On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>...
> I don't believe we should force an announce@ list on anybody. But I do
> think it might be a good idea to mention a few of the standard lists that
> projects might consider requesting.
No strong opinion. Generally, I don't think podlings
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13616084#comment-13616084
]
Charles Moulliard commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31:
Name is
+1 (binding).
Good luck!
Cheers,
Chris
On 3/26/13 12:04 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
>the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
>
>A few releases were made and the status page has been comple
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> >> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize
> that a
> >> larger group is much more likely
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> I think it should be 3/4 majority.
I agree that supermajority would be better than simple majority here.
Moving to simple majority seems too radical. Over time it's more
prone to building a PMC that cannot easily agree on things. If
cons
This whole exercise is pointless. Just drop the notion of vetoes for all IPMC
votes and carry on as before.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning wrot
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a
>> larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring that
>> successful votes have n po
On 27 March 2013 20:57, Matthieu Morel wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback,
>
> I replied inline.
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
>
>> On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>> this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
>>>
>>>
>>> A
The first thing I'd like to do, coordination-wise, is to call a vote on the
proposal to decide things by majority. I think that this would help with
some of the problems we hit, and we can meanwhile continue to discuss
larger structural changes.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Ross Gardler wrote
+1
Niall
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
> the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
>
> A few releases were made and the status page has been completed:
> http://incub
Thanks for the feedback,
I replied inline.
On Mar 27, 2013, at 21:00 , sebb wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>> this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
>>
>>
>> A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed for R
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 27 Mar 2013 20:12, "Christian Grobmeier" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent
Hi,
this is a very interesting proposal. Let me ask a few questions.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Why shouldn't the IPMC create an equivalent to the one item in the above
> governance structure that is missing today. That is why shouldn't it have
> an equivalent of "ASF
On 27 March 2013 19:07, Matthieu Morel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
>
>
> A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed for RC3 with 6+1's
> with 5 of them binding:
>
> +1 IPMC (phunt)
> +1PPMC (mmorel, kishoreg, leoneu, fp
Hi everyone,
this is a call for a vote to release Apache S4 0.6.0 incubating.
A vote was held on developer mailing list and it passed for RC3 with 6+1's with
5 of them binding:
+1 IPMC (phunt)
+1PPMC (mmorel, kishoreg, leoneu, fpj)
+1 committer non PPMC (dferro)
Here is the vote thread on
On 27 March 2013 18:37, Mark Struberg wrote:
> My personal experience: There are a few people registered to
> annou...@apache.org, but there is a low registration rate for the
> respective subproject lists. At least not for most projects.
>
That's to be expected, though, right? We have something
My personal experience: There are a few people registered to
annou...@apache.org, but there is a low registration rate for the respective
subproject lists. At least not for most projects.
Thus said: if you would create an announce list for all projects and send the
ANN mails only to those lis
On 27 Mar 2013 16:43, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
> > model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
> >
>
> ... [snip] ...
>
>
> > Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> So we just set out a policy for podlings to follow that says something
>> like: if you use a project-specific announce@ list, anything you send to it
>> must also be copied to annou.
On 27 March 2013 17:23, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>> So we just set out a policy for podlings to follow that says something
>> like: if you use a project-specific announce@ list, anything you send to it
>> must also be copied to annou...@apache.
Putting it in policy is probably as close as we can get to automation. ;)
On 27 March 2013 17:23, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> > So we just set out a policy for podlings to follow that says something
> > like: if you use a project-specific ann
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> So we just set out a policy for podlings to follow that says something
> like: if you use a project-specific announce@ list, anything you send to it
> must also be copied to annou...@apache.org, and vice-versa.
>
> This is how I expect all ann
On 27 March 2013 17:15, sebb wrote:
>
> Well, I found that sending a separate e-mail to announce@a.o was
> useful for two reasons:
> - more likely to get bounces; wanted to distinguish those from TLP list
> bounces
> - people sometime reply all
> - announce@a.o requires an ASF address; I use GMai
On 27 March 2013 16:48, Noah Slater wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 16:28, Luciano Resende wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do the general announce list lag behind because there are individual lists
>> ?
>>
>
> I see no reason why they would.
Well, I found that sending a separate e-mail to announce@a.o was
useful for
On 27 March 2013 16:28, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
>
> Do the general announce list lag behind because there are individual lists
> ?
>
I see no reason why they would.
