On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
> understand the written words instead of needing to interject
> your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
>
>
Don't be so abrasive Joe, I'm a mentor for this podli
Hello,
Why one would need an additional alias? Existing questions are sent to
general@ or dev@community or (please add here), and one in the superhero
role should timely answer them or facilitate an answer. [Complex question]
tag in the subject line should be sufficient, or just no answer to some
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I trust someone who believes this is a fixed rule rather than a
> social-norm by which we are guided will now go and document it
> appropriately in [2] (see ISSUE 09 [1]).
Your change to the "process description" page seems fine to me.
I als
Hey Andy,
Ahhh, ooops, sorry yeah I searched my email archives but didn't find your
VOTEs.
I'm happy to send an amended list, or simply state on the record here via
email
that your guys' VOTEs counted. Either way the resolution is on the agenda
and
your email is now in the archive so we are good.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> In the interest of being a bit pedantic, I think that most people are OK
> with some changes to votes in progress. In particular, extending the
> declared time for a vote is generally acceptable to most of the communities
> I have seen it in.
A simple alternative is 'expectation'. However, I have no problem with
using it the way Joe wrote it.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I did read the topmatter, but I still felt it was a concern. It's not
> just about mentors, that was just one example of a potential proble
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
In the interest of being a bit pedantic, I think that most people are OK
with some changes to votes in progress. In particular
I did read the topmatter, but I still felt it was a concern. It's not
just about mentors, that was just one example of a potential problem.
Specifically the document currently says "podlings have a right to
expect active participation and guidance from their mentors" - I fully
support this, but as
Did you read the topmatter disclaimer about the terminology?
Anyway no podling has a guaranteed "right" to a sufficient number
of mentors, that's why I didn't bother addressing Upayavira's
concern. That is a best-effort attempt based on volunteer availability
not something we should commit to in a
Joe, this is (in general) great. I feel I could pick a few holes and
make a few suggestions but they are mostly insignificant so I'll
refrain from doing so.
I do have one concern I want to air. Unfortunately I don't have a
suggestion for improvement so am happy for you to ignore it, but maybe
some
He said majority, not everybody ant. Try a little harder to
understand the written words instead of needing to interject
your dissonant 2 cents and things will improve around here.
Anyway the point is that when you see multiple changes to an
in-progress VOTE on a proposal, it suggests not that we
The Apache way is *"community over code"*, as a healthy community we
should encourage community growth. IMO I do not consider adding a new
member to the initial committer list as a big change to the proposal.
In fact, now I believe if we had a separate VOTE for him, we will not
have this much tra
On 18 June 2013 23:53, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Why so much reluctance to just honor the request such as it is
> instead of looking for different ways of modifying it to taste?
ISSUE 03 at work I think - perhaps it is my fault for thinking aloud
about how the role might also help solve a different p
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
> on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
>
>
Don't assume its that clear, i think at least some agree with you that this
is just ISSUE3 and kept quiet, thats what i did.
It's easy for people to argue that we don't need it based
on the fact that nobody files formal complaints, but if you
think about it that's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unless
we try something different, we shouldn't expect anything to
change.
Your argument for a new list IS an argument for more b
It seems clear that the majority of IPMC members believe this change
on a vote in progress is not acceptable.
I note that this change is different to the trademark promise made
earlier since that one had been agreed in the discuss thread. That
change was merely bringing the proposal into line with
I think what we really should discuss is how the IPMC can help podlings in as
simple a way as possible.
I think we are looking for people in the IPMC who are willing to help podlings
solved their real and their perceived problems. An Ombudsman is one title for
someone like that and so is Sheph
Cmon folks, all we're looking for is an email alias and
a descriptive title. That's not *overhead* any more than
Greg's novel position as Vice Chair is *overhead* to the
board. A title doesn't an officer make, there is no need
to imbue Incubator Ombudsman with any power whatsoever,
not even the p
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
wrote:
> I'm not in favor of an Ombudsman. Seems like an extra
> layer of overhead beyond what the Chair already provides. Seriously
> does someone need a title in order to be the clearinghouse for folks'
> honest assessments of the Incubat
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> However, in this specific case the social norm *should* be to allow the
> change to proceed - that's the most efficient process.
Modifying a vote that has started is a slippery slope. (The same is true for
reusing version numbers: AN
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013, at 05:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
> > unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
> > to the community.
