Hello
The Apache NiFi (incubating) team is pleased to be calling this vote for
the source release of Apache
NiFi 0.0.1-incubating.
With six binding (in the ppmc sense) +1 votes and no dissenting votes the
PPMC has approved the vote for the release in this thread:
http://s.apache.org/nifi-rc3
We
I think your assumption is fairly reasonable. The iithmus test would be;
What if any contributions outside the sign-off ones, turn out to be not
"clean"? Is it reasonable to remove such patch and do a rewrite of that
section? If the answer is "yes, we can either re-write or remove that
without too
+1 [sadly]
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:13PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> This is a vote on recommending a retirement option
> for the NPanday poddling.
>
> It comes on the hills of the general consensus of
> the NPanday community and its mentors that
> retirement is the only viable path at this poin
It's an *option* not the only route. Working for some but not others is just
fine.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:23 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Chris Mattmann; Jim Jagielski
Subject: Re: my pTLP view
I c
I can see how it could work for some new communities, but I don’t think it
will work for all. I would imagine some potential podlings don’t have
well-established communities. They might just be a few folks with a good
idea and looking to recruit lots of new folks for the initial committers
list.
+1 for Ted Dunning.
Ted has passion for the Incubator's mission. He is an excellent consensus
builder, with the right mix of patience and advocacy. He can get the job done
while sending judicious amounts of email, which is important in keeping
traffic on general@incubator under control. He is p
Dear Incubator,
(if this isn’t the right list to ask this, please direct be to the correct
place).
The CouchDB community was approached by the lead developer of
https://github.com/dscape/nano to have the project become apart of Apache
CouchDB. The community has voiced some interest in pursuing
+1; this is a pragmatic proposal. -C
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I think it would be fair to say that in the
> past month or so we've had a healthy amount
> of discussion around where to go next with
> IPMC/Incubator/Metors reform. A diverse
> set of view p
> On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>>> Things to keep in mind while thinking about nominating
>>> yourself or others:
>>> 1. This is a 6-12 months commitment that, based on my
>>> personal experience, would
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Things to keep in mind while thinking about nominating
>> yourself or others:
>> 1. This is a 6-12 months commitment that, based on my
>>personal experience, would require you to allocate 7-10
>>hours per week.
>>
>>2. This
> On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> after making sure that there's still an Incubator
> to be managed for the next 6-12 months, I'd like
> to open up a discussion thread on soliciting
> nominations for the next IPMC Chair.
>
> Feel free to self-nominate or nomin
Hi!
after making sure that there's still an Incubator
to be managed for the next 6-12 months, I'd like
to open up a discussion thread on soliciting
nominations for the next IPMC Chair.
Feel free to self-nominate or nominate folks who
you know. Provide a summary of your 'program'
or not. At this p
One option would be to get the company involved to donate the trademark,
if you check with trademarks@a.o then I am pretty sure that has happened
in the past and they can likely guide you on procedures for this
Your wording implies that perhaps this isn't an option in this particular
podlings case
Hi!
I think it would be fair to say that in the
past month or so we've had a healthy amount
of discussion around where to go next with
IPMC/Incubator/Metors reform. A diverse
set of view points has emerged that helped
clarify things a great deal (at least for me it did!).
This is all goodness. Wh
TL;DR I think this is a good idea.
I thought long and hard about this during the weekend and I’ve changed my mind
about this; I’ll spare you my handwringing thought processes. Some things that
I personally would like to see:
- do away w/ the pTLP name, just make it a regular TLP
- ComDev shoul
Yes, formal votes for all decisions has been my *universal* experience on
all projects I have participated in at Apache. It's like there are two (or
more) different foundations, culturally. Thanks for the consideration.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.01.2015 21:07,
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> ...The Apache Members are coming in as the PMC. This is a much more
>> serious commitment than being a Mentor. The pTLP is not an
>> IPMC entity
>
> Ok, I agree that if those
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> ...The Apache Members are coming in as the PMC. This is a much more
> serious commitment than being a Mentor. The pTLP is not an
> IPMC entity
Ok, I agree that if those PMC members take that as seriously as you
think there shouldn't be an
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> ...They are reporting to the Board. We know what inact
19 matches
Mail list logo
