Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > >> On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >> >> But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of >> that, does it? > > Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is meant by > authority, to

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

The structure would still be there - my hypothesis is that the mentors + the board will both uplift structure, and help to identify (more quickly) situations like no report, lack of mentors, etc. Anyhoo this experiment (the 2 that have volunteered so far) would have my board VOTE - prepare a resol

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> Might be seen as >> grossly unfair by the project that remain in the old regime There's no structure like no structure! Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: gener

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

As part of the Zeppelin community I would be interested in giving this experiment a try. As Benson mention in prev. thread - having 'Mentors in the Project' (whether directly reporting to the board or not) sounds as a great way to learn how to run Apache project to me. -- Kind regards, Alexand

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

Benson, Speaking from within the nifi ppmc I'd be happy to try this. Most of us in the nifi ppmc (excluding the mentors) are quite new to Apache so we're either perfect because we lack any of the biases or terrible because we're too ignorant to the good and bad. But I for one would be happy to h

Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

> On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > > But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of > that, does it? Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is meant by authority, too, I suppose. But, to answer the question, I would say, no: it does

RE: Incubator report sign-off

+1 well said. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Benson Margulies Sent: ‎12/‎29/‎2014 6:25 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off I'd like to look at this through

Re: Running an experiment with pTLP

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Please note the change of subject. > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: >>> >>> What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the >>> IPMC/In

Re: Incubator report sign-off

I'd like to look at this through a lens of failure analysis. How do podlings fail? I see two main patterns. 1. Failure to build a community. These are the podlings that we find adrift in space with the lights on but no one home on the mailing list. 2. Failure to build an _Apache_ community. These

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Roman, please forgive me absence from this conversation. I started the > thread, and then went on Christmas vacation. I am still on vacation for > another week, but will attempt to keep up with the conversation here, and > not abandon the thread

Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

Yes, the Apache bureaucracy takes time to learn to love :) - I guess that is part of incubating.. What is great is that there is an open discussion about those processes - here in a forum that includes all the incubators - so that we see why processes are the way they are, and that they are indeed

Running an experiment with pTLP

Please note the change of subject. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: >> >> What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the >> IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were >> pro

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two weeks > off of work. Catching up ... Oh, man! I was about to take a strong and decisive action today ;-) Seriously -- welcome back into this conversation. > You make a good

Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > "Lets start small and grow" is the philosophy behind the 3 initial > committers. > > Cool? > Only barely. And the only real way to make it work is if in the very first few days to weeks of incubation you bring in a substantially larger g

Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

Ross, et al., Note the change in subject. I think that one crucial fact about Apache that I love and respect is its regard for process over ego. It can be dull and unless one rather likes, or at least understands the value of, bureaucratic processes, can be frustrating, especially to those in l

Re: Incubator report sign-off

Agreed, it's not worth debating project lead as a formal or informal construct. I don't think we are on the same page. Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and I'm pretty sure in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community. > On Dec 2

Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

On 12/17/2014 02:09 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote: Hello, My name is Marko A. Rodriguez and am a co-founder of TinkerPop (http://tinkerpop.com). There has been positive pressure on us (both internally and externally) to move TinkerPop to The Apache Foundation. This email contains our proposal and

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/29/2014 02:46 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: The PMC Chair absolutely does*not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the request of the PMC as a whole (or when there is no active PMC to make such a re

Re: Incubator report sign-off

> On 29 Dec 2014, at 14:46, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > In Apache there is no such thing as a "Project Leader" > > The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else. > > The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only > the Board

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/29/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair and the project leader as one in the same. Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role out of respect. Practical: The PMC Chair has

RE: Incubator report sign-off

In Apache there is no such thing as a "Project Leader" The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else. The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the request of the

RE: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

Thank you for the clarification. -Original Message- From: Marko Rodriguez [mailto:okramma...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 09:34 To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework Hello, Here is how Tinke

Re: Incubator report sign-off

There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair and the project leader as one in the same. Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role out of respect. Practical: The PMC Chair has the power to dissolve the PMC, and is an office

RE: Incubator report sign-off

Part of the apache way is to recognize all contributions. That's why I wrote "active participant of the project ... and generally engaging with the community" The key part is requiring active participation as a community member. That is "vested interest in the project itself" rather than simply

Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

On Dec 29, 2014 12:35 PM, "Marko Rodriguez" wrote: > > Hello, > > Here is how TinkerPop current runs it "TinkerPop-Contributors." > > 1. If you are a vendor, you get one engineer from your organization to be on TinkerPop-Contributors who speaks on behalf of your organization/product. (~15

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On Dec 29, 2014 12:11 PM, "Hadrian Zbarcea" wrote: > > > On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding >>> off on replying to see whether viewpoints th

Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework

Hello, Here is how TinkerPop current runs it "TinkerPop-Contributors." 1. If you are a vendor, you get one engineer from your organization to be on TinkerPop-Contributors who speaks on behalf of your organization/product. (~15 people) - e.g. "That API addition will be ex

Re: Incubator report sign-off

+1 On 12/29/2014 09:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two weeks off of work. Catching up ... On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project are more of redundancy o

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: Hi! before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote: I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to see 50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm probably going to look at things, but not add my signature. Not out of laziness, but in seeing that

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/23/2014 03:34 PM, sebb wrote: Flex had three great mentors, but to expect them to be the PMC Chair on >graduation would have been problematic. They were great mentors because >they had lots of experience from their work on other Apache projects, and >thus didn’t have time to stay active

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: Hi! before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited by the following options w

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were proposed earlier which I would most wholeheartedly support. Having read more, and understood more,

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote: 1. Incubation yes, Incubator no a. (all Incubator documentation, active folks, etc., become part of the pool of [incoming project VP]) b. IPMC is dissolved c. We create a new “Incubation PMC” that includes most active members of I

Re: Incubator report sign-off

This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two weeks off of work. Catching up ... On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that a

Re: Incubator report sign-off

On 12/19/2014 02:00 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Strawman: What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project. That is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with the community, they would be a better mentor since they have a vested inte