>
> No. That's
Hi,
as part of the marmotta PPMC, I think I could put my two cents in this
discussion :-)
On 18/06/13 13:17, Klevenz, Stephan wrote:
Thanks for your hint. I do understand Marmotta as an implementation of the
Linked Data Platform (LDP). Linked Data is a concept for building a
semantic web wher
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
Tammo
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Supun..
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 14 June 2013 22:49, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to invite the IPMC vote to acc
- Original Message -
> From: Marvin Humphrey
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Stratos proposal: is it possible to add another initial
> committer?
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> For me th
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> For me the social norm *should* be to allow things to progress
> unhindered unless an action is non-reversible and potentially damaging
> to the community.
No. That's not acceptable to me as an IPMC member.
VOTEs are tied to specific langua
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I think there will be an issue with regard to trademarks and you will have to
> deal with folks seeing the trademark of "Apache OData" as a land-grab at
> "OData" itself. The simplicity you think is avoiding confusion is, in that
> r
I think there will be an issue with regard to trademarks and you will have to
deal with folks seeing the trademark of "Apache OData" as a land-grab at
"OData" itself. The simplicity you think is avoiding confusion is, in that
respect, causing confusion.
In any case, it is always wise to avoid
Who owns the rights to the OData trademark? I am not sure that you or
the ASF has standing to use OData as a project name. That said we have
podling namesearch for a reason, to make sure that these types of
issues can be addressed by people qualified to make such judgements
(e.g. not me)
--David
Hello Dennis,
Good point! The project naming was a challenge for us and maybe I just can
explain why we prefer Apache OData as project name. The main reason is
search.
Someone who is interested in OData will use this term and the result page
will today list odata.org as the protocols homepage, W
+1
Thanks,
Supun..
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 14 June 2013 22:49, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
> >
> > I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> > the incu
On Jun 16, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] 0
> [ ] -1 (explain why)
>
+1 (binding) /* using mvn */
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
On 18 June 2013 13:04, Tim Williams wrote:
> Another option is to discount votes prior to the last mutation. Or,
> we add a wiki page that explains to new folks how the social norms can
> be overridden/bullied occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers as
> they see fit...
Nice observation (an
Hi Dave,
We would be happy to get you as an Mentor to this project. Can you please
add yourself as a mentor to the proposal?
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ODataProposal
I do share your concerns about the homogenous initial committer list. Have
a look to my recent reply to Henry about the sa
[PMCs please forward to your dev list ; Incubator Mentors please forward to
your Podling dev list.
Note that this message may be received twice as it will also go to
committers@ list.]
Hi All,
If your project has a Confluence Wiki then this is an IMPORTANT announcement
for you and your project.
Hi Henry,
You are absolutely right and we are aware of that we are currently a
homogenous community. We don't want to stay this and encourage everyone to
join our effort and become a committer of the Apache OData project. OData
as an open OASIS standard will profit from a diversified OData project
C'mon Tim this was not done as a "social norms can be overridden/bullied
occasionally by headstrong, salty old-timers" thing at all. It was
something that seemed small and simple and innocent.
However if its such a major thing then the PPMC can vote Debo in as soon as
it starts. No biggie. Honest.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I respectfully suggest your intervention is an example of ISSUE 03 (too
> many cooks). As a champion I'm interested in podlings learning the Apache
> Way - a significant part of this is to not let unnecessary process get in
> the way of softwa
Olemis,
Thanks for interest. I have added Apache Bloodhound to the list of
potential integrators in the proposal document
(https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ODataProposal).
About your question to OData Phyton binding. This is very interesting
because of OData as a web protocol is not just bound
Rob,
Thanks for your hint. I do understand Marmotta as an implementation of the
Linked Data Platform (LDP). Linked Data is a concept for building a
semantic web where things are identified by URIs. Links can be used to
explore things.
OData is a data centric protocol which describes metadata and
+1
On 14 June 2013 22:49, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> policy. The acceptance or other
I respectfully suggest your intervention is an example of ISSUE 03 (too
many cooks). As a champion I'm interested in podlings learning the Apache
Way - a significant part of this is to not let unnecessary process get in
the way of software development.
The vote is still open and can be stopped wit
41 matches
Mail list logo
