David Crossley wrote:
> Jake Farrell wrote:
> >
> > I've started to clean up the voter status page ...
Thanks. Let us hope that that enourages podlings to continue
to follow through.
> ... and have been finishing the
> > incubator closing steps for projects that have already graduated.
However t
Greets,
Apache Member Daniel Gruno (humbedooh) has joined the Incubator PMC.
Welcome!
Marvin Humphrey
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.ap
Jake Farrell wrote:
> I've started to clean up the voter status page and have been finishing the
> incubator closing steps for projects that have already graduated. Updates
> for the projects listed below should start appearing shortly as the nightly
> scripts run. Hopefully these steps will make i
Every American that has voted for a public office
knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
with the total population of potential voters. Let’s
not try to rationalize geekdom’s love affair with
special purpose terminology- my own pet peeve is
what the java world did to the word distributi
Hi all
I got two answares on the npanday dev who are interested to help
NPanday. It looks like the project is in use outthere, but they lake
community building. I'm willing to help there, but NPanday realy need
new Mentors since the old one are inactive for one Year.
So who is willing to hel
Well ok but to help rule that one out lets see if we can hear this
from the horses mouth.
Hi Roy,
As usual over at the Incubator we're having discussion about how to
make things work better.
One problem is with the struggle that some podling releases have at
getting 3 binding votes from Incubato
No offense folks, but this isn’t exactly new
information or has anyone offered an actual
PATH to follow to get us out of this mess.
Bringing more people into the IPMC can be accomplished
by anyone willing to put some names out there
for us to consider, but that hasn’t yielded
anything so far to hel
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Joseph Schaefer
wrote:
> Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
> votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
> not any one member of it.
+1: Much as some people here as in favor of dismantlement, and others
would like to see some
+1 - binding
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
> [ ] +1 Accept Twill into the Incubator
Just offering my $0.02. I'm working on the Knox podling and perhaps
I've just been lucky by my mentors have been GREAT. Sure some times
I've had to ping them directly to get a question answered or get a vote
but that is to be expected in a volunteer org. One thing Knox did right
(by accident
Hi,
> I'm proud to be part of that group. I would like to see it grow -- in my
> view, the Incubator has erred by not recruiting aggressively enough!
+1 On every project that goes through incubation there should be several
candidates that now understand the incubation process worked and the issu
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
> > The discussion about the Weave proposal has calmed. As the outcome of the
> > discussion, we have chosen a new name for the project, Twil
The linked pages are correct for Knox.
On 11/8/13 2:16 AM, David Crossley wrote:
I reckon that these lists are not complete.
Would people from each podling review the generated lists at:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/
a list of all current podlings with Description and Mentors, etc.
ht
+1
Bernd
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Arun
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
> > The discussion about the Weave proposal has calmed. As the outcome of the
> > discussion, we have chosen a new name for the project, Twill. I wo
Hi,
> Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
Yes many Apache projects define it (eg Ant, Kafka, Hadoop, Pig, Hive and others
) as does Apache HTTP. [1]
"Lazy majority decides each issue in the release plan."
Different projects however use different terms, as far as I can see "Lazy
Major
Unlikely to get at least Roy’s approval because release
votes are expected to be a decision of the full committee,
not any one member of it.
On Nov 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> How about simply changing the rules for Incu
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> A summarized agreement with this thread:
>8 snip 8<
> One could hope that this schema is a near-complete solution to vote
> problems. The _first_ release benefits from mentors who signed up to
> be there and vote, and subsequent
On Nov 10, 2013, at 1:04 AM, ant elder wrote:
> How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
> they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
> at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
> mean there would still be the element o
On 11/10/13 5:46 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>A summarized agreement with this thread:
>
>The bottom line, I think, is that _someone_ has to provide the
>supervision that the board delegates to a PMC.
>
>The virtue of the 'demolish the incubator' proposal is that it makes
>that point absolute
A summarized agreement with this thread:
The bottom line, I think, is that _someone_ has to provide the
supervision that the board delegates to a PMC.
The virtue of the 'demolish the incubator' proposal is that it makes
that point absolutely clear. If there were no incubator, the board
would need
On 10/11/13 09:04, ant elder wrote:
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still be the element of oversight that a
How about simply changing the rules for Incubator releases so that
they don't require at least three binding votes, but instead make it
at least three votes only one of which must be binding. That would
mean there would still be the element of oversight that a mentor vote
gives but avoids all the p
Woohoo.
And i'll point out that LEGAL-182 has just been closed too saying its
fine, so everyone should be able to be happy.
Sorry it all took so long.
...ant
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Till Westmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the vote to release RC4 as Apache VXQuery Incubating 0.2 passes after
IMO, there are two problems:
1) We're trying to train folks to manage IP for their community but they
have to seek approval from folks are aren't as vested in their community.
My analogy is telling a new city council member: "Welcome to the city
council. For the next year all of your decisions wi
24 matches
Mail list logo
