On 23/11/14 20:41, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> Metrics do not provide this information, and indeed can detract from the
> community health issues.
In looking at http://projects.bitergia.com/apache-cloudstack/browser/,
I'm wondering if any meaningful metrics can be provided.
Take for
Thanks for your roundup here (very useful). You are making it clear that this
is something you might want to spend time on - I'll try and answer your final
question ("is there already any argument to say that inevitably the answer of
the proof of concept will be negative?"). The short answer is
So, my intention wasn't to start a big argument.
If the feeling is that the page describes the behavior correctly let's
leave it. It seemed to me like we wanted all proposals to be up on the
wiki, based on the way some of the comments have come through...
John
On Sun Nov 23 2014 at 2:59:31 PM D
On 23 November 2014 at 20:37, Sergio Fernández <
sergio.fernan...@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:
> After awaiting for feedback about my proposal, I understand there are
> three different aspects that should be discussed:
>
> * Cost: As Ross pointed, the potential prize is important to evaluate a
> so
+1 on Jan's observations, below.
Also, from my experience with the Proposal for Apache OpenOffice and a few
others, there is considerable refinement of proposals from first draft to the
version that is essentially frozen at the time of podling-acceptance balloting.
The Wiki is perfect for this
After awaiting for feedback about my proposal, I understand there are
three different aspects that should be discussed:
* Cost: As Ross pointed, the potential prize is important to evaluate a
solution. Although I'd love to use the professional services of the
company, the toolkit is open/free
I'd like it to remain pink please.
(look up bikeshedding on Wikipedia if this makes no sense)
Trying to be more constrictive...
Proposal docs are useful. The wiki is a convenient place to find them after the
fact (something I find necessary at least once a month for at least one
podling). What
On 23 November 2014 at 19:41, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:40 AM, jan i wrote:
> >
> > I dont want to criminalize anybody, but on the other hand I would like to
> > have 1 common place where to look for accepted proposals.
> >
> > Having the proposals, at least after acceptanc
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:40 AM, jan i wrote:
>
> I dont want to criminalize anybody, but on the other hand I would like to
> have 1 common place where to look for accepted proposals.
>
> Having the proposals, at least after acceptance, in one place should be
> beneficial to everyone, so how abou
On 23 November 2014 at 17:20, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> >> Does anyone mind if I rephrase the page to make it mandatory to use the
> >> wiki for proposals?
> >
> > I’m sorry I was “out" the past few weeks. What proposal attempted to
>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Does anyone mind if I rephrase the page to make it mandatory to use the
>> wiki for proposals?
>
> I’m sorry I was “out" the past few weeks. What proposal attempted to post a
> proposal that was not on the wiki? What problem did that ca
Yep, I think I understood which proposal page to which you refer to.
My opinion is still the same. It doesn’t matter so long as the original vote
to accept the proposal includes the entire proposal. We should always be
thinking less rules, less process, less roles.
Incubation is already a bew
Alan,
I'm referring to [1], where under Developing The Proposal and The Vote it
seems to list the wiki as "one solution" or "an option" rather than the
proper place to put proposals. Not any specific proposal that has come up
recently.
John
[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#
On Nov 22, 2014, at 6:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> All,
>
> The current way the proposal page is written, the wiki for proposals is
> optional. I don't think this is the case any longer, since it looks like
> we request that all proposals get put there first.
Other IPMC member’s strongly hel
Hi everyone,
I'm happy to be able to tell that the VOTE for releasing Apache MetaModel
4.3.0-incubating has passed with 6 votes (3 binding).
Kasper Sørensen
Henry Saputra *
Arvind Prabhakar *
Jan I *
Alberto Rodriguez
Tomasz Guzialek
* - indicates IPMC
Thank you to everyone who participated.
On 23 November 2014 at 12:23, Kasper Sørensen <
kasper.soren...@humaninference.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The voting period is over but we only have two IPMC votes so far (Henry
> Saputra and Arvind Prabhakar via the dev@metamodel mailing list).
>
> Can we proceed to release or should we someh
Hi everyone,
The voting period is over but we only have two IPMC votes so far (Henry Saputra
and Arvind Prabhakar via the dev@metamodel mailing list).
Can we proceed to release or should we somehow reactivate the vote?
Best regards,
Kasper
From: Henry S
On 23 November 2014 at 03:16, John D. Ament wrote:
> All,
>
> The current way the proposal page is written, the wiki for proposals is
> optional. I don't think this is the case any longer, since it looks like
> we request that all proposals get put there first.
>
> Does anyone mind if I rephrase
18 matches
Mail list logo
