Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating

We used default apache-release profile for source distribution which is producing zip. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Jakob Homan wrote: > +1 (binding). Checked disclaimer, license, notice. Verified > signatures. Checked for headers. Ran unit tests. > > Out of curiosity, why is the src rele

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lens 2.0.1-beta-incubating

+1 (binding). Checked disclaimer, license, notice. Verified signatures. Checked for headers. Ran unit tests. Out of curiosity, why is the src release a zip file rather than tgz? -Jakob On 1 March 2015 at 22:32, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Regards > JB > > > On 02/27/2015 0

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Thanks Roman, I think that it is unnecessary to mention "sub-projects" in this document. If an external codebase and community are going into an existing TLP, it is often possible to do so via an IP Clearance process, depending on size of external community. // Niclas On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:31

Re: Incubator Wiki Access

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:26 PM, moon soo Lee wrote: > May i get edit access to incubator wiki to fill out the March report for > the Zeppelin project. > > id: MoonsooLee Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-u

Re: Incubator Wiki Access

May i get edit access to incubator wiki to fill out the March report for the Zeppelin project. id: MoonsooLee Thanks, moon On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Alex wrote: > > May I get edit access to incubator wiki please to fill out the

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

If that were true then the project would not be operating as an Apache project which requires that all community members have a voice. Graduation requires the project be operating as an Apache project. In such a project there is a difference between a binding vote and a non-binding vote only in

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members. What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent representatives that act in collusion. 3 independents was a useful yardsti

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

I may be taking a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it i

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC, it is an alternative for appropriate projects. The problem you highlight is the one that concerns me most about this proposal. However, if we select pTLP candidates carefully there should be no problem. Also note that you are incorrect in saying

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

I obviously speak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Ga

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Ament Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretaz<

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. >From

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Thanks Roman - I asked for karma before (not your fault) but no one granted it for me. I’ll take a look. Great job. ++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsio

Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of deta

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a >>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens >>> before th

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a > >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant

Re: [VOTE] Accept CommonsRDF into the Apache Incubator

+1 Rob On 27/02/2015 19:19, "Lewis John Mcgibbney" wrote: >Hi general@, > >Over the last while a number of individuals have been putting together a >proposal and gathering interest in proposing Commons RDF for acceptance >into the Apache Incubator. Having worked our way through the Incubator >d

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens >> before that, collaboratively and in public. > > That isn't the IPMC. You're

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP > >> creation resolution are

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP >> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they >> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not > > I think it is actually in between ;-) > > While the pTLP itself, once created by the boa

Re: pTLP process amendments

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board