On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One question that has come in from David Nalley is how to deal with the > issue of Sentry. They have had some problems with process and seem not to > recognize that in the report. David suggests reverting to monthly reports > as we try to clear up the questions. I suggest adding a note to the > report. The situation is a bit problematic because there are several people > in the project who should understand process better and raise this issue > themselves. There are two issues here: 1. What should go in the report. 2. What actions to take regarding Sentry, if any. David has already provided his perspective in an excellent Mentor comment on Sentry. The formatting needs to be cleaned up, but I think that's the optimal spot on the report for that information. David, me, you, or any other interested party could also add a section in the general narrative at the top of the report mentioning that Sentry has been a topic of discussion on general@incubator. I'll probably do that. The only other thing about commenting on Sentry is that it's important to get any such material into Monday's DRAFT in order to give the Sentry community (both contributors and Mentors) sufficient opportunity to review and respond if necessary. Adding commentary *after* the DRAFT goes out is dangerous. With regards to what actions to take, Sentry Mentors David Nalley, Patrick Hunt, and Joe Brockmeier are all engaged and I'm content to defer to their judgment. If they think that reporting monthly for the next three months is appropriate, they can edit podlings.xml themselves, or they can ask for someone else to do it and I'm sure John, me, you or another volunteer would help out. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
