Done, thanks Doug!On Mar 21, 2023, at 2:22 PM, Doug Rohrer
wrote:Hi folks:I’d like to post a CEP, but given it’s the first time I’m trying to
contribute to the wiki, I don’t have access.If someone with access could please grant
user drohrer access to post, I’d greatly appreciate it.Thanks
Hi folks:
I’d like to post a CEP, but given it’s the first time I’m trying to contribute
to the wiki, I don’t have access.
If someone with access could please grant user drohrer access to post, I’d
greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Doug Rohrer
Thanks all!
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:09 PM Chris Thornett wrote:
> I must admit, I've not dived into Jira's much yet (I've done one, I
> think), but if you think a separate Jira issue type would help, I'm all for
> it, Mick!
>
> *Topic review*
> One thing tha
I must admit, I've not dived into Jira's much yet (I've done one, I think),
but if you think a separate Jira issue type would help, I'm all for
it, Mick!
*Topic review*
One thing that I'd like to highlight from the content process wiki page is
the need to review the topi
Thanks, Mick! I’ll make those amends. On 2022/02/17 14:38:12 Mick Semb Wever wrote:> > * Content pipeline overview> >> > > Awesome stuff Chris!> > Under the "Pull Request Approval" section there's some inaccuracies, if we> presume staging == cassandra.staged.apache.org.> > The content is pushed to
> Awesome stuff Chris!
>
Still in awe, so much good stuff here.
It makes me think if we should have a separate jira issue type for content,
given its different workflow steps. This wouldn't shorten the six day turn
around, but might help our overall throughput of content (without any of it
unnec
> * Content pipeline overview
>
Awesome stuff Chris!
Under the "Pull Request Approval" section there's some inaccuracies, if we
presume staging == cassandra.staged.apache.org.
The content is pushed to staging *after* it is committed to trunk (and is
automatic). The check on staging should not b
t page on the
> Apache Cassandra content process to the wiki (as requested) for discussion
> and finalizing.
>
> *Note:* This is different to documentation. This is essentially the
> content marketing for the project.
>
> Since 4.0, there has been more activity around content and this
For those who are interested in content, I've added a draft page on the
Apache Cassandra content process to the wiki (as requested) for discussion
and finalizing.
*Note:* This is different to documentation. This is essentially the content
marketing for the project.
Since 4.0, there has been
There's a number of ambiguities in our Project Governance wiki page.
1. What exactly is the super majority requirement? Is it 66% of the last
roll call, or is it 50% through the inclusion of a low-water mark?
The super majority is defined as…
"Minimum participation #'s of acti
Probably worth linking to the apache CoC in our wiki if we haven't already.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:31 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC
>
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:28 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly.
> :)
>
I am satisfied with Benedict's clarification. ASF CoC and processes outlined in
there are fine.
Dinesh
> ~Josh
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:17 AM A
ple majority to pass pmc
votes defined as 10.
Thanks everyone for the great discussion on the topic and all the
collaboration. I'll update the wiki to reflect the state of governance on
the project.
Dinesh - I expect to see a [DISCUSS] thread from you about our CoC shortly.
:)
~Josh
On Thu, J
+1
-
Aaron Morton
New Zealand
@aaronmorton
CEO
Apache Cassandra Consulting
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:46, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes
> decisions, and it lists "tenets" of cond
The purpose of this document is to define only how the project makes decisions,
and it lists "tenets" of conduct only as a preamble for interpreting the rules
on decision-making. The authors' intent was to lean on this to minimise the
rigidity and prescriptiveness in the formulation of the rule
> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
>> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I
>> assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as
>> such. We should call it ou
> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Jordan West wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
>
>> 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day
>> is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1
>> business day is ambiguous
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> 1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I
> assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such.
> We should call it out explicitly as part of the PMC responsibilities. We
> should a
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:43 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> 3. Discussion #3 - "... 1 business day notice period." Whose business day
> is it? US? Europe? Australia? NZ? We are a distributed community and so 1
> business day is ambiguous. ASF typically states a 48-72 hour period which
> gives enough t
+0
I realize this is a vote thread and I am late for feedback but I wanted to
point out a couple things:
1. How/Who/Where are we planning to deal with Code of Conduct violations? I
assume this should be private@ but the document does not call it out as such.
We should call it out explicitly as
+1
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1 (b)
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17
> hours.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 non-
+1 (b)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:59 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan
> wrote:
>
> > +1 non-binding
> >
> > > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski
> wrote:
> > >
A reminder: this vote will close at midnight PST today in roughly 17 hours.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:20 PM J. D. Jordan
wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> On Ju
+1 non-binding
> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
>
> +1
>
>> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
>> +1
>>
On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>> Link to doc:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Pro
+1
On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote:
+1
On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
Link to doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
Change since previous cancelled vote:
"A simple majority of this electorate becomes the
+1
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
>
> If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers
> that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two
> committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged.
> One
+1 (nb)
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 17:15, Eric Evans wrote:
> +0
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Link to doc:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
> > "A si
+0
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour
+1
> On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour ne
Also, +1
On 22/06/2020, 11:23, "Benedict Elliott Smith" wrote:
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers
that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers
have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that
+1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have
indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s
could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in bo
+1
> On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:54, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>
> +1
> --
> Sylvain
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apa
+1
--
Sylvain
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote:
> >
> > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > > - pmc votes considere
+1
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> > - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> > - pmc votes considered binding
> > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> > - committer and co
+1
On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote:
> - Vote will run through 6/24/20
> - pmc votes considered binding
> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
> - committer and community votes considered advisory
+1 (binding)
>- Vote will run through 6/24/20
>- pmc votes considered binding
>- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote
>- committer and community votes considered advisory
+1 (binding)
-
To unsubscribe, e-m
The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd
committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable
should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1
committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a
healthy
+1
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour
+1 (nb).
Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes!
I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code
modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other
contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two
+1 committer votes (can be author + revie
+1 binding
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote:
> +1 (nb)
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Link to doc:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CA
+1 (nb)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > Link to doc:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled vote:
+1
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favou
+1 nb
From: Scott Andreas
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 11:00:15 AM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 nb
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> +1 (binding / present / activ
+1 nb
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> +1 (binding / present / active)
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova
> wrote:
>
>> +1(non-binding)
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12
+1 (binding / present / active)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova
wrote:
> +1(non-binding)
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Link to doc:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cw
+1(non-binding)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > Link to doc:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled v
+1
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
> Link to doc:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
> in favour
+1 (nb)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 23:18, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> +1 (and present?)
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Link to doc:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
> > Change since previous cancelled
+1 (and present?)
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Link to doc:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> Change since previous cancelled vote:
> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for
Link to doc:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
Change since previous cancelled vote:
"A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes
in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the
calculation
Please chime in by end of day PST today if you have any further concerns
with the state of the doc. I'll call a vote tomorrow morning to last
through end of day wednesday if there are no further revisions needed.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:57 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> I've revise
I've revised the wiki to read:
"PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ w/the
simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and plan
to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. *This is strictly an
exercise to get quorum count and
all on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll
> call.
> >
> > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our
> way out"
> > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes
> in a
> >
serve as the initial roll call.
>
> Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out"
> e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a
> row.
>
> On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie&qu
l call if we fail to pass several votes in a
> row.
>
> On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote:
>
> I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki.
>
> Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote
>
o, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" e.g.
by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a row.
On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote:
I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki.
Good
I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki.
Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote
ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> > If you two could come to an agreem
> If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the
wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again.
Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can
modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's
not
what I
>> intended.
>
>
> I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected
> by my +1 vote. :)
>
> If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki
> to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again.
>
> Als
e to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki
to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again.
Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I
didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from
binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for
+1 nb
From: Jon Haddad
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes, this is my understanding as well.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> I persona
<
> jmcken...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it
> stands.
> >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that"
> >> revision
>> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands.
>> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that"
>> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one
>> day delay to
further encourage participation.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it stands.
>> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of that"
>>
vision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. yesterday; one
> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an imposition.
>
> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki article
> and call a new vote?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad wrot
gt; > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 17, 2020, at 7:27 AM, Andrés de la Peña <
> > > > a.penya.gar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >
sition.
@Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki article and
call a new vote?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> Sorry, I was a bit vague there.
>
> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple
> majority of the number of people part
gt; > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:37 AM David Capwell
> > > >
> > > >
gt; wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 nb
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 15:06, Sylvain Lebresne <
> > > lebre...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
gt;
> > > >> +1 (binding)
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sylvain
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> >>
> > >>> +1 (binding)
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson <
> marc...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
gt; > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson <
> marc...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> +1
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
>
gt;> benjamin.le...@datastax.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>&
gt; On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote:
> >>>>> +1 (binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>
;>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote:
> >>>>> +1 (binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
> >>>>>>
t;> On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote:
>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 nb
>>>>>
Gondra wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 nb
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> +1 (binding)
> > > > >>
> > > > >&g
; > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > > On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 nb
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 (bin
nb
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (binding)
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Ad
ing)
> >>
> >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+
+1 (binding)
> On 17 Jun 2020, at 09:11, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote:
>
> +1 nb
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ad
+1 nb
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 7:41 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Ca
+1 (binding)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1
+1 nb, thanks for everyone's work on this!
From: Jordan West
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:09 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1
&g
+1 (binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie <
> jmcken...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/
+1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> +1
>
> On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > Added unratified draf
+1
On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Gover
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 13:24, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Ap
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Ap
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1
19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >>
> >> I propose the following:
> >>
> >&g
+1 non-binding.
Thanks for the work on this!
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> +1 (pmc, binding)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>>
>> https://cwi
+1 (pmc, binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open
Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
I propose the following:
1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20)
unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't g
Is there any other good info we should gather and include in the wiki /
docs? Thinking of our bootcamp material a bunch of us put together back in
the day (link: https://www.slideshare.net/joshmckenzie)
Might be helpful to identify a backlog of stuff we'd like to collect and
integrate and
:46 PM, Jon Haddad wrote:
> >
> > I assume everyone here knows the old wiki hasn't been maintained, and is
> > years out of date. I propose we sunset it completely and delete it
> forever
> > from the world.
> >
> > I'm happy to file the INFRA ticket
<https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ReadPathForUsers>
Valerie
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> I assume everyone here knows the old wiki hasn't been maintained, and is
> years out of date. I propose we sunset it completely and delete it forever
> from t
I think we could port that page over and clean it up before deleting the
wiki.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:30 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Before I vote, do we have something analogous to this:
> https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ArchitectureInternals
> In the new wiki / docs? Looks li
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