On 27 March 2013 16:31, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> The minute that is in the guides, I'm positive that 100% of new
> podlings p
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
> model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
>
... [snip] ...
> Why can't the IPMC work like that? Well, to a large extent it does. Here
> are the same items expressed from
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13615470#comment-13615470
]
Jason Porter commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31:
---
IIRC, Dan was the
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Bertrand, yes, I am not sold on the idea of doing it by default. But
> perhaps sort of advisory, highlighting it as an option, and giving reasons
> why it might be a good idea for some projects?
>
> What would I have to do to add that? If I pre
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> Ok, i propose we have an "experiment" [1] where we try having a mentor
>> or two who are not PMC members. Have some other experienc
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> I am under the impression that having a low-volume, high-signal
>> announcement channel is generally beneficial to most projects that try it.
>
> I agree that such lists are useful.
On 27 March 2013 15:54, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> Ok, i propose we have an "experiment" [1] where we try having a mentor
> or two who are not PMC members. Have some other experienced mentors
> helping to make sure nothing unfixable can go wr
The incubator is currently of a scale that means it can no longer operate
as a standard consensus driven PMC. It is not that much smaller than the
TLPs part of the foundation. Perhaps it would make sense to see how the
model that has scaled well for the foundation can be applied here:
ASF Members
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
>
> Or it might 'work', but some might feel that this large,
> diffuse, group, operating by majority rules is either inconsistent with
> Apache policy or a bad example for the podlings.
Thats more how i see it. Using consensus instead of
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> Bertrand, yes, I am not sold on the idea of doing it by default. But
> perhaps sort of advisory, highlighting it as an option, and giving reasons
> why it might be a good idea for some projects?
Yes, sounds good to me if it's just a suggestion
Bertrand, yes, I am not sold on the idea of doing it by default. But
perhaps sort of advisory, highlighting it as an option, and giving reasons
why it might be a good idea for some projects?
What would I have to do to add that? If I prepare a patch to the docs,
would it be CTR or RTC?
On 27 Marc
On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> We now kindly ask the IPMC to review our findings and vote on the
> Onami graduation.
>
> [ X ] +1, yes propose the graduation of Apache Onami to the board
> [ ] -1, no, don't let Apache Onami graduate, because...
+1
--
Rich Bowen
rb
+1 (binding)
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Christian Grobmeier
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:04 AM
> Subject: [VOTE] Graduate Apache Onami as TLD
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> ...We now kindly ask the IPMC to review our findings and vote on the
> Onami graduation...
+1
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apach
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apache Onami entered incubation before more than 3 months. Since then
> the community has proven to be pretty active and healthy.
>
> A few releases were made and the status page has been completed:
> http://i
FYI, Apache DeltaSpike looking to graduate soon.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mark Struberg
Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Recommending DeltaSpike for Graduation to an Apache Top
Level Project
To: "deltaspike-us...@incubator.apache.org" <
deltaspike-us...@incu
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Struberg updated PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31:
---
Attachment: deltaspike.com Bildschirmfoto 2013-03-27 um 12.58.58.png
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13615145#comment-13615145
]
Mark Struberg commented on PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31:
Hi!
For having
I suppose that as chair I ought to be heard from here. I've been off for
Passover for a bit.
In my view, the IPMC manifests two problems. I'd like to label them as
'operational' and 'decision-making'. This thread is about decision-making,
but with some people seeing using terms like 'disfunctional
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
> > Incubator PMC members,
>
> As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
> become a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache mem
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> ...As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to
> become
> a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1])...
you don't - Apache members can become IPMC members just by asking, but
others
Hi,
> As I said before I'm currently against having mentors who are not
> Incubator PMC members,
As an aside it seems (and please correct me if I'm mistaken) in order to become
a IPMC member you first need to be an Apache member (see bottom of [1]).This
may exclude people with practical experie
John D. Ament created PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31:
--
Summary: Establish whether "Apache DeltaSpike" is a suitable name
Key: PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-31
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> ...Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
>> IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship...
> ...I'd like to
> try this, perhaps as a sort of experiment like we've done for other
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...As to whether such lists should be encouraged for new podlings (probably by
> putting a stub in the proposal template alongside the other lists), I can't
> say that I have a strong opinion
IIUC Noah's proposal goes further and sugge
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Your second suggestion sounds like the thing to do to me - separating
> IPMC-ship and Mentor-ship - that would solve several of the problems
> we've being having including this one, it would open up a much bigger
> pool of potential mentors, and
50 matches
Mail list logo
