPMC members. With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
>> possibly forum admins/moderators/volun
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:15:52 -0400
Rob Weir wrote:
>
> By my count we have 72 committers right now, almost all of them also
> PPMC members. With the new IBMers coming on board, as well as
> possibly forum admins/moderators/volunteers (at least according to one
> draft proposal), we could shortl
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> wrote:
>>> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are
>>> invited to also be on the Podling Project Manage
On 30 September 2011 03:04, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are
>> invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some
>> decline being on the PPMC, some
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are
> invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some
> decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show
> up
It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are
invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some
decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up
at the PPMC, etc.
A question was raised at the PPMC whether that p
41 matches
Mail list logo
