On May 27, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
On 26 May 2012, at 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
placed into svn as input to another t
Ross,
I can see why my 'sandbag' approach makes you uncomfortable. I've
suggested it once or twice when a proposed podling had a lot of
interested parties already involved. This is a two-edged situation. On
the one hand, instant size and diversity. On the other hand, that may
represent the pool of
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> The "open enrollment" period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
>> not the first project to wrestle with it.
>
> Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
> group decided to have an open enrollment or
Nice work Sam ;)
May I suggest adding some fields to ease data entry even more:
1- A checkbox indicating whether or not the mailing list is for an
incubator project or not
2- Another list of checkboxes which are enabled only when the incubator
checkbox is enabled:
2.1- Dvelopment
2.2- Commits
On May 27, 2012 1:55 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>
> >> * Incubation proposals should have separate sections for "Initial
> >>Committers" and "Initial PPMC Members".
> >
> > Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to unde
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
>> * Incubation proposals should have separate sections for "Initial
>> Committers" and "Initial PPMC Members".
>
> Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to understand if we
> introduce layers to incubation.
Well, now *I'm* co
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, May 27, 2012 at 14:12:54 +0300:
> Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
> >
> > On 26 May 2012, at 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > > https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
> > >
> > > Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
>
sebb wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:09:48 +0100:
> On 26 May 2012 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
> >
> > Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
> > placed into svn as input to another tool down the chain.
> >
> > The topic I would li
Nick Kew wrote on Sat, May 26, 2012 at 07:39:48 +0100:
>
> On 26 May 2012, at 03:54, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > https://whimsy.apache.org/infra/mlreq
> >
> > Nothing fancy: simple data gathering. Output will be validated and
> > placed into svn as input to another tool down the chain.
> >
> > The t
Thanks Jukka for your suggestions.
1. Regarding wiki - I have taken a note of that and will update it soon.
2. Regarding doing away with the difference between PPMC and committers, I
am told that other projects do this during graduation. I.e., they promote
all existing committers to PMC status du
Hi,
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> As you noted in your comments above - the Flume project tends to follow RTC
> with the reviewer committing the code. I happen to have taken up the role
> of the reviewer for the most part and hence you see the skewed commit
> counts.
Roy, What you are saying directly contradicts
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community, especially the
statement "Basically this means that when a project mostly consists of
contributors from one company, this is a sign of not being diverse enough".
Now, if that page is wr
There is no diversity requirement for graduating from the incubator. In many
ways, incubation hinders community growth. The requirement is that the project
makes decisions as an Apache project, not in private, which is harder to get
used to doing if a lot of people share the same office.
Diver
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 27, 2012 5:44 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> > I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
> > podlings to be very conservative with their initial
> The "open enrollment" period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
> not the first project to wrestle with it.
Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
group decided to have an open enrollment or not. The issue was that
the announced policy to not have one
15 matches
Mail list logo
