On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
>
> Pain point 1: Podlings have to beg for binding votes for new committers. If
> mentors are required to vote on new committers for their podlings, there are
> three binding votes and the subsequent incubator pmc vote is just a
> formality.
Thanks Bertrand.
I hope that ComDev can help with the future incubation. However, it is a
small PMC and thus any transition of responsibilities must be done in a
controlled and managed way.
Ross
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 6, 2012 6:30 AM, "Bertrand Dela
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
>> ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
>> this
>
> As a comd
On 03/02/2012 22:30, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> 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 withou
On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>
>>
>> I fully agree the current Incubator has its issues, but radically killing it
>> off IMO will also kill off more than just those issues: it will also kill
>> the Incubator community it
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> 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 more
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
> ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
> this
As a comdev PMC member, I am opposed to making that PMC responsible
for the incub
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
>>> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and the
On 02/06/2012 01:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trust the committee to follow
the established precedent.
+1
In
From before the time my first project entered the incubator, it was
emphasized to me that each project (or podling) had to have at least
three active members, *not* just for diversity, but so that each
action taken by a project (or podling) would have three binding votes.
And the most impor
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:26:47PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> It might be worthwhile to require 3 ASF members on the initial release,
> 2 on the next, 1 on the following and then trust the committee to follow
> the established precedent.
+1
Instead of automatically decreasing the count,
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Karl Wright
Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Hitoshi Ozawa as committer
To: connectors-priv...@incubator.apache.org
Oh, and I'm supposed to also tally which IPMC members voted in favor.
There were three IPMC members
+1
Mvgr,
Martin
2012/2/5 Jukka Zitting :
> Hi,
>
> I find it unfortunate that the PMC chair nominations got turned into a
> debate about the future of the Incubator, especially when the original
> reason to consider a new chair were fairly minor issues in timely
> handling of PMC mechanics. As a
+1, simply more obstructionist rhetoric from Bill. Let's vote, if the board
wants something different we can vote again.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2012 1:40 PM, Benson M
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> Just to set the record straight and get out of the way, *my* position
>> is that I do not feel particularly qualified to lead the charge in
>> presiding over the disassembly of the incub
On 2/5/2012 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> Just to set the record straight and get out of the way, *my* position
> is that I do not feel particularly qualified to lead the charge in
> presiding over the disassembly of the incubator. My alternative
> proposal is not my 'election platform' --
Right now they are on very polar ends of the whole
> discussion, which suggests neither until the incubator and board choose
> a path forward.
I don't find the formulation 'polar opposites' helpful, let alone
prior remarks about whether the two of us can agree about something.
It's not up to us
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:22 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 10:20 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>> No. With all respect for Noel - we have discussed this multiple times
>> now. There is a need for a change because some administrative stuff
>> was delayed. There is a need for a cha
On 2/5/2012 12:37 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> One thing that is not clear on the proposal is that it says that
> releases will be responsibility of the TLPs, but it doest not suggest
> or require that the actual existing ASF members that are part of the
> TLP have to vote on the release. This m
On 2/5/2012 10:20 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> No. With all respect for Noel - we have discussed this multiple times
> now. There is a need for a change because some administrative stuff
> was delayed. There is a need for a change because on of us demanded it
> (Bill if I remember right). Wh
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 02/04/2012 09:15 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replying. I'm happy
>> to continue to reply, so long as you are when I feel it's warranted. I've
>> ignored a few of them that I didn
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I find it unfortunate that the PMC chair nominations got turned into a
> debate about the future of the Incubator, especially when the original
> reason to consider a new chair were fairly minor issues in timely
> handling of PMC mechanics. A
Jim, I think you have expressed my concerns perfectly.
Mentors care for the podlings. Someone has to care for the mentors.
Not all mentors need help, not all podlings need help. We should provide
*support* all the way down for when it is needed. We should not confuse
interference with support.
G
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> 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 me
Hi,
I find it unfortunate that the PMC chair nominations got turned into a
debate about the future of the Incubator, especially when the original
reason to consider a new chair were fairly minor issues in timely
handling of PMC mechanics. As a fellow PMC chair I think it's
troublesome that people
25 matches
Mail list logo
