On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
> time. Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
> first.
+1
Too many loose ends - we need to get something done now. I have
proposed it already, the
On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
> breath and allow room to digest and contemplate the various issues
> that have led to a bumper crop of email. These are complex questions,
> and even if we could avoid intemperat
On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
>
> The projects then turn to where?
That
On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
> IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
> communities.
The IPMC never served that purpose. Projects were scuttled even in
its first year.
The IPMC served to
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
> community has demonstrated viability.
I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be '
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling
>> be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and
>> responsibility th
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>>
>>> Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
>>> _
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>
On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
...
>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>
>> Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
>> _ ___ __
>>
>> -
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately me
On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is
>
On 4 February 2012 01:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>
...
> if you'll recall Jim's message
> to the members in the past 2 years about "intern
Hi Jakob,
My suggestion: let it run for "at least" 72 hours.
It doesn't need to close until you've got all the VOTEs you need,
and at least for 72 hours.
And yes I intend to review it and VOTE. :)
Cheers,
Chris
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> Howdy-
> The Giraph project is ex
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
>> time.
>
> +1
>
>> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
>> first.
>
> All nominees have said the
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>>> the end of the day, projects don't have ow
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
>>
>>
>> Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
>
> No. In all reality, it doesn't. Far too many resources were drained in
> the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
> gradua
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-managers do, we aren't nec
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
>> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote
>> on releases, add new committers
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable
>> to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
>> VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfu
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-man
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on
> releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the
> authority to mak
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
> ComDev."
Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I ce
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
>> see for ComDev?
>
> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>
> Committee: Previous re
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
>>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
>>> project that r
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> On
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
>> PPMC to have binding votes.
>
> I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I t
On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
> time.
+1
> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
> first.
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands r
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
>> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
>
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
> the problem to the board, which is IMO not wh
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
> see for ComDev?
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
_ __
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
> PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. Tha
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> The incubator had demonstrated that relying on mentors is not always
> sufficient. The incubator has failed in it's guidance rule. It has turned
> to oversight and interference. Your proposal, in it's current form, will
> remove the interferenc
My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
this.
Doesn't that strike the candidates as a little odd?
l want to know what ComDev is being asked to do. The proposal in the wiki
is not clear in
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
>> problem.
>
> That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
> so little wonder you are c
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>>>
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> > wrote:
> >> ...
Howdy-
The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first release.
The vote passed within the project as follows:
PPMC +1s x 4: Avery, Hyunsik, Jake, Claudio
Mentors +1s x 1: Owen
Peanut gallery +1s x 1: Harsh
Release notes:
http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incu
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
> problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
>>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull thes
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incub
At this point I am going to frankly campaign for myself.
I am willing to be the chair of the incubator as we know it, and
strive to incrementally improve it. I have no objection to that
process including a deliberate consideration of Chris' proposal for a
radical restructuring. Given some time, th
On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
> hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now
> rather than have to wait.
I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the
Incubator.
The board is a
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or inf
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...). In particular, when problems arise
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bi
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>
On 02/03/2012 08:35 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
> Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
> looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
> honored
>-Original Message-
>From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr.
>wrote:
>> On 2/3/2
On 02/03/2012 06:47 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
+1 on that
Ate
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chr
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>
>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while
>> and ask everyone who has
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in
> the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and
> ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals on the
> wi
>-Original Message-
>From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>Hi,
>
>[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to trac
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> [...snippage...]
>>>
>>> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
>>> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
>>> and transition the exist
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him
On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> +1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the p
On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
By the same measure, there is a role of Champion. If we can avoid
fracturing that rol
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
>> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
>> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>> thoughts/positioning below.
>
> While I agree that in an ideal
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
On 03/02/2012 18:23, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi,
Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in one go, wouldn't it make mor
Hi,
> Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
> interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
> first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as a
mentor if possible. I'm an ASF member and w
Hey Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What I care most about is
>>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>>> which feedback
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
operate, do
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>
>> What I care most about is
>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>> which feedback can be directed for each report.
>
> Sure, I get that now. I'm +1 t
On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>>>
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Benson,
>>
>> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position f
Hi Jim,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and
>> a good chance they are here now, and reading this.
>>
>> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
>> hats on? Great too. Would be gr
Hi Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are yo
Hi Benson,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the e
Hey Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
I was in "sort of concurrence" as well.
I think what you guys are pro
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>>
Thanks, Christian.
Raymond Feng
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hello Raymond,
>
> i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
> much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
> overseen here.
>
> Bes
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>>
Hi Daniel,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
>> Thanks Christian.
>>
>> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and
>> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
>>
>> I will not
On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Benson,
>
> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move to
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, ant elder wrote:
>... A problem with multiple mentors is that with no single person
> responsible its too easy for no one to do any mentoring because they
> all leave the work for the others to do. The recent change to the
> Champion role (what happened with that?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
>
> Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
> J
Hello,
As announced aerlier today I've created a new distribution addressing the
two issues with RC5. The assembly for the binary distribution has been
changed to put a copy of the notice in the distribution directory. The
readme has been adapted as suggested by Ant. As this candidate addresses
is
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier
One *active* mentor is good enough for most podlings, but expecting
the mentor to be always available is not realistic
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the existing
One thing I would like to be bantered about:
Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
Justify your decision.
---
On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
>
> Shane [check]
> Doug [check]
> Roy [no]
> Jim [check]
> Brett [check]
> Larry [no]
> Sam [check]
> Greg [check]
>
> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>>...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all hell b
On 3 February 2012 12:33, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two mo
Hello Raymond,
i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
overseen here.
Besides that, you are right, as a Member you can join on request and
yes, you need to join the IPMC to mentor a project. It is o
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
than 2 months.
A tr
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
> proposal/resolution an
Ok, thanks.
So I withdraw this release candidate, address CLEREZZA-682 and will propose
RC6 asap.
Reto
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> 2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bac
2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding
> +1
> > in
> > > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn be
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
> t
On 03/02/2012 10:35, Maurizio Cucchiara wrote:
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribut
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
>> The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
>> the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
>> whatnot, but are accountable and ove
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1
> in
> > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE
> and
> > li
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
>...
> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
> in 6 months (or sooner,
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribution.
So I'm going to take the freedom to add myse
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